Hacker News Reader

Comment by dagw | Hacker News Reader

Using a significant chunk of my own salary each month to pay for something I used to get for free (and that my employer should provide) hardly seems like the ideal solution.

View on HN

I would rather pay a few hundred dollars for a private space and have control over my time/work hours, than be forced to physically commute to an office. Time > money.

In my experience, most decent employers have a stipend for co-working anyway.

But I already have control over my work hours. I don't have to work 9-5 as long as I work 37.5 hours a week. My commute is at worst 25 minutes with car (at best 15 minutes if no traffic).

I can easily get up at 6 go workout for 1-1.5h then drive to work when the morning rush is gone.

This is perhaps why many people look at the drive to lower the salary of people working from home with some suspicion. Wfh saves employers a lot of money in terms of providing office space. And in some concrete ways increases expenses of employees at home. (If gives back some commute costs as well as other freedoms too though). I think both employers and employees will take some time to sift though how the benefits/drawbacks rebalance from the changes that come from wfh.

I can get some co-working spaces that look infinitely better than the office I was going to for $480/mo. For a dedicated desk with locking storage, etc.

I'm saving at least $400/mo just on parking and gas right now.

Even if my employer wouldn't reimburse anything (never asked), I'd eat the $80/mo to save myself 2-3 hours a day commuting.

depending upon where you are located and your method of commute, it's likely you're spending more per month commuting than you would on a local co-working space.

This is the case for a large proportion of people in the South East of the UK.

It's about the same cost as commuting, so no difference!?

let your company pay for it. they dont need the big office space. thats how we do it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com