Here’s a direct quote:
Then there are people who work mainly to get paid and do not care to invest themselves beyond what is necessary.
(I added the italics for emphasis.)
Then there are people who work mainly to get paid and do not care to invest themselves beyond what is necessary.
(I added the italics for emphasis.)
And what does that have to do with preferring to work from home?
It's almost comical the implication that those same people, pre-COVID, weren't going to the office and phoning it in.
IMO the two topics--being... I dunno... not ambitious, and working from home--are entirely orthogonal concepts. And the implication that people who advocate for wfh options are more likely to "not care to invest themselves" is, charitably, misguided.
If anything, wfh makes it possible for more people to achieve their professional goals since the labour market has opened up significantly for folks in other geographies, or who might have restrictions in their personal life (e.g. being a caregiver, having disability, etc) that make commuting a significant barrier.
> What exactly is wrong with that, or why do you think the OP implies there is something wrong with that?
Because the OP goes on to say:
I always saw tech as the field where a disproportionally large amount of people truly love what they do. Mostly, because it takes so much grit and persistence to get good at it that most people wouldn't succeed unless they see something in it beyond putting food on the table.
It's clear they view "grit" and "persistence" as virtues, and "not [caring] to invest themselves beyond what is necessary" as a vice.
Frankly, this smells pretty strongly of hustle culture, and I've had more than enough of that.
And again, I wouldn't want to force anyone to come to the office. I am merely asking for other people's opinions.
I ask because, right here, you're tying "[caring] about the fun and meaning [of your work hours]" to working in an office. And I honestly just don't see the connection.
Can you say more about that?
My question goes more in the direction of: For me personally, the communal and social aspect of occasionally sitting in the same room with the team I'm building software with has always given me a lot. And I have experienced recently that loads of people will not even take a 20 minute commute once a week to have some few meetings face-to-face because they apparently don't even see the slightest addition in value from that. I can't really wrap my head around it (because I obviously have an orthogonal viewpoint here) and was trying to get more insight into this way of thinking.
Look, I'm a pretty extroverted, social guy, and as a senior manager, the vast majority of the problems I need to solve involve high bandwidth, 1:1 communication because the problems I solve are people problems first and foremost.
So obviously, for me, in my role, face-to-face interactions have a ton of value!
But I absolutely recognize that a lot of other roles are not the same.
When I look back at my days as a developer, I spent a lot of time in the same room with people! And 80% of that time, our headphones were on and we were banging away coding while interacting digitally. Sure, we'd often pop those headphones off to have those high-bandwidth problem solving conversations, but the vast majority of time those conversations were 1:1 discussions, and could have easily been had over virtual meeting tools like Zoom or Teams.
That's the reality for a lot of individual contributors.
Just because you can't wrap your head around that, doesn't mean that experience is invalid.
Wasn't it saying that such people likely prefer WFH, (and not the converse) ?
> It's almost comical the implication that
I don't think that implication is in the original text.