5 ms·

> obviously you can't WFH if your job is... I think this part of the problem deserves a lot more attention. There is a social contract aspect to employment and

> obviously you can't WFH if your job is... I think this part of the problem deserves a lot more attention. There is a social contract aspect to employment and that only works when all the players think things are fair. It simply cannot be good for the health of the economy if lots of important jobs are undesirable because they can't be done remotely and, meanwhile, the remote workers are sitting on the beach. I suppose the invisible hand can correct for this to some extent but I think WFH and work-life balance is probably more valuable to most than higher salary.

randomdata 3y ago
As far as I can see, the jobs that have easily transitioned to WFH were also the jobs that everyone already envied even when they were most commonly practiced in an office. If roles were reversed, maybe a programmer would quit to go flip burgers in order to be at home, but would a burger flipper quit to program at home where they otherwise would not quit to program in an office? I suspect if the burger flipper had an inclination towards programming, they would quit to become one either way. So the social contract may not be impacted all that much.
danaris 3y ago
I think this is assuming two things that are not in evidence: 1) Most people want to work from home, enough that they would feel significant envy of those who do even if their own job is one that cannot logistically do that (eg, plumber). 2) The people working from home are doing so in such opulent luxury that it creates more envy on top of that. ("...sitting on the beach") It's quite plain from this forum alone—a forum which is heavily skewed toward knowledge workers of various types, and especially computer programmers, a job which, in terms of its basic requirements, can unquestionably be done from home—that if #1 is true, it is not by a vast margin. Many people clearly like going into the office. Many people with jobs involving in-person manual labor clearly love their jobs. I think that the kind of "fairness" you mention in your second line is, indeed, very important—but I think that it's more about "you could be letting me do XYZ, like they are, but you're preventing me for arbitrary or selfish reasons," not "they're doing XYZ, but due to something fundamental about my circumstances, that's impossible for me." That is to say, it's more important for everyone whose job can be reasonably made remote to have the option to do so, than for every job in the world to have that option, including the ones where it's physically impossible. People are generally pretty good at understanding the inherent tradeoffs in such things, especially when they come to them after the initial transition has taken place and make an informed choice (obviously there's going to be more friction in the transition time—I don't think that's avoidable). In short, I don't think there's more to worry about here than the already-existing (and likely permanent, at least until we get true UBI or something) state of things, that some people who have fewer options in the career they can choose to go into feel resentful of those who have more such options.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  > Many people clearly like going into the office. Many people with jobs involving in-person manual labor clearly love their jobs. Anecdotal, but whenever the topic of work comes up among my friends and neighbors, and I disclose to them that I work from home, 100% of them say things like "Wow, good for you!" and "You're so lucky!" and 0% of them so far have said "Sorry to hear that... you must really miss your commute and face to face meetings!"
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Keep in mind that work from home doesn't literally mean work from home. One can 'work from home' in an office, on the train, or even in a field out in the middle of nowhere. It means work from wherever, whenever. It represents autonomy. It is the autonomy that is enviable. A manual labourer needing to be at a remote location in order to do the job, but able to come and go as he pleases, would be met with similar statements of "Good for you", "You are lucky". If you, instead, told that you were locked in your bedroom from 9-5 and if you so much as stop moving your mouse you will be instantly fired, "I'm sorry" would assuredly follow. It is not the "from home" part that you are being congratulated on.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    Nobody misses the commute. Nobody misses face-to-face meetings. (For approximate values of "nobody"). Human contact... at least some people miss that. No, Teams is not the same.
    - asoneth 3y ago
      Agreed that most people do not miss their commute, though because I am lazy I found it useful to force me to ride every day. But I'm surprised to hear that you think "nobody misses face-to-face meetings". At least in my office that seems to be the only reason anyone shows up -- people pop by the office when they have discussions, presentations, collaborative design sessions, etc and WFH otherwise. In several cases someone has explicitly polled the group chat the day before to find out who is thinking about to coming in -- if enough attendees plan to join remotely then we typically switch the whole meeting to be a dial-in only so it doesn't end up being one person calling in from an empty conference room and everyone else at home.

randomdata 3y ago

As far as I can see, the jobs that have easily transitioned to WFH were also the jobs that everyone already envied even when they were most commonly practiced in an office. If roles were reversed, maybe a programmer would quit to go flip burgers in order to be at home, but would a burger flipper quit to program at home where they otherwise would not quit to program in an office? I suspect if the burger flipper had an inclination towards programming, they would quit to become one either way. So the social contract may not be impacted all that much.

danaris 3y ago

I think this is assuming two things that are not in evidence: 1) Most people want to work from home, enough that they would feel significant envy of those who do even if their own job is one that cannot logistically do that (eg, plumber). 2) The people working from home are doing so in such opulent luxury that it creates more envy on top of that. ("...sitting on the beach") It's quite plain from this forum alone—a forum which is heavily skewed toward knowledge workers of various types, and especially computer programmers, a job which, in terms of its basic requirements, can unquestionably be done from home—that if #1 is true, it is not by a vast margin. Many people clearly like going into the office. Many people with jobs involving in-person manual labor clearly love their jobs. I think that the kind of "fairness" you mention in your second line is, indeed, very important—but I think that it's more about "you could be letting me do XYZ, like they are, but you're preventing me for arbitrary or selfish reasons," not "they're doing XYZ, but due to something fundamental about my circumstances, that's impossible for me." That is to say, it's more important for everyone whose job can be reasonably made remote to have the option to do so, than for every job in the world to have that option, including the ones where it's physically impossible. People are generally pretty good at understanding the inherent tradeoffs in such things, especially when they come to them after the initial transition has taken place and make an informed choice (obviously there's going to be more friction in the transition time—I don't think that's avoidable). In short, I don't think there's more to worry about here than the already-existing (and likely permanent, at least until we get true UBI or something) state of things, that some people who have fewer options in the career they can choose to go into feel resentful of those who have more such options.

ryandrake 3y ago
> Many people clearly like going into the office. Many people with jobs involving in-person manual labor clearly love their jobs. Anecdotal, but whenever the topic of work comes up among my friends and neighbors, and I disclose to them that I work from home, 100% of them say things like "Wow, good for you!" and "You're so lucky!" and 0% of them so far have said "Sorry to hear that... you must really miss your commute and face to face meetings!"
- randomdata 3y ago
  Keep in mind that work from home doesn't literally mean work from home. One can 'work from home' in an office, on the train, or even in a field out in the middle of nowhere. It means work from wherever, whenever. It represents autonomy. It is the autonomy that is enviable. A manual labourer needing to be at a remote location in order to do the job, but able to come and go as he pleases, would be met with similar statements of "Good for you", "You are lucky". If you, instead, told that you were locked in your bedroom from 9-5 and if you so much as stop moving your mouse you will be instantly fired, "I'm sorry" would assuredly follow. It is not the "from home" part that you are being congratulated on.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Nobody misses the commute. Nobody misses face-to-face meetings. (For approximate values of "nobody"). Human contact... at least some people miss that. No, Teams is not the same.
  - asoneth 3y ago
    Agreed that most people do not miss their commute, though because I am lazy I found it useful to force me to ride every day. But I'm surprised to hear that you think "nobody misses face-to-face meetings". At least in my office that seems to be the only reason anyone shows up -- people pop by the office when they have discussions, presentations, collaborative design sessions, etc and WFH otherwise. In several cases someone has explicitly polled the group chat the day before to find out who is thinking about to coming in -- if enough attendees plan to join remotely then we typically switch the whole meeting to be a dial-in only so it doesn't end up being one person calling in from an empty conference room and everyone else at home.