The social and economic costs borne by young people without offices
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
-- For the budding young developer who can't wait to show ideas to teammates and demonstrate being a go-getter by asking random questions and finding unaddressed issues to innovate on, WFH might be terrible. You're going to schedule time to fortuitously run into the senior person who takes an interest in your idea?
-- For the working parent whose productivity has been slashed by 50% and stress has gone up by 50% due to parenting obligations, WFH might be terrible.
-- For the middle manager who can coast along and not need to move greatly in his/her career, WFH might be great.
-- For the developer who works by tickets on very concrete things and this is nothing new, WFH might be great.
-- For the small company CEO who relies on force of personality and everyone in the same room urgently working to get something done, WFH might be terrible.
There's a huge variability in what WFH means, depending on what you want from the situation.
For some people, remote working is really not good.
And that's aside from the point that, when everyone is remote, you're also competing with the world who is also remote. Jobs and job qualifications (and competition) may change...
Yup... once everyone is remote anyway, won't take too long for some manager to decide to offshore work to cheaper countries. Even if that doesn't happen to you, if it happens to enough people elsewhere it'll bring salaries down for everyone.
It hasn't happened because cultural fit is super important to a business if it wants to create a quality product.
Look at the areas where the services have been outsourced to overseas, it's support and maintenance of products and services, generally post-sales support where they don't care about the quality of the service or it's a company with a natural monopoly and they care more about saving money than providing a good service.
Having a hand picked team with unique interlocking skills is what creates a quality product, you can't do that if you are outsourcing entire teams overseas, you have no control on who you are hiring and quality.
Or at the least these problems are super difficult to overcome and probably the cost to overcome them is too much for anything less than a global company to get any savings out of doing.
PS I've totally generalised to make a point, there are 1000s of exceptions I am sure.
Practically speaking if you’re an American dev, your biggest competition isn’t someone from Ukraine or India, but rather a fellow American that’s moved to Iowa.
And working at office with 1 hour drive home, makes those parenting obligations somehow easier?
- Small children don't really understand "mummy's working, talk to me instead." Interruptions are death to productivity. Children can't interrupt you if you're not present.
- Most daycares are closed or at reduced capacity.
- Nanny services are harder to find and come with risks.
- Time at the office is time resting from the kids, and time at home is resting from the office. If it's all one place, there is no rest.
My wife and I are finding it easier to alternate childcare instead of try to do everything at once, and being out of the home during the work time gives rest and focus.
If childcare was running at normal capacity but parents were still working from home, they'd be a lot more productive and less stressed out.
Those who aren't have extra things to be stressed about, like their increased risk of exposure to COVID-19.
Sure, if my commute were especially long, I might say otherwise, but that's a different discussion.
There’s lots of thoughts like that and plenty to worry about as a parent. It’s more than just “Shut up Johnny!”
I love home educating (far better when museums/parks/venues and things are open mind you) but I'm at work .. there's no education, not even childcare, it's babysitting level of care at best.
You're right, everyone who doesn't live in San Francisco is just mindlessly churning through tickets all day.
Also, they didn't say mindlessly churning through tickets, they said working on concrete tickets.
Only up by 50%? That's impressive.
As a dev it has kinda shredded my desire to do large scale unpredictable projects and made me pick up predictable boilerplate type work. One is easy to demonstrate progress on, the other is more abstract. This is also slowly eroding my passion for engineering so I may need a rebalancing.
I love it, because it has cut my commute down 10 hours/week and my dedicated meeting time 10 hours/week. That's 20 hours. Now I can dedicate 5 hours of that to taking walks or naps or cooking healthy food. 5~10 hours of that for more work. And 5 hours for the company. Generally a win for everyone, I think.
You are the third person this week I’ve heard make some commentary to that effect or another: “anyone else feel like WFH has made work easier for everyone else BUT engineering? My tickets haven’t slowed down an iota yet support and product queues are lower than I’ve ever seen them on the (Trello) board”
A friend in the American Southwest expresses just as you do: meetings have declined, “walk ups” have all but stopped and he’s more productive ever. My org? Literally the opposite in every listed factor.
In fact we had a meeting today as a functional team* about how we plan to put up some guardrails just for ourselves so we can get some shit done.
I am at least thankful to the Holy compiler our Director was on the zoom and has completely bought in and offered support because he sees the pain and agrees it’s a problem.
———
* it’s not as ironic as it sounds, this was our usual Friday afternoon “have beers and just vent about the week over zoom” meeting. It’s quite healthy for the six of us as a lot of good outcomes have resulted from the calls during COVID from a comraderie standpoint And have a Director who will go to bat where he can.
Sure, absolutely. I was sharing my experience, but I certainly didn't intend to claim it was universal.
I understand the anxiety that drives this and have found the best approach to be bringing that up to my manager, verifying those types of contributions are still welcome, why you think they are important for the business, and your desire to make sure your keeping up with "core functions".
I assume those "boilerplate type" tasks communicate their business value outwardly much better and are known quantities, but do little for your development.
Working remotely for a small company with a few people from around the world and it's going fine. We are in contact when we have to be. I can cut distractions when I need to. No open space office bulshit.
I was raised on IM. I'm fine communicating like this. If I need to talk I can always call someone.
In any case, you need a space to work. If you WFH you should have a space for work. I strongly believe that employers should pay you more so that you can afford an additional room. This should not be a cost cut for the employers. They should just pay you instead of paying the insane office rent.
WFH is simply different from working at an office. It will be hard for some people to learn a new way, but this major change could even redesign our cities.
Or pay the shareholders instead. Or the CEO. Or ... you are a cost center for your company. Why would they pay you more than the minimum anyone than they would for any other cost center? That said you should negotiate for an extra room as a part of doing business.
>I was raised on IM. I'm fine communicating like this. If I need to talk I can always call someone.
I finally got emacs connected to the corporate email server. My productivity went up 100% overnight. I'm debating setting it up for slack.
Maybe because you're a resource and not a cost center?
It's not always the case - some job roles are fungible - but I don't think that's the case with a typical HN denizen.
Let me put it another way. Why is paying the CEO more a better use of money to paying an employee more? Doesn't that build in a lot of assumptions about untapped value? And (at risk of getting out of my depth) paying the shareholders isn't the always the right thing to do. Don't most tech companies avoid giving dividends in favour of using the money to improve the share price? Which brings us back to employees and their potential value...
I think the problem here is the one who decides who gets more is the CEO.
They tend to believe the employee will keep working for the same amount until they leave.
You are providing a resource by consuming money.
Imagine a company as if you were playing a CEO in a "software company tycoon" game. Are developers something you like to have, vs. need to have? Would you allocate them more money than strictly necessary to keep the output at desired level?
If you are a pizza boy where I live you get paid extra if you use your own car. It's not a law. It's expected. That's the work culture. No one will drive for you otherwise.
For example, I've been doing freelance work for well over 10 years now and I eventually started insisting on having an extra office with a strict policy of the room is for work only (even if not paying work). The thing is, a lot of people will recommend things like dressing up as if you're going into work, taking a walk around the block as a transition, and so forth. But for me I can literally walk into that room completely naked straight from bed and have no issues.
But the thing is, what works for me doesn't work for you (and vice versa). But I've had over 10 years to figure out what works for me, young people haven't.
That's where their challenge is at, not in trying to learn from mentors, which can still happen even remote.
And some people just can't do it because they don't have the discipline and never will. Those people will fail, but that's on them.
Pretty much every adult does this as a matter of course.
Certainly children don’t, if you’re only talking about prepubescent children, but they’re also not particularly relevant to a discussion about working from home.
Then I think it's pretty clear that's not what I meant when I said children... It becomes even more clear when you realize I said "or their own car", or did you think it was my belief that 5 year olds were driving themselves to school?
Because that's what you're implying here, and I don't think any reasonable person would make the claim that's obvious.
"Agreeableness demonstrated a fairly linear increase with age whereas the pattern for Conscientiousness was curvilinear: scores increased up to a peak somewhere between the ages of 50 to 70 and then declined."
Doesn't sound that large.
But intuitively, people who have families will work significantly harder than a teenagers. So i think we're measuring something incorrectly here.
Exactly right. The sort of discipline I'm discussing here isn't conscientiousness.
Someone who scores low in conscientiousness, but then has children, is going to be a lot more responsible than they were before they had children.
Someone else accused me of reverse ageism. As if I'm biased against young people because I believe that people generally get better at life the more life experience they have. My rule of thumb is that if you're dealing with someone 10+ years older than you, it's generally good to assume they can read you better than you can read them.
This is giving a lot of people undue credit, is the problem.
It is not about you being comfortable with IM, it is about doing an A/B comparison of the 2 options. You don't know what you don't know, if you don't compare with being in the office then "being fine" does not mean "it's better", it can be worse and you don't know it.
I am working from home a lot for ~ 12 years, I still go to the office from time to time not because I have to, but because it is good to. Those days are a complete waste of time in terms of productivity, sometimes I don't open my laptop the whole day, but they are priceless for other reasons; I talk to people all day long, the kind of discussions you don't plan and send invites with an agenda upfront.
For what reason? You say it's a total waste of time productivity wise. Imagine having this all the time, because it's how it looks like in an open space office.
This might be the reason why we are expected to work 8h/day. We simply waste most of our work time. It would be much better to be paid 2x more per hour and only really work 4 hours a day.
Also, working remotely does not mean my meetings have invitations or an agenda. You can call someone anytime. We have webcams on all day. I only have a calendar event if it is a planned meeting, like an interview with a new candidate, daily stand up, brainstorming session.
The huge advantage for me is that it makes me almost intangible to people like the local Director (technically incompetent and an ass) and I don't have to spend time with bullshit corporate "organizational work" like going to recruiting events and explain why we hire and promote only women (because targets). My yearly evaluation is also just a formality that I never spend more than 15 minutes for and I have the flexibility to pick the most interesting projects we have. If spending a couple of days per month in the office is the price, I am willing to pay it.
So yeah, there are pros and cons but the parenting one is not truly fair in that the arbitrary handling of schools across this country is maddening in its own right. people who tend to be good at managing their own time are usually good at dealing with the children being around.
This is not only WFH. I've done WFH before the pandemic and it was fine. Daycare and nannies are usually an option in normal circumstances.
This seems like pandemic-from-home to me.
I’d argue that this not working is a good thing. “Force of personality” isn’t a scalable thing, it tends to inexorably tie a company to the failings of one person, and easily transitions into a cult of personality.
Ultimately I don't feel responsible for the careers of the juniors, and feel they're being used as an excuse - the main thing about the cities is it's possible to meet people you want to meet and do anything you want to do. This includes tech groups, which provide social and professional opportunities. I've been to plenty myself, and wonder if it couldn't be the mainstay of progression and networking now.
Young organizations are going to tend towards collapse while most old organizations are paralyzed but can coast longer on the inertia of pre-existing structures.
Why have kids if spending time with them is such a burden?
And what kind of lame company culture only allows the proles to come into contact with Very Important Senior Team Members via "fortuitous" in-person collisions? For God's sake, just Slack them.
IME in-person meetings are so overrated. They always end up at "yeah we should totally do these things" and nothing actually happens.
Honestly people, there is nothing you can do in an office culture that you can't do equally well in a remote culture, if you take the time to adapt. But the people who don't understand or care how to adapt will continue to propagate their urban legends about the unique magic of fortuitous shoulder taps, hallway collisions and lunch meetings. Whatever.
To be honest, I've never really had a cubicle. Usually just a desk in a bullpin type arrangement. No privacy. Distractions galore. The sound of co-workers flushing the toilets in the restrooms nearby. Nothing to reflect fondly upon in my opinion.
If I had wanted or needed a new job, completely changing careers would probably have been easier than getting another gig in my field with the experience I’d accrued at home.
No doubt my experience is different doing technical work, but I have never relied on my co-workers to line up my next position. I flip the switch on linkedin to let recruiters know I'm looking and call or email the recruiters I have worked with in the past. Sometimes an employer might ask for a reference. I suppose I do have a short list of those.
“Outside of immediate family, people’s co-workers become their most consistent opportunity for social interaction,” Peditto told me. “What happens when you lose that is one of my greater concerns.”
My social interactions really do revolve around my family and long time friends. It's not a large group, but I'm not a social butterfly either. I have a hard enough time keeping up with those social interactions. Who knows, maybe I was born for remote work.
Overall this feels like yet another hit piece against remote work with a lot of anecdotes and not much else. Here I am arguing against it with my own anecdotes. I really don't understand why these keep cropping up. Are commercial real-estate conglomerates paying for these?
Personally, I am happier than I have ever been working remotely. I don't struggle to keep a routine or maintain separation between my work life and my home life. I don't feel starved for social interaction either. I would hate to see the sentiments these articles convey ruin something that has been very positive for myself and my partner (and my dog).
I appreciate the perspective you shared in the rest of your comment, but was this bit really necessary? Just because someone has had a different experience than you doesn't mean that they're a corporate shill paid to manufacture dissent.
In my mind I imagine a boardroom full of Don Draper types sipping scotch and smoking cigarettes fretting over the decline in office leasing revenue while Draper spins a brilliant web of fiction. "We'll tell them that it is bad for the careers of women and we'll make them miss the smell of their co-worker's day old spaghetti as it spins on the microwave turntable. We'll even make them long for the awkward interactions in the hallway while they go down a level to the inconveniently placed restroom on the floor below. They'll eat it up."
The anti-remote work hit-piece aspect is really my point. To me these articles feel like some kind of thinly veiled attempt to make people believe they missed working in the office. Maybe even make people fear for their futures if they don't work in an office. Maybe this isn't the case and isn't what the author intended, but that is how it reads to me.
It doesn't require a conspiracy, of course. I find it much easier to believe that it's essentially pre-chewed stuff a large audience can nod along to. No need for any agenda other than "I want eye balls on my article, and I want lots of them and I want the brains that are attached to share the article because that will get me more eye balls".
As a young person working remotely, everything the author says reflects my own experience. It is very much a fact that remote work removes a lot of the unscheduled office interactions that younger / newer employees use to learn and advance their careers. I don't know about women specifically, but it is very plausible that remote work hurts social and economic mobility for young people, and for people without a stable home life.
Yes, we should certainly collect data to measure the real impact of remote work, good and bad. But now that remote work is a part of everyone's lives, whether we like it or not, it's also valuable to listen to these individual stories, to get an idea of the breadth of possible outcomes when we get rid of the office.
I think all of your points are completely fair so I don't want you to feel that I am being obtuse or overly pedantic. You're correct that I have not provided any evidence to indicate the author is not authentic. However, you made me curious so I decided to open the article in a private browsing session with no ad blocker enabled.
Maybe everyone sees a different advertisement, but what I saw struck me. The article is peppered by advertisements from facebook.
"Support Small Business Together." Is the tag line of the facebook advertisement.
What I say next is facetious of course. This article isn't part of a grand conspiracy by corporate real estate developers, it is a grand conspiracy by one of the largest advertising platforms in the world, facebook. Remote work is hurting facebook's advertising revenue because small business are dying off.
Again, entirely facetious. Still, The Atlantic is partially supported by advertising and I found this particular advertisement to be interesting given the content of the article and the discussion on HN.
Draper's eyes gleamed as he delivered the line that would seal the deal. "We'll make them nostalgic for their offices and that is how you will sell more advertisements to small businesses mister Zuckerberg."
Do you actually know the breakdown of Facebook's advertising revenue by company type? I would expect that small business is not their bread and butter, and with the current status of everything in the world, other businesses would pick up the slack. And FB's usage stats are probably through the roof with people unable to socialize in person.
I think it's a bit weird to assume that FB would be attempting to promote "hit pieces" on remote work. In fact, I bet FB itself stands to save a lot of money by closing down or reducing in size many of its offices and transitioning a lot of its employees to permanent or semi-permanent remote work even after the pandemic has passed.
I feel like you've let your imagination get away from you here.
And yes, offices are big business. And yes, they'll surely try lobbying and PR.
Plus, the Atlantic has a history of "native advertising" https://www.adweek.com/digital/after-scientology-debacle-atl...
I'd give it a 50% chance that this das paid for by real estate and a 50% chance that the author just wants to virtue signal by mixing in these seemingly less related topics.
So I would imagine that in the worst case scenario, some food models, like the lunch truck, the NYC hot dog cart or the NYC deli, are going to have some severe issues generating enough cash even just to play their employees, since they are low-margin, high-volume businesses. At current volumes they will never make enough money to cover even non-rent costs at <$5 a sandwich.
They also make an effort to distinguish paid content from their editorial content like this article from College Board. https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/the-college-board-2017....
Nonetheless, I'm skeptical of the proliferation of these articles in general. On the one hand, it's the talk of the whole world. On the other, what are the motives of the individuals and publications producing this content? Are they perhaps victims themselves of a subtle PR campaign? Others have said I am being too skeptical and making assumptions. I don't disagree, yet I remain skeptical.
I'm a software engineer with no connection to the commercial real-estate industry, and I'm pretty sure I haven't been a "victim of a subtle PR campaign." And yet I find remote work alienating and psychologically difficult, and I'm eager for a return to the office.
In addition to just...not enjoying remote work, I agree with the author that it would have been especially hard to be remote when I was younger. I would have missed out on a number of opportunities and connections that have been very helpful to my career.
For myself. I strongly believe remote work is a net gain for me and others like me. I appreciate that others do not feel the same way, but when the dust settles I stand to lose if I am the odd man out, no? I strongly believe that the sentiment conveyed in this article will be used as ammunition to drag those of us that prefer remote work back to the office. I'd prefer articles like this to find a balance that allows everyone to have their preference, but they seem to grapple for downsides that don't apply to everyone.
It's like the same pointless discussion HN about hiring once or twice a month. I see this WFH debate on heavy rotation here also. It's always the same.
> Overall this feels like yet another hit piece against remote work with a lot of anecdotes and not much else.
I think you've answered your question there. It is an unfortunate aspect of modern society that for many people, work is their only opportunity to socialize with other humans (other than trivial interactions with the cashier at the grocery store, and so on).
But you gave the answer yourself - you're different, other people are unlike you:
> Who knows, maybe I was born for remote work.
Me too, but my wife suffers from it, she dreams about the day when we're going to return to the office. I'm just starting to miss the office, it's been easier on me.
My student apartment is not equipped for this lifestyle. I do not have a home office in a sprawling estate in the suburbs on several acres of property where I can enjoy the sounds of nature. I live in a small apartment on a busy street surrounded by highways and golf courses who don't let plebs like me wander around inside.
When I'm at home, I just feel this anxiety about working that just never subsides. I feel much more relaxed when I'm able to be outside, but the nearest public green space is campus, which I avoid as much as possible now that school is in session. The nearest park is a thirty minute drive, but I have to check the air traffic before leaving due to a nearby airport.
At home, work seems to never end, especially with the 13-hour time difference that necessitates 10:30pm meetings twice a week. On one hand, I really enjoy this rare occasion to talk to my co-workers, but on the other hand, I can't shut off my work brain until after the meeting is over. On these days I end up going to sleep at 3 or 4am, adding to the cycle of stress and sleep deprivation.
I figured this would last one, maybe two months at the most. But now it's been four months since I started remote work and six months since I accepted the initial offer. There's no word about Japan issuing new work visas any time soon.
I want my life to begin.
Google searches for mountain view CA apartment rents as an example of hyper dense urban life far from green areas seem to indicate $2K to $6K/month is quite reasonable. Similar google searches for rural Wisconsin cabins indicate a thousand bucks per week will get a cabin on a lake in the woods with a pontoon boat, wet bar, and hot tub. You don't have to worry about your schedule if your closest neighbor is a quarter mile away. Internet might or might not be a problem.
The problem with spending a couple months at some New Orleans bed and breakfasts is you'd be close enough to be reminded everything is shut down, and noise level. Might be easier to stick with rural retreats and adventures.
The united states lighthouse association website lists rentable lighthouses if you really want to get away from it all. Again, internet via satellite may or may not be a problem. The entire lighthouse on Charity Island in Michigan can be rented for not too much more than a Mountain View apartment.
You could do a very small house boat on a lake for $4K to $6K per month off season. There is no shortage of houseboat rentals and lakes and parks to visit. Could try the mississippi river...
In all fairness I did spend yesterday in a park shelter at a county park with excellent wireless working away in 70 degree breezes, but there are many days when it rains or its 100 or 0.
I always found Shimizu delightful, but worked in Tokyo for about 12~15 years (depending on how you count gaps), so I certainly can't criticize anyone for choosing that path!
If I had it all over to do again, I would probably choose a blend of Tokyo and Shimizu and Nagoya (maybe 3~4 years each?), but I really hate to move, so I probably end up with one and just stay there and hang out with yakuza in akachochin, because I fall into ruts of behavior.
EDIT: I have kind of a life-time pass, a marriage pass and a couple of kids that ended being able to be citizens, so it is surely a lot easier for me to come-and-go than it is for you - and I don't intend to be glib to the fact that you are probably trying to get a work visa (I started there!)
But it helps to take a step back from work emotionally sometimes. A typical career is 40 years and as long as you aren’t extremely lazy (which is like working 10hr/week, not just 40 or even 35) or rude you’ll do fine in your first job. Your real life isn’t waiting to start, it’s ticking along right now.
Just finished a parent transcript today. What came through loud and clear is that school from home is wicked hard for all kinds of people and that combining WFH and school from home is even more wicked hard. Parents are struggling with their kids' academic content (pre-calc? algebra?!). Kids are struggling with less structure. Everyone is struggling with limited bandwidth (literally and figuratively) and learning/working styles and the need for socialization are colliding in an unfortunate, constant way. For many, not all.
Looking forward to reviewing all the transcripts and compiling the findings. But if parents are any indication, it's gonna be a rough fall.
*Edit: Yes, I'm from New England. (wicked)
Some of the downsides of WFH that the article points out, like how our office coworkers incidentally become our social life (and now we don't have them), are also symptoms of larger issues that I don't think work should be tasked to solve. The social isolation of the youth (before Covid) and the dependency on an office for many people to make friends were already pretty depressing parts of our society.
But so was having to go to work to do a job that could be done anywhere. Like everyone always talks about wanting to retire so they can finally hang out on the beach year round, but WFH is what lets you do that. It doesn't need to be a distant dream anymore for when you're old. I get that people were suddenly tossed into the deep end of WFH due to Covid instead of given a choice, and that many people aren't cut out for it.
But this kind of coverage also goes too far, I think, in a world where we were always forced to go to an office. I was looking for a job last year, and I had to search high and low for a remote job. For example, almost all the job posts on HN want you to come into an office. I was unsuccessful finding remote work in my more traditional search and fortunately found a good remote job through my social circle.
Office jobs have a certain stability and, even more important, familiarity. But I think that familiarity can be confused with an assumption that it's the way things should be.
For example, I agree that a future where most jobs are WFH will have to consider a solution for helping us find a productive way to work (like giving us a private office in a coworking space or letting us choose a stipend to set up a home office). But also consider how depressing it is to clutch on to office work because it gives you an escape from your children—it's really not a quality of the office work itself that you're after, but somewhat of an incidental upside that can (and should) be replicated in a culture of WFH.
What I mean to say is that I see a lot of office-work praise for what's actually incidental advantages of office-work (that should definitely be replicated outside of office-work), and it would be a damn shame if we as a society use those incidental benefits to damn WFH and regress back to the more or less office-work-only society from which we came.
I hope we find a good 50/50 middle ground where people have a choice.
The only reason my job became remote work in the first place is because the parent corporation was trying to cut costs everywhere and reducing its real estate footprint and closed our office.
Most of the offices they closed they just laid everyone off, but we had enough business that didn't transfer well to other departments that they let us keep working remotely.
I was willing to go in to work a couple of days a week when I was looking for a new job, but I was not eager to do it every day again. Between the commute and the hassle and cost of having to take our dogs to and from doggy daycare everyday it didn't seem worth it, especially when I knew I could do my job from home just fine.
I'm glad the pandemic normalized WFH a bit more and I don't want to see everything revert back to 'you gotta physically be in work, each and every day' once we're past it. It's fine if being in an office is an option again, sure, but I don't want it to be the only option.
Also, I feel like I have to speak up about my preferences on HN whenever this comes up because it seems like the majority of people are pushing for everything to go back to in-person, and I don't want people to assume everyone thinks that way.
Hit this on the head. Since I've started working remotely, ~1 year before the pandemic, I've really seen my diet improve. I eat clean. Fresh vegetables and grains are much cheaper than food truck/restaurants. I do put in hours though, but I haven't timed it. I usually can pull off cooking during my lunch break or during the 2-3 monthly all staff meetings I have where I don't do any talking.
What really baffles me about all of this is how full the fast food drive thrus are when I go about on errands.
To say working from home results in a lost generation is excessive, almost to absurd. It is beneficial to some people and harmful to others regardless of financial or familial situations.
Furthermore that opinion only makes sense in a vacuum, such as for people who do nothing else and are limited to a single job solely focused upon writing software. Once your professional experience has broadened a bit absolutes like this subject become more clear for the limitations that they are.
If you are young and new in your career, I don’t see how it could not stunt your career or lead to being an “expert beginner” without getting feedback.
This definitely happened to me for the first decade of my career. Not working remotely, working either as a sole developer or working with two or three other self taught developers who had been with the company forever.
As a self-taught developer I promise you it never stunted my skills, and most probably made me a much stronger developer. I have been a professional developer for 12 years (10 of those as a senior) and during that time I have spent 4 years on military deployments overseas and another 1 year in a military school. As a result of intense self-training away from the corporate world I have learned to become a stronger and more independent developer than most of my peers.
When you are writing software on a small netbook traveling around Afghanistan with no internet you have to learn to be self-reliant, portable, efficient, and cheap with system resources. Given the right set of expectations and personality you just figure it out. Based on this perspective its my thought expert beginners are precisely so because they are too reliant on social reinforcement over original decisions.
As far as “original decisions”. How do you know that your “original decisions” are the best ones? How do you know that you are reinventing the wheel by taking advantage of the experience of the broader community that has already solved the problem you are trying to solve?
A senior developer could just be someone who outlasted everyone else at a company - that is the definition of an expert beginner.
I was a “senior developer” in 2008 working at the same company for nine years with two other “senior developers” who were self taught. I was also spending a non insignificant amount of time doing VB6 six years after it had been abandoned by MS, Perl and didn’t use source control.
I also “learned how to be independent”. That was actually a detriment when I first worked at a large company with a team and didn’t have the social skills to get my ideas adopted by the rest of the team, didn’t have the lack of ego to listen to others, and got PIPd for not being a team player.
You know when you are solving a given technical problem. With practice your solutions become more refined with increased performance.
> A senior developer could just be someone who outlasted everyone else at a company - that is the definition of an expert beginner.
I don’t believe those are the preferred or common definitions. Independence is not related to arrogance.
Whether those are common definitions, someone who lasts a company for years gets to be a “senior developer”.
I knew an “architect” who was the first developer at a startup, who had been there for over a decade and as the company grew, he got promoted as newer people cane in. He made every mistake in the book of an “expert beginner”. Writing bespoke unmaintainable ORMs and logging frameworks, and treating a database as a queue, etc.
I was optimizing assembly language in middle school by counting clock cycles in the 80s on my 65C02 (ie the 74 in my username).
Was I a “senior developer” in 8th grade because I knew how to make my assembly language programs 33% faster by reading a writing from the 1st page of memory and using branch instructions instead of JMP instructions?
I was writing inline x86 assembly in the early 2000s when I looked at the decompiled assembly and I knew I could squeeze some performance out of it.
You know what I didn’t know because I thought I was so smart and didn’t learn from other people?
I didn’t know the ecosystem of my chosen platform so I would know what I shouldn’t write at all and just pull down from Nuget or the package manager of the platform I was using.
I didn’t know when I should build versus outsource because it didn’t add business value and wasn’t what gave us an “unfair advantage”.
I didn’t know how to mentor junior developers to be a force multiplier.
I didn’t know how to make choices that was best for the team or the business.
I didn’t know how to talk to end users to solve XYProblems.
I didn’t have the social skills to know how to “disagree and commit”.
Writing the wrong thing “optimally” is not the definition of a senior developer.
For me it meant getting a house and setting aside a specific bedroom to be an office. I do use it for hobby activities but those uses are easily put away at the start of the work day. It's not used as a spare bedroom for visitors.
There are also certain security issues that employees and employers are going to need to come to an understanding on now that remote work is getting more common. Some discussions should not be able to be overheard by spouses, roommates, friends, or if your walls are thin enough, neighbors. So far there seems to be very little discussion around the security side of things, likely because everyone knows for most of those suddenly thrust into remote work, there's only a limited amount they can do about it right now.
Even at a wider, multi-group level, we are able to address issues of innovation and serendipity by creating time and space for them. One of the best tricks is encouraging lots of small presentations on non-work or semi-work topics followed by lots of open ended conversation. People show up by mutual interest outside of their project based work and talk. I run a book club roughly themed to application development and every session I meet new people from across the org and exchange ideas. Some of these contacts have resulted in valuable insights for later projects. Volunteer projects and hackathons can serve a similar purpose.
These are just examples and we are hardly perfect, but I if the projections of an massive increase in WFH bear out at all, you'll see culture adapt to it as well- people will get better at socializing on screen, feel more free to ping with questions, and will find these alternate avenues to collaborate. I'm less confident that society outside of work will adapt as well, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a long term increase in young people continue to live with extended family or social clubs.
This makes borders the most impactful form of discrimination.
Of course a lot of people in wealthy countries are not so happy with remote work (but offshoring cobalt mining is ok)
There's certainly some people near either extreme -- from those whose mood, productivity, health plummets when away from a social/work environment, to those who could happily go weeks or months with minimal human interaction, and whose productivity soars when they set their own schedules and can control & minimise interactions and interruptions.
Apart from a tacit acknowledgement that people are not required to be in an office 5 days a week, I am hopeful that this pandemic will lead more workplaces to embrace and accommodate that spectrum, facilitating environments and conditions that will better suit - well, ideally everyone, but I'll take 'more people than before'.
So others do that too?
I understand that most people are working for a company so others tell her what to do after school when they also train you what to do and you are micromanaged all the time.
The article portrays that you need your boss to create your social circle for you.
People do not see that as the enormous opportunity that it is.
For example, before I worked remote I used to spend two hours every day commuting. I risked my life on the road with truck drivers and other carriers that were always late, stressed and dangerous. That also required my own money in gas and car repairs, expensive clothing...
Most people at the office were not my friends, they were coworkers, and because I spent so much time there I had no time for seeing my real friends and family. I was also exhausted all the time, because I did not sleep enough.
Working remote is amazing for me now(it was tough at first) and it could be for a lot of people is only they learn to grasp the opportunity.
Take control of your own life, you will have to go against the training of the school days that is pervasive, school took years of your live. It will take you years to undo this training. Make your own group of friends, lovers. Sleep and eat well. Exercise. Invest on your skills.
The article portrays young people as victims, and it is quite the opposite, they are the ones that can adapt and learn and grow.
I went to Russia and most old people had a hard time working in a capitalist society because they grew up in a State that did everything for them, so as young people they did not developed the skills to make things on their own. If you actually tried , you were strongly punished.
But young people are adaptable. When I was young and started working remotely very few people did, so I had to learn on the go. Today it is much better and easier.
Be proactive, refuse being a victim, if you have problems with working remote create a club, a mail list or whatever for other people in your same situation. Learn from people that have made it.
But don't be a victim. We will be having covid for at least 5 to 6 months more in the north Hemisphere. You can spend that time doing something about it, learning and improving your skills or just complain all the time.
After everything goes back to normal, most people will not do remote work 100%, but odds are they will do 30%, 40, or 50%, and their live will improve as a result if you have gotten the skills.
It's perfectly reasonable to miss direct interactions with coworkers, and there's nothing wrong with being friends with your coworkers. Video chats really aren't comparable for most people.
It's perfectly reasonable to be frustrated that you're stuck in a crowded apartment with roommates and no office space. The WFH change happened virtually overnight for many people.
It's perfectly reasonable to be fearful that a junior contributor's career may stall during this. Most companies' cultures weren't built around this system, so it's pretty rational to expect companies to struggle recognizing junior employees.
Obviously people can and will adjust, but criticizing an imperfect system is the only way it will improve - it's not a sign of weakness.
Once we are past the pandemic you can still work from home and 1) schedule periodic lunches or in-person meetings with coworkers that live in the area, and 2) go out and make friends with other people outside of work, possibly people you would get along with better and want to spend more time with anyway
I know you can, because I was already working from home for two years before the pandemic, and that's what I did. You can't do those two things right now, but that's a pandemic-specific thing, not an inherent fault of WFH.