Hacker News Reader

Comment by esers | Hacker News Reader

I think its worthwhile considering the possibility that work is broken.

It's easy to accept the status-quo.

Before the Internet, consumers accepted that there was an inherent trade-off between selection and convenience: you could either have the convenience of the corner store with its limited selection, or the selection of a WalMart if you were willing to take the drive out to their regional supercenter.

The Internet allowed companies like Amazon to deliver both more convenience and more selection. Consumers could have their cake and eat it, too.

Today, most people accept that there is a trade-off between living where you want to live, and working where you want to work.

What if that were not true?

View on HN

I think it's also worth considering that American cities are themselves broken.

Americans driving everywhere (and increasingly driving further everywhere) is a problem larger than just an analysis of where we live and work. I'd love to see a study like this that also factors in how long we're spending to get to stores, restaurants, schools, entertainment, etc.

It's quite likely that the Bus Buddies from the article aren't only burning 15-20 hours a week commuting to work, but more like 25-30 hours a week commuting in general. To the store, to a ball game, to a kid's recital, to a park, to a bike trail, etc.

Indeed, broken by design. It's not just a myth that GM/Ford/Oil Companies killed streetcars and public transportation. They really did do their best to create the suburbs/commute/'MUST drive everywhere' layout to benefit their businesses. Unfortunately, it worked.

I wish I could mod this up more.

As I've gotten older, I find I avoid using our vehicle more and more (I commute the 12 mile round trip to my office on my bike year 'round). Sitting in traffic in a car seems like a massive waste of my time (and my family's). Of course, I am, perhaps, quite lucky--I can live near my job, in an affordable neighborhood (my mortgage is less than the rent many of my friends pay) that has actual stuff in it. Yes, I sometimes drive the four miles to the store for food, but sometimes I ride my bike there, too. Our kids play soccer at a field one mile from our house (we ride our bikes) and take piano lessons two blocks away.

Well, at least the idea that we all have to physically travel to a certain location is. It may be needed for certain jobs and may not be for everyone, but I think working from home could work from both the employer and the employee if it's implemented correctly. It also could reduce traffic and greenhouse gasses tremendously.

It's completely possible for IT jobs to be shipped overseas, yet the thought of a developer working remotely one day a week is still too much for most management to handle.

Fully agree. Having a developer work remotely requires the manager to also be more organized and work differently.

A single developer working remotely one day a week is easy to manage.

On a team of 13+, coordinating remote day per week plus late starts for kid-drop-offs / early leaves for kid-pick-ups, vacation days, etc. makes it very hard to figure out when you can actually get the team together. In practice, the members of the team also suffer because you can't plan when you're going to block on needing to talk at a whiteboard with someone. I've also found colocation to be the only way to handle complicated design tasks.

Team members who are around tend to exclude people who work remotely during key hours, relegating them to the easily separable work, which results in less impact and ultimately less pay and promotions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com