That introduces a host of new problems. Workers will likely have to leave their families behind for a week every 2 months. And where will they stay during office-week?
Yes, or they could continue to live locally. It's about more flexibility for what is the right choice for each family. I don't see this as a problem.
> And where will they stay during office-week? Hotel, AirBnb, corporate short-term housing? People travel for work all the time and it's not an issue. If hotel capacity becomes insufficient other solutions will pop up - like furnished apartment rentals. I don't see this as a large issue either.
MAYBE it makes things better for a handful of relatively rich, highly paid workers/companies who don't mind spending significant time away from their families/homes, are happy to travel and who are willing to spring for regular accommodation for their workers, but I think for most workers springing for an office at home would be widely preferable.
And I say that as someone who, pre-covid, had to do a couple of nights per couple-of-months away from my family because my employer's work was already distributed around the nation...(honestly, the travel was personally one of the worst aspects of my job, though I know other people loved it).
Now with covid, i'm bitten with the "not enough space at home" problem (though thank god we got an in-built study put in beforehand), but I no longer have to travel long distances or stay overnight at any of the interstate offices, which i personally find a blessing.
But i'd take the all-remote or "two days in" model in preference...
Also not to mention that flying even ONCE per year round-trip across the country will likely emit more carbon than a full year's worth of local commutes. Now multiply that by 6 for every 2 months.
Everything everyone says about greenhouse gas benefits of remote work just went out the window as soon as air travel is mentioned.
A longer commute will generate more, being stuck in traffic will generate more, building new roads will generate more. A flight that is not cross-Atlantic will generate much less.
It’s not clear which way the balance will tilt, but you can’t just make blanket statement that planes will be worse than cars - you have to show your math.
A round trip from JFK to FRA emits about 0.91 t (910 kg) CO2 but if you account for radiative forcing [1] it is equivalent to 1.62 t (1620 kg) [2].
That's not to mention multiplying all these figures by 6 (for every 2 months), so that's 9720 kg.
I don't think it's a wash.
[0] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1006/ML100621425.pdf
2. Few people will move form US to Germany. It's more likely someone will move e.g. from Portland to San Diego. 275kg roundtrip, 550kg adjusted for radiative forcing.
So if you fly 3 times per year it's a wash, if you fly 6 times a year it's double the CO2 emission.
One reason is that users frequently give corrective upvotes (https://hn.algolia.com/?query=corrective%20upvote&dateRange=...), which leaves a complaint like this dangling as uncollected garbage.
Well, but that kind of criticism applies to anything and everything. For e.g. Do you also judge whether to buy a particular computer based on the amount of greenhouse gas or chemical pollutants in the supply chain that were caused due to its manufacture? Or do you also consider the fact that every-time you make a purchase it has to be put on a ship or a truck or a plane so that it gets to you? If you live in a remote area with low pop. density, there is more fuel being wasted bringing things to fewer people, etc, etc. Trying to reconcile Whats good for the planet vs Whats good for me/everyone is going to involve compromises.
But the point is that you are now also flexible to go live wherever you want.
And now, they have to live in a very expensive area and have to work from home except for a week every two monts?
A bit like working from home helps with "deep work" away from the office, being at home with partner off on some travel helps with "deep home", to really appreciate a quiet place, and be full of love and welcome when they come back.
I fully agree with this, though I'd prefer it be more on a voluntary basis, e.g. by travelling alone from time to time, having a couple of hobbies separate from your partner, and friends that you hang out with. Not forced upon you by work.
Being forced to be away from your partner 25% of the time by work is a bit much, unless you're a travelling consultant or flight attendant or something.
Yes, and its generally considered one of the most unappealing aspects of those jobs. Its one thing when the job requires it, as is the case with the examples you gave. When it is completely avoidable as it would be with many of the white collar jobs that are the focus of this thread, it's a weak justification that long-distance truckers also have to put up with it.