Hacker News Reader

And I forgot to mention something - my productivity and my team's productivity have soared! I don't know why everybody else on my team is so much more productive but I know why I am: I play my guitar while thinking through something. For some reason playing music leads to insights I otherwise wouldn't have had. I keep my guitar within arm's reach of my desk and pick it up and play for a couple minutes every so often throughout the day. Try doing that at the office!

Oh wait, one guy tried. One of our best developers brought his guitar to the office because he said it helped him think. He did what I'm now doing (he was my inspiration actually!) and was soon asked to leave his guitar at home. They didn't give two shits what it did to help his productivity. No one on the team complained either because they always wore headphones. Seems as though a busybody walking by the team space thought somebody playing guitar at work wasn't "professional." All management said was they had received "complaints."

Yeah, screw that.

> One of our best developers brought his guitar to the office because he said it helped him think.

That would drive me insane. Headphones or not. But I totally get it! Working remote means I get to do all kinds of things that would probably annoy someone in an office, but help me think or concentrate.

> All management said was they had received "complaints."

that always means from other managers

Are you looking for a fully remote job then?

There's the kicker. We're going to be seeing how much people actually value remote work. Will you take the $300k "in-office culture" Amazon job, or the $200k fully-remote job.

I'm firmly in the remote work camp, you couldn't pay me enough to commute. It would not only ruin my day, but I would be part of the traffic congestion problem (for people who are causally required to be at their worksite).

I still feel like alot of people are going to value WFH even if it means making less. I've only recently experienced this, but there comes a point where you start to value time over extra money.

For the longest time I always chased the job that paid the most, all else be damned. But as I've made more and more, the amount of extra $$ required for me to move has only gone up.

Recently turned down several offers from companies that offered an extra $25k on my salary but required a drug test (I live in Colorado, I'll let that speak for itself) and in-office work. Each time I've asked myself whether the extra cash would be worth giving up the lifestyle that I currently have, a fairly easy going job where I have plenty of time to peruse outdoor activities. The answer has so far been a consistent NO.

I'd rather make $200k and be happy than make $300k and be miserable.

Apparently, intel acquired the DEC CPU design team, and wanted them to take drug tests. At the same time, AMD wined and dined them.

Long story short, they refused to pee in cups, went to AMD and the result was either the Athlon XP or AMD 64. Either way, it was one of the generations that blindsided Intel, and led to lots of anticompetitive behavior.

The story isnt about them smoking pot, or whatever. It's about treating employees with respect.

I suspect mandatory return to office will create a few dozen of these stories.

Yeah, after having kids I would way rather make less money and work from home. Right now I'm wasting an hour a day that I should be spending with my girls before they are old enough to go to school. It's heartbreaking.

Exactly and progressive tax is just the nail in the coffin. I'm honestly shocked at how high my quality of life is right now on a £3k/month budget—for both me and my wife.

> Will you take the $300k "in-office culture" Amazon job, or the $200k fully-remote job.

I make way less than $200k, so yes please. Show me the 200k fully remote full stack web developer job.

Only problem is it has to be open to hiring me living in Canada.

Shopify probably is hiring.

There is no way they are paying 200k, even Canadian dollars.

I'm in the same boat. Pay me half of what a typical Google engineer makes and I'll still join, as long as I can be permanently remote. You'd have to pay me more to commute and another huge bump to compensate for being in an office.

Yes exactly. I'm fine with any company policy as long as it doesn't change every month. Then it's just one more criterion to select the offer you prefer, depending on your preferences.

I mostly am fully remote now. My team is meeting in-person one to two times per month. Honestly I see that dwindling to one or two times per quarter throughout the remainder of this year.

The biggest change for me is pre-pandemic I would never have considered fully remote work. Now I would.

I will never go back to an office in my life if I can do anything about it. Everything you described was a miserable part of every day of my working life before the pandemic. The most insulting part is the money: if you work 40h/wk and have a 30m commute, that's probably another 30m each way to change and pack, so at least 1h of extra time per day, for a total of 2h/day (IF you're lucky and your commute is ONLY 30m each way. imagine the people commuting 1-2h each way, like I once did). For 5 days in the office, 2h/day adds up to 10h/week, or an extra 25% of time spent on work. I doubt any company is going to offer you a 25% pay raise to compensate for the extra 25% of time that working in the office really costs you, let alone pay you on top of that 25% to compensate for the added miseries and discomfort of being in an office.

My commute is about 7 minutes and it's still too much. We need to drop everything we're doing and invent portal guns.

In my perfect world, my commute would be a 20 minute walk through a park, or along a beach. I actually had that once when I lived on a boat and walked to my favorite coffee shop along the beach. It's better than WFH.

Yeah. For me, it's much more about the commute than being in an office, especially if the in-office time is flexible. If I lived in a city and had a nice walk to an office, I would almost certainly go in fairly frequently.

Before I went to WFH, my commute was a 20 minute bike ride through a park, I really miss that part of my day.

I still ride my bike through there, but not nearly every day like I used to.

Plus the cost of commuting itself, be it a monthly transit pass or the cost of a vehicle, maintenance, wear and tear, fuel, insurance, parking etc.

So it's a massive cost to workers. Paying to work.

Of course, there's also the counterargument that WFH means you're paying to provision your own office space. To be fair, that argument mostly applies only if people don't have the option to come into an office. Otherwise, they're forced into paying to buy/rent a suitable workplace, pay any incremental utilities, etc. For people with houses, it's mostly not a big deal but if someone lives in a small studio it may be. Early on in the pandemic, this is what a fair number of people were complaining about.

This begs the question how effective remote work would be if society actually catered to it, rather than catering to mass transit to the city. Most arguments rely on the status quo of western society as a whole, and many still rely on the pandemic situation.

I'm not sure what "society" catering to it means exactly. To the degree that individuals can do their jobs remotely and they can reliably find companies willing to pay them to do so--which seems to be widely though hardly universally the case for "knowledge worker" roles today--they have the choice to move somewhere cheaper. Of course many, especially younger, folks like living in a larger city and that's a tradeoff they need to make.

It's hard to predict how things will play out. My guess is that there will be more remote and 3/4 days a week in office than there was before. But probably not the sort of radical transformation some people were predicting/hoping for. (To be fair, most surveys I saw, all along, suggested that 3 days or so in office was going to be the most common mode.)

> Otherwise, they're forced into paying to buy/rent a suitable workplace, pay any incremental utilities, etc

I view this as just the opposite side of the coin of being forced to live physically near where you work, so you can come into the office. Remote gives you more freedom here, though.

I think part of the reason people choose to live in overpriced studio apartments is to live closer to their workplaces.

The pandemic was an unusual circumstance for forced remote work. Normally people would have a lot more options for where they choose to do that work, be it at a cafe or coworking space or at a library or wherever else.

As for utilities, Canada at least is providing tax breaks for people working from home to help cover internet, electricity, etc. I've never gotten a commute subsidy from my government.

Excuses. If money is a problem, pack lunch. You can eat cold food and won't die. You can pack sandwiches. You can use a food warmer to keep your food warm. Eat breakfast before you leave, eat lunch at work, have some snacks in your bag. Your main cost will be transportation. Outside of that, wear the same old cloths as much as possible, do your own laundry if you have a washing machine. You will trade time for money. You will have to spend time cooking, packing lunch, washing cloths and ironing. That's a small price to pay if money is tight.

To be fair, unless you were hired as remote only then the salary you had negotiated before factored these work related costs into your total real compensation.

Back in the not so distant day when most were office dwellers, when considering competing offers the cost and time of the commute were always a factor, sometimes large.

Changes in the nature of work (office vs remote) as a result of the pandemic will take a little while to sort themselves out in terms of employee compensation, but that should give many people a lot of opportunities at new and different jobs too.

Do you happen to work in HR? I'm a little skeptical a compensation department or personnel would specifically factor in things like cost-to-commute and lunches in their offers pre-2020, just because the collective job market at the time already forced the compensation floor a bit higher to account for those costs.

Another note about remote vs in-person, and this is super inhumane, remote has far less of a loss of productivity.

No tidal waves of sickness, no "train was late, we can start the meeting in 15 minutes" ripples through schedules, no commute, shorter lunch breaks on average, more integration with someone's life (eg: only working at their peak productivity, producing the best work).

Not to mention how big of a benefit it would be if they split a portion of the former office rent between all employees as monthly or quarterly "office stipend". I balked when I found out dingy offices I worked in were costing about $1k / person / month.

Remote work in my opinion is a no-duh for everyone.

Let's see capitalism truly at work for once; if your business can't adapt, it should die.

> Remote work in my opinion is a no-duh for everyone.

If this is your take either you haven’t thought about it enough or you’re so pro-remote work you don’t care to think about it enough.

Feel free to lay out the counterarguments in your comment. Otherwise this is just a "nuh-uh, you're wrong".

After working remote for 3 years (I was lucky to start a remote job several months before the pandemic started), it certainly hasn't been without an adjustment period or some challenges but I would not want to go back to a "in the office 5 days a week" position. I could see coming in one day a week for sprint planning or some more collaborative tasks (meeting). I suspect that day would be a write-off for any "productive" coding/design tasks.

1. I live in a tiny apartment with a partner. 2 people working from home isn’t feasible in a 1-room apartment.

2. I enjoy physically separating my home life and my work life.

3. I don’t care about being that productive. It’s just work. I prefer to do it in an office.

4. I prefer speaking to people face to face in person.

In other words, what works for some doesn’t work for others. So the right choice for companies, that want to be competitive in the job market, is to be WFH flexible instead of making it a one-solution-fit-all choice that will annoy 50%.

Yes — remote work is not for everyone. Which was why I was refuting “Remote work in my opinion is a no-duh for everyone.”

And no. The right choice for “companies” is not to be WFH-flexible. The right choice for a company is the right choice for that company. If everyone there prefers office work, don’t be WFH-flexible.

If you are WFH flexible and everybody prefers to be in the office that still makes more sense than forcing everybody to be in the office. Companies that are not WFH flexible will be less competitive in the jobs market. It’s that simple.

> Companies that are not WFH flexible will be less competitive in the jobs market.

And those companies may care more about selecting for people who don’t want to WFH. They’ll be attractive to people who don’t want to work with people who want to WFH.

Personally, I’ll never work a remote job again.

Yep that makes sense. And personally I will never work for a company that isn’t WFH flexible. So hopefully there will be options for both of us to get what we want.

The challenge is that even one day/week frequency places fairly significant constraints on where you can live. It gives you some more flexibility; a "super commute" one day a week is probably fine. I couldn't/wouldn't do the 90 minute commute into the nearest major city (either by car or train) daily on an ongoing basis but I'd be fine doing it once a week. If the company would pay for it, you could potentially even fly in now and then.

People would also need to sync on the schedule. But it's certainly doable in some circumstances.