Hacker News Reader

Comment by beachstartup | Hacker News Reader

> Can you tell what the reason behind that policy is?

there is no reasoning behind these policies. it's just someone's decision. you'd be surprised at how much business 'logic' is really just arbitrary choices.

the way to fix it is to quit and work for someone/some place that has a sane policy. these social shifts take decades to fully manifest because old rich people don't like changing their way. because they're old, and they're rich. why should they? they're old and rich, remember?

you do you, don't try to fight against what can't be changed.

View on HN

I was with you until you turned it into some weird nonsense about class and age for no reason.

For thousands of years the majority of work occurred in collocation with other people doing the same work as you. Now we have technology that allows for remote work and there are a lot of companies taking advantage of it.

Over time the default will become remote if the specific job allows it. I imagine at some point beyond the default will become remote regardless of the task.

But you can't expect people to change the entire organizational structure of their business overnight "because Slack!"

The manager at my company that keeps this "no full-time telecommute" policy is in his mid-40's. And he's not rich. Well compensated, yes, but not 20 million dollar home in Atherton and a Tesla rich, more like "drives a BMW 4 series from his Peninsula Condo", but he's certainly not rich enough to not need to work.

So I don't think this is a problem with "old rich people".

i'd bet that isn't his policy, he's just the mouthpiece.

but that's just like, my opinion, man.

He put the policy in place when he was hired (before then it was a more loose "come to the office if/when you want to", which worked for a 20 person company, but doesn't work so well with a 50 or 100 person company), along with more regular working hours (flex hours are fine but everyone is generally expected to be in the office between 10am - 3pm to allow meetings to be scheduled)

by old and rich i mean exactly what you described -- a person who works as a manager, is middle aged, and makes a healthy six figure salary. that's "rich" to most people. the ceo in a 20M mansion certainly qualifies also.

A 6 figure salary in the Bay Area is not what most people would call "rich", in some areas you can qualify for subsidized housing with a 6 figure salary and a family of 4.

And while I may be biased by being a decade older, "mid-forties" doesn't seem old for a senior manager.

In any case, unless someone is truly wealthy, you can't say "Oh well they don't care about their job because they are rich", because they need that job, and if they are a poor manager, they'll lose that job.

i'm from california and have lived in the bay. i'm not a podunk who doesn't know what a california salary looks like. we live in a wealth bubble, meaning even your 'lowly' six figure manager is still a rich guy to most people.

my point stands, and i'm doubling down on it. go check out the rest of america and the world, and you might see what i mean.

Everyone in the USA is rich to "most people", but context is important.

A small to mid sized startup manager is not (usually) rich enough to not need his job or care about job performance.

The really old thing is thinking that you have somehow escaped the human predicament when you really haven't. It's a time honored tradition repeated by fools in each generation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com