6 ms·

The advantage of working from home was that you could take care of kids and do all the housework, this worth thousands of dollars per months. For years companie

The advantage of working from home was that you could take care of kids and do all the housework, this worth thousands of dollars per months. For years companies didn't adjust salaries in accordance to inflation and the cost of outsourcing kids care and house care, all that while keeping interest rate low and bailing rich bankers with printing of money. This caused funneling of wealth from the workers to asset holders which increased house and stock prices rather than creating new actual wealth or GDP per capita while destroying almost every class of society except the 1 percenters who became richer. It is about time the system will balance itself otherwise the western world will go back to de facto feudalism.

Spivak 2y ago
Yep, working from home is easily 25%+ of my compensation and it doesn't cost the company a dime. I'm shocked executives aren't over the moon that there's a zero dollar perk they can give that's worth significant amounts of money to people.
- varispeed 2y ago
  Many major employers also hold investments in commercial property. Empty offices lose value. Someone somewhere got in their excel that loss of productivity from RTO is lower than potential loss of the property investments.
  - snapcaster 2y ago
    This keeps being repeated but there is no evidence provided. Can you point to a single example of a company where this calculation would be made/true?
    - ghaff 2y ago
      The company I used to work for was aggressively not renewing leases that they no longer needed given lower office occupancy. I have no doubt that companies trying to force people back into offices have some pretty silly reasons for doing so (including pressure from local governments) but the idea it's all about execs propping up commercial real estate seriously makes no sense even if it satisfies some conspiracy theory impulse.
    - varispeed 2y ago
      https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/construction/real-estate-breidge/working-home-and-office-real-estate-apocalypse https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/construction/real-estate-brei... https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/reits-to-capitalize-on-return-to-office-trend https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/reits-to-capital... Whilst these are not direct examples, they show the commercial estate market is in deep trouble if people are not going to return.
      - snapcaster 2y ago
        Right, but the reason this theory doesn't make sense is because why would the executives of another company give a shit? How would they induce a bunch of tenants to RTO on their behalf?
  - dylan604 2y ago
    If someone is paying for rent in a building, then the value does not lower just because nobody is actually using the space. The landlord has a tenant that continues to pay rent at market rate. That's the end of the story as far as the property value goes down. At least for the companies that rent their space. For companies that own their land and buildings, that's another thing, but again, the value is not set based on how many people are working there. Not sure where this idea came from
    - varispeed 2y ago
      > If someone is paying for rent in a building, then the value does not lower just because nobody is actually using the space. If company cannot fill the office, it will be looking at downsizing and breaking the lease. If there are many companies like this, then landlord may not find a new tenant at existing rate and they'll either have to lower the rate or sit with empty property. If they have mortgage on it, it is a tough cookie to swallow. It's similar story for companies who own the buildings. It becomes an asset that is losing value.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    Luckily if you're a commercial tenant that's not your problem. My $dayjob actually owns our office and is in the process of selling it. They lined up a buyer in less than a month so it seems there's still plenty of demand.
- thfuran 2y ago
  Surely it's negative cost unless they're still maintaining an empty but fully furnished office building large enough for all employees to work from full time.
varispeed 2y ago
> The advantage of working from home was that you could take care of kids and do all the housework, this worth thousands of dollars per months You are also not using the office, not commute and pollute. Companies also put workers through the stress of working in inadequate workplaces - open plane offices to cram as many workers per square feet, like caged hens. System will not balance itself, as people are just few missing pay checks from being homeless, so nobody is going to risk going against their master, sorry employer. It will also not come from the government as these are as corrupt as they get. The system will simply collapse at some point. Most likely the rich will be "hanged" and the cycle will start over.
nicpottier 2y ago
We are talking about Amazon engineers here. They are in the top 3% of earners, I don't think we need to cry too many tears about them going back to the office.
- harwoodjp 2y ago
  An injury to one is an injury to all.
  - diggan 2y ago
    If people had some sort of class solidarity, then yes. But instead everyone is fighting against everyone to get to the top of the "earners" curve, even if it means a less equal society as a whole, and people seem fine with it. It's a cultural issue that has persisted in the country for a very long time.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- varispeed 2y ago
  Wage earners are working class. You are using "top 3%" as an excuse to c*p on them. This is the crabs in the bucket mentality that the rich want to cultivate amongst working class, so they pull each other down and help maximise profits.
  - windowshopping 2y ago
    What is c*p? "Crap"? Is that really offensive enough to censor?
  - crazyeights 2y ago
    [dead]
dingnuts 2y ago
where did this meme come from that you can do house work and child care while working remote? It's not remotely true. Child care is a full time job. You might be able to move laundry around while tests run but that's about it. If people are neglecting their jobs enough to take care of kids then they're giving ammo to the management class to argue that they can't trust us.
- panarky 2y ago
  It's about flexibility. I can get up early and work an hour, then get the kids ready for school, then work five hours, then take them to my sister's place after school, then work two hours, then have dinner and read them stories before bed, then work another hour. Can't do that from an office with an hour commute each way.
- meowfly 2y ago
  I haven't figured this out. Ideally we should should hold employees to the work they produce but I still cringe a little when someone calls into a meeting because they had to run an errand. I want management to believe wfh isn't being abused. It's exclusively about the optics. The lack of interruptions is a net positive. If we miss a deadline, it makes it easy for management to start blaming people not being at their desk. We shouldn't be giving them ammo
- jhwhite 2y ago
  Depends on the age of the child. A 10 year old is old enough to be at the house without direct supervision but not be left alone. They would need to go to a daycare if someone were in an office.
snapcaster 2y ago
Isn't this kind of proving the point of RTO from the company's point of view? If you're taking care of your child and doing housework instead of working?
- Borg3 2y ago
  Who cares if you do the job? I have much higher efficency at home compared to office. No distractions, no wasted time communiting. I can organize myself better too. If I need to take a break, I do it and then I do job later, still keeping 8h of work, just splited. The problem is how you are accounted for doing work. By tasks or by time spent in office... I saw people in office doing nothing, just talks on kitchen or answering emails.. When asked about tasks.. Im working hard sir.. heh. Its a bit complicated matter, because when you are more efficient, boss usually will attach new tasks so you have to work harder or be even more efficient. And those who are less efficient dont get new tasks.. Not smart..
  - Jcampuzano2 2y ago
    Thats the idealistic point of view, but management will always wrangle themselves out of it. "Why aren't you efficient at the office? We've optimized it for efficiency" or "Okay well we'll budget in making you more efficient in office so that you're even more productive here". Another could be the argument that you need to be highly available during core hours, you shouldn't potentially not be available during the core 8 hour work day of your location, and the best way to force that is you being visible in office by management. The root of the issue is we value our time, and commuting is basically a loss of time and is not compensated. If we don't make enough money when commuting to make up for how much we value that time, we're losing. Most of us are comparing our salaries to what we used to make before this was the norm, and its not that different from before. So when going back to the "norm" we are losing part of what we consider our compensation packate -> more free time.
- ipsento606 2y ago
  I guess it depends on the kind of work. But are there people who really spend all their time in the office continually doing work? I spend some time pottering about and doing chores during the workday when I wfh. But I also spend lots of time goofing off while at the office. The difference is that while at the office, I have to be constantly vigilant about how I'm perceived by others, so time spend goofing off isn't nearly as rejuvenating and reinvigorating as it would have been at home. Isn't it pretty normal to only have a few hours of real-work capability per day?
Jcampuzano2 2y ago
The easy argument to this by management is that you shouldn't be taking care of your kids and doing housework while working in the first place. Another argument could be that it punishes those who don't have kids yet or don't want them unfairly working more than those who do. You can't use the argument of "being able to do things other than work" as an argument because its easily trumped. The best arguments are those having to do with lost time and increased stress due to commuting. Being able to more quickly transition to housework and looking after kids, or just being closer to them in general during your breaks/lunches, etc. You are losing time which is in itself compensation by being forced go to an office for a job that shouldn't necessitate it. Another is health benefits: more easy access to preparing food at home. Less stress as mentioned. Easier to go to a gym or workout at home. etc.
- golemiprague 2y ago
  [dead]

Spivak 2y ago

Yep, working from home is easily 25%+ of my compensation and it doesn't cost the company a dime. I'm shocked executives aren't over the moon that there's a zero dollar perk they can give that's worth significant amounts of money to people.

varispeed 2y ago
Many major employers also hold investments in commercial property. Empty offices lose value. Someone somewhere got in their excel that loss of productivity from RTO is lower than potential loss of the property investments.
- snapcaster 2y ago
  This keeps being repeated but there is no evidence provided. Can you point to a single example of a company where this calculation would be made/true?
  - ghaff 2y ago
    The company I used to work for was aggressively not renewing leases that they no longer needed given lower office occupancy. I have no doubt that companies trying to force people back into offices have some pretty silly reasons for doing so (including pressure from local governments) but the idea it's all about execs propping up commercial real estate seriously makes no sense even if it satisfies some conspiracy theory impulse.
  - varispeed 2y ago
    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/construction/real-estate-breidge/working-home-and-office-real-estate-apocalypse https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/construction/real-estate-brei... https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/reits-to-capitalize-on-return-to-office-trend https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/reits-to-capital... Whilst these are not direct examples, they show the commercial estate market is in deep trouble if people are not going to return.
    - snapcaster 2y ago
      Right, but the reason this theory doesn't make sense is because why would the executives of another company give a shit? How would they induce a bunch of tenants to RTO on their behalf?
- dylan604 2y ago
  If someone is paying for rent in a building, then the value does not lower just because nobody is actually using the space. The landlord has a tenant that continues to pay rent at market rate. That's the end of the story as far as the property value goes down. At least for the companies that rent their space. For companies that own their land and buildings, that's another thing, but again, the value is not set based on how many people are working there. Not sure where this idea came from
  - varispeed 2y ago
    > If someone is paying for rent in a building, then the value does not lower just because nobody is actually using the space. If company cannot fill the office, it will be looking at downsizing and breaking the lease. If there are many companies like this, then landlord may not find a new tenant at existing rate and they'll either have to lower the rate or sit with empty property. If they have mortgage on it, it is a tough cookie to swallow. It's similar story for companies who own the buildings. It becomes an asset that is losing value.
- Spivak 2y ago
  Luckily if you're a commercial tenant that's not your problem. My $dayjob actually owns our office and is in the process of selling it. They lined up a buyer in less than a month so it seems there's still plenty of demand.
thfuran 2y ago
Surely it's negative cost unless they're still maintaining an empty but fully furnished office building large enough for all employees to work from full time.

varispeed 2y ago

> The advantage of working from home was that you could take care of kids and do all the housework, this worth thousands of dollars per months You are also not using the office, not commute and pollute. Companies also put workers through the stress of working in inadequate workplaces - open plane offices to cram as many workers per square feet, like caged hens. System will not balance itself, as people are just few missing pay checks from being homeless, so nobody is going to risk going against their master, sorry employer. It will also not come from the government as these are as corrupt as they get. The system will simply collapse at some point. Most likely the rich will be "hanged" and the cycle will start over.

nicpottier 2y ago

We are talking about Amazon engineers here. They are in the top 3% of earners, I don't think we need to cry too many tears about them going back to the office.

harwoodjp 2y ago
An injury to one is an injury to all.
- diggan 2y ago
  If people had some sort of class solidarity, then yes. But instead everyone is fighting against everyone to get to the top of the "earners" curve, even if it means a less equal society as a whole, and people seem fine with it. It's a cultural issue that has persisted in the country for a very long time.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
varispeed 2y ago
Wage earners are working class. You are using "top 3%" as an excuse to c*p on them. This is the crabs in the bucket mentality that the rich want to cultivate amongst working class, so they pull each other down and help maximise profits.
- windowshopping 2y ago
  What is c*p? "Crap"? Is that really offensive enough to censor?
- crazyeights 2y ago
  [dead]

dingnuts 2y ago

where did this meme come from that you can do house work and child care while working remote? It's not remotely true. Child care is a full time job. You might be able to move laundry around while tests run but that's about it. If people are neglecting their jobs enough to take care of kids then they're giving ammo to the management class to argue that they can't trust us.

panarky 2y ago
It's about flexibility. I can get up early and work an hour, then get the kids ready for school, then work five hours, then take them to my sister's place after school, then work two hours, then have dinner and read them stories before bed, then work another hour. Can't do that from an office with an hour commute each way.
meowfly 2y ago
I haven't figured this out. Ideally we should should hold employees to the work they produce but I still cringe a little when someone calls into a meeting because they had to run an errand. I want management to believe wfh isn't being abused. It's exclusively about the optics. The lack of interruptions is a net positive. If we miss a deadline, it makes it easy for management to start blaming people not being at their desk. We shouldn't be giving them ammo
jhwhite 2y ago
Depends on the age of the child. A 10 year old is old enough to be at the house without direct supervision but not be left alone. They would need to go to a daycare if someone were in an office.

snapcaster 2y ago

Isn't this kind of proving the point of RTO from the company's point of view? If you're taking care of your child and doing housework instead of working?

Borg3 2y ago
Who cares if you do the job? I have much higher efficency at home compared to office. No distractions, no wasted time communiting. I can organize myself better too. If I need to take a break, I do it and then I do job later, still keeping 8h of work, just splited. The problem is how you are accounted for doing work. By tasks or by time spent in office... I saw people in office doing nothing, just talks on kitchen or answering emails.. When asked about tasks.. Im working hard sir.. heh. Its a bit complicated matter, because when you are more efficient, boss usually will attach new tasks so you have to work harder or be even more efficient. And those who are less efficient dont get new tasks.. Not smart..
- Jcampuzano2 2y ago
  Thats the idealistic point of view, but management will always wrangle themselves out of it. "Why aren't you efficient at the office? We've optimized it for efficiency" or "Okay well we'll budget in making you more efficient in office so that you're even more productive here". Another could be the argument that you need to be highly available during core hours, you shouldn't potentially not be available during the core 8 hour work day of your location, and the best way to force that is you being visible in office by management. The root of the issue is we value our time, and commuting is basically a loss of time and is not compensated. If we don't make enough money when commuting to make up for how much we value that time, we're losing. Most of us are comparing our salaries to what we used to make before this was the norm, and its not that different from before. So when going back to the "norm" we are losing part of what we consider our compensation packate -> more free time.
ipsento606 2y ago
I guess it depends on the kind of work. But are there people who really spend all their time in the office continually doing work? I spend some time pottering about and doing chores during the workday when I wfh. But I also spend lots of time goofing off while at the office. The difference is that while at the office, I have to be constantly vigilant about how I'm perceived by others, so time spend goofing off isn't nearly as rejuvenating and reinvigorating as it would have been at home. Isn't it pretty normal to only have a few hours of real-work capability per day?

Jcampuzano2 2y ago

The easy argument to this by management is that you shouldn't be taking care of your kids and doing housework while working in the first place. Another argument could be that it punishes those who don't have kids yet or don't want them unfairly working more than those who do. You can't use the argument of "being able to do things other than work" as an argument because its easily trumped. The best arguments are those having to do with lost time and increased stress due to commuting. Being able to more quickly transition to housework and looking after kids, or just being closer to them in general during your breaks/lunches, etc. You are losing time which is in itself compensation by being forced go to an office for a job that shouldn't necessitate it. Another is health benefits: more easy access to preparing food at home. Less stress as mentioned. Easier to go to a gym or workout at home. etc.

golemiprague 2y ago
[dead]