4 ms·

So much relates to commute. I'd probably meander in for a halfway decent office arrangement if it were less than a 30 minute walk and there were actually people

by ghaff 2y ago

So much relates to commute. I'd probably meander in for a halfway decent office arrangement if it were less than a 30 minute walk and there were actually people I worked with there. But that hasn't been the case so I don't.

SebFender 2y ago
Yes and no. I lived (no joke) 1 minute away from work and if I still had the choice would mostly stay home. For me, an office now is kinda of a bar. I want to go sometimes for a moment and then get back to my place.
agentultra 2y ago
Same. I’m glad I work in a fully remote org. We actually have an office. It’s over an hour commute away from me. And I have school-aged children that I have to prepare and drop off in the mornings. None of my co-workers work there. So I basically never go. At my last job I did have an office that was within walking distance. My children were much younger. I had a dedicated desk and office. And I managed to make it in every day. Commutes are a big factor in the decision. For a lot of reasons. Climate, expense, convenience, etc.
vidarh 2y ago
I used to work for a company where we were in at least one day a week. In practice that mean arriving around 10.30 and leaving around 4 on wednesday, spending half of the time on meetings or whiteboard sessions, and the rest was pretty socialising for several of us. I didn't mind that - it was 30 minutes on the train and a short walk for me, and it broke up the week. Any more than that, and it'll take significantly more money to get me in.
mistrial9 2y ago
traditional urban planning in the USA includes extensive field research that shows .. just what you are saying.. there is a demographic curve about time to commute and who is willing to do it, and how often.. behavior on a large scale across industries, show curves like that
- bunderbunder 2y ago
  I suspect that traditional urban planning in the USA also assumed that relatively few people would be trying to pack into city centers to work. Because modern office parks hadn't been invented yet, and modern curtain wall skyscrapers hadn't been invented yet, and consolidating many industries into a relatively small number of massive tech companies hadn't happened yet, and the two-income family (which doubles the potential number of commuters per dwelling unit) hadn't become such a thing yet, etc. There's a part of me that wonders if part of what's going on here is a cadre of genxers who are so wealthy as to necessarily be out-of-touch don't realize that typical millennials' and zoomers' socioeconomic reality is not, and cannot reasonably be forced to be, similar to that of boomers and the greatest generation.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    There are a lot of dynamics. Certainly among my grad school class almost no one went to work/live in the city in the late 80s. And, indeed, essentially all tech had migrated out of the city (Boston/Cambridge) by then. A lot of people did move to Manhattan for finance. But most left after they gained partners and kids. In general, I suspect a lot of younger/better-educated/wealthier folks have latched onto some of the more elite cities, when they might not have done so in the past, but may not stay there over time.
wnc3141 2y ago
I wonder what WFH arrangements in Copenhagen or Amsterdam look like.
- sshine 2y ago
  Hybrid. I’ll show up at the office 1-2 days a week. We’ll agree on a weekday.
- ghaff 2y ago
  Probably somewhat depends if you actually live in the city. When I worked in or went into Boston for customer meetings, I actually lived quite convenient to public transit (commuter rail/subway/walk), but it was still 90-120 minutes each way.
- giobox 2y ago
  Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but the few folks I know in Copenhagen do WFH as hybrid - none of them are fully remote, coming into an easily commutable office 2-3 days a week or some variation of this.
Leynos 2y ago
Same. For me, the office is door to door 35 minutes, 20 of those walking, the other 15 on light railway. Any longer than that and I would really struggle. As it is, this arrangement works well for me. I tend to WFH one day out of ten, or if I have a reason to be at home such as a delivery or a tradesperson visiting.
- Gibbon1 2y ago
  Somewhere I found an essay that references some claims that humans dislike traveling for more than something around an hour a day. And it doesn't depend on mode of transport.
  - Leynos 2y ago
    Ten years ago, my commute was an hour by bus each way. I didn't mind it so much then, but I definitely wouldn't go to an employer who required that of me now. The light railway system is so much nicer than the bus, and I enjoy the walking part.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y ago
But commute can change. For example, if you lived in Mountain View in walking distance of Google, would you turn down an offer from Facebook because your home in Mountain View is no longer walking distance to Facebook HQ? Also, life situations. If your partner has a job at a school or hospital that requires physical presence whose commute do you prioritize? Making jobs that can be remote, remote gives workers massive flexibility in work arrangements with partners as well as being able to change jobs.
- angmarsbane 2y ago
  I read a theory that this is part of the reason why people are migrating to metro areas. Metro areas are more likely to have industries for both spouses careers as opposed to just one. Enabling fully remote for remote eligible roles makes it possible for couples to migrate to areas that only support one of their in-person careers.
gumby 2y ago
Last year we had a lab that was 25 minutes away. I carpooled with a neighbor. It seemed, OK, especially as we only went in a couple of times a week. We lost that space and switched to a lab about 10 minutes away. It's amazing what a difference that made! We go in more often because the psychological cost is so much lower. We could have rented lab space that is less than 5 minutes' walk for me, but no such luck.

by ghaff 2y ago

SebFender 2y ago

Yes and no. I lived (no joke) 1 minute away from work and if I still had the choice would mostly stay home. For me, an office now is kinda of a bar. I want to go sometimes for a moment and then get back to my place.

agentultra 2y ago

Same. I’m glad I work in a fully remote org. We actually have an office. It’s over an hour commute away from me. And I have school-aged children that I have to prepare and drop off in the mornings. None of my co-workers work there. So I basically never go. At my last job I did have an office that was within walking distance. My children were much younger. I had a dedicated desk and office. And I managed to make it in every day. Commutes are a big factor in the decision. For a lot of reasons. Climate, expense, convenience, etc.

vidarh 2y ago

I used to work for a company where we were in at least one day a week. In practice that mean arriving around 10.30 and leaving around 4 on wednesday, spending half of the time on meetings or whiteboard sessions, and the rest was pretty socialising for several of us. I didn't mind that - it was 30 minutes on the train and a short walk for me, and it broke up the week. Any more than that, and it'll take significantly more money to get me in.

mistrial9 2y ago

traditional urban planning in the USA includes extensive field research that shows .. just what you are saying.. there is a demographic curve about time to commute and who is willing to do it, and how often.. behavior on a large scale across industries, show curves like that

bunderbunder 2y ago
I suspect that traditional urban planning in the USA also assumed that relatively few people would be trying to pack into city centers to work. Because modern office parks hadn't been invented yet, and modern curtain wall skyscrapers hadn't been invented yet, and consolidating many industries into a relatively small number of massive tech companies hadn't happened yet, and the two-income family (which doubles the potential number of commuters per dwelling unit) hadn't become such a thing yet, etc. There's a part of me that wonders if part of what's going on here is a cadre of genxers who are so wealthy as to necessarily be out-of-touch don't realize that typical millennials' and zoomers' socioeconomic reality is not, and cannot reasonably be forced to be, similar to that of boomers and the greatest generation.
- ghaff 2y ago
  There are a lot of dynamics. Certainly among my grad school class almost no one went to work/live in the city in the late 80s. And, indeed, essentially all tech had migrated out of the city (Boston/Cambridge) by then. A lot of people did move to Manhattan for finance. But most left after they gained partners and kids. In general, I suspect a lot of younger/better-educated/wealthier folks have latched onto some of the more elite cities, when they might not have done so in the past, but may not stay there over time.

wnc3141 2y ago

I wonder what WFH arrangements in Copenhagen or Amsterdam look like.

sshine 2y ago
Hybrid. I’ll show up at the office 1-2 days a week. We’ll agree on a weekday.
ghaff 2y ago
Probably somewhat depends if you actually live in the city. When I worked in or went into Boston for customer meetings, I actually lived quite convenient to public transit (commuter rail/subway/walk), but it was still 90-120 minutes each way.
giobox 2y ago
Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but the few folks I know in Copenhagen do WFH as hybrid - none of them are fully remote, coming into an easily commutable office 2-3 days a week or some variation of this.

Leynos 2y ago

Same. For me, the office is door to door 35 minutes, 20 of those walking, the other 15 on light railway. Any longer than that and I would really struggle. As it is, this arrangement works well for me. I tend to WFH one day out of ten, or if I have a reason to be at home such as a delivery or a tradesperson visiting.

Gibbon1 2y ago
Somewhere I found an essay that references some claims that humans dislike traveling for more than something around an hour a day. And it doesn't depend on mode of transport.
- Leynos 2y ago
  Ten years ago, my commute was an hour by bus each way. I didn't mind it so much then, but I definitely wouldn't go to an employer who required that of me now. The light railway system is so much nicer than the bus, and I enjoy the walking part.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y ago

But commute can change. For example, if you lived in Mountain View in walking distance of Google, would you turn down an offer from Facebook because your home in Mountain View is no longer walking distance to Facebook HQ? Also, life situations. If your partner has a job at a school or hospital that requires physical presence whose commute do you prioritize? Making jobs that can be remote, remote gives workers massive flexibility in work arrangements with partners as well as being able to change jobs.

angmarsbane 2y ago
I read a theory that this is part of the reason why people are migrating to metro areas. Metro areas are more likely to have industries for both spouses careers as opposed to just one. Enabling fully remote for remote eligible roles makes it possible for couples to migrate to areas that only support one of their in-person careers.

gumby 2y ago

Last year we had a lab that was 25 minutes away. I carpooled with a neighbor. It seemed, OK, especially as we only went in a couple of times a week. We lost that space and switched to a lab about 10 minutes away. It's amazing what a difference that made! We go in more often because the psychological cost is so much lower. We could have rented lab space that is less than 5 minutes' walk for me, but no such luck.