As we get more isolated in remote work, are there any diminishing returns which often not talked about? Any idea, how are these concerns for folks who are in or want to work for startups? How are WFH folks networking in bayarea?
I never used one, but the idea that it's a household name is just tone deaf. Most people probably know it best from the Hulu series about it's demise.
This is overlooked so often by (I am assuming) experienced, older engineers. And it's really a one-two punch for younger professionals.
One, they may not have the family at home to spend that time with. Of course, it's also wonderful to spend time alone, but if a person doesn't have a partner and wants a partner, they're going to get more value out of going to the office for several hours than reading a book for 15 minutes at home. It may be they don't/can't/won't date anyone at work directly, but at the very least they're building their social network - which, before dating apps, was THE best source of dating partners.
And punch number two is that networking is so, so important early to one's career. Sure, you can still reach out for references to people you worked with even if you never saw their face, but the connection is almost never as strong as with someone you meet day-to-day. Plus, social events mean you may meet people in their networks, etc.
I am not fighting for return-to-office. Work from home should always be an option for anyone who wants it, and should be the default for many jobs/companies.
However, it's a tricky situation, because if you're young and want to get the value of going in to the office, but 75% of your peers are WFH, well you're not actually getting much of that networking bonus. Then it becomes an issue of finding the right workplace - but again, that's so much harder for younger people or those earlier in their career (those overlap but are not 1:1).
People are inherently social and no workplace will ever be a strict meritocracy. Eschew small talk at your own risk!
I would like to think that should the default if you have a family.
The upside of having most of the big industry names in a relatively small geographic area is that you can't throw a stone in the bay without hitting someone working in tech. I've done as much networking, if not more, by just having a healthy social life versus going into the office.
I don't understand this comment. We're living in a world where the bulk of our social relationships have mostly an online component. Whether it is Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, slack, mastodon, WhatsApp, etc... It's all online. We search for jobs online. We have professional social networks.
And we're expected to believe that networking is either done in person or not at all?
Where did OP make this claim?
Not office relationships.
Networking with people in the same industry isn’t as effective as meeting people from a wider base that can exchange services and support each other.
Corporations are not “families”. Work colleagues are not your friends.
Sometimes they become that. But real community connection that isn’t judging you on your office work is far healthier!
Amazon just got rid of a 29 acre property that they paid $123m for, why wouldn’t other companies recognize savings from remote workers?
The lavish amenities of big tech were put there for a reason -- to get people to work more. Maybe secondarily for retention.
If you think that companies are going to look at declining productivity and think "hm, that's an acceptable tradeoff, since I'm paying less for office space!", then I'll take that bet.
Isn't this begging the question? I've never been as productive in an office as WFH. I know that's not everyone but I also know I'm not the only one.
Parent is asserting that even in a world where companies want employees in the office (i.e. the current world), they're going to cave on the matter because of the money they're saving on office stuff.
I guess I missed the decision that an in-office workforce is more productive than fully remote (I personally think that hybrid is bad for productivity, and companies should pick one or the other). There is certainly a lot of evidence and debate on both sides but no real proof one way or another.
And of course I am talking about knowledge workers, not surgeons or assembly line workers.
> What if it becomes clear across the industry that remote workers are first in line for convenience layoffs? Beyond reduced pay and benefit scenarios, I'm curious if reduced job security will be a price workers are willing to pay for WFH.
I grant you that it's not explicitly stated, but it's reasonable to assume that companies aren't just laying off productive workers out of sheer pettiness. Replying to GP with the premise reversed (as you did) implies that the cost/benefit equation is reversed as well.
The premise was that remote workers might be first in line for layoffs, no mention of productivity, and as you said, companies wouldn’t lay off more productive workers out of pettiness. So it’s fair to assume that the list of workers that are candidates to be laid off are already at the same level of productivity.
My comment was asking what if the opposite was true and if when it came time for layoffs, workers in the office were first in line because laying off office workers saves money in office space.
At no point did I say or imply that productivity would be ignored.
Right, and followed with a fairly archaic assumption that remote workers are inherently less productive.
I used to believe it too, so I get it.
But a lot of the resistance is less about productivity and more about sunk costs and not fully understanding a relatively new world. Work was done in the office exclusively for so long that it will be hard to change the way some people think about it.
Guess not.
This is really what you're going with?
You know it'd be perfectly fine if you just said "it's my opinion." It's certainly a whole lot less eye rolling than this story you're selling.
But you're clearly just blowing a lot of smoke. You don't have that data.
Not supplying any actual support was a tip-off, but there's little doubt once you started with snark "Real life is not Reddit, sometimes you need to use your brain to figure things out and get ahead" (real quote, not made up) and then trying to project it onto me.
Like I said, I don't care if your answer is "it's just my opinion that WFH is less productive" or "I've heard about data" but you don't have anything to support what you're claiming.
And doing the "you're mad" thing is the last refuge for a broken argument. Do better.
I do think this is something that is identified in aggregate, however. Maybe you can't attribute the loss in productivity to individual employees, but you definitely notice if projects start taking a lot longer than they used to.
After all, we're in a thread about Amazon selling an Office to save money.
From the article:
"The Bay Area’s office market has been hit hard over the past two years, as companies pivoted to remote work and gave up real estate to cut costs."
It looks like remote work is not being singled out. In fact, it's pointed out as a cost saver.
What makes you believe that remote workers are first in line for convenience layoffs?
I’m not saying hit on coworkers, having coworkers increases the entropy of activities after work and their additional social circles. but yes, also hitting on coworkers happens without incident too
And the worst part is that it wouldn't have to be my fault at all, and it wouldn't even require somebody to do something extraordinarily reckless. Driving too fast through my neighborhood is typical, because it happens to offer the shortest path from A to B for many people, and the road is wide thanks to bike lanes that I have never seen bikes in (because: cars drive too fast). I'll cut myself off here before this becomes an overly long screed.
I feel for all the folks that work at a place that implemented a hybrid model because I don't see that working ever if some people are in the office and some are permanently remote. I bet collaboration and feeling of togetherness suffers. When everyone's remote, you have to adjust your processes and ceremonies to account for that.
Just curious about your mindset on this. I would love to find myself at a spot where I’m working 4 days a week, but not interested in doing 10 hour days.
By the way, I do understand that most people, including myself, would probably have a greater fraction of productive hours of work working 4/32 than 5/40. Not sure if many employees would recognize that though.
I would take an 80% pay cut for a 1 day/8 hr workweek in a heartbeat (the industry is remarkably inflexible and I ended up having to do a 100% paycut for 0 workdays and I'm happy with that too).
I take time off during the week for "appointments" at the park for precisely that reason - it's almost impossible to get a relaxing hike at some of my favorite trails on a saturday or sunday.
The flipside is that it's much easier to hang out with your friends on weekends, because most of them are also probably off. So having a little of both is best.
Screw a pay cut the company should be increasing my salary so they can reduce spending on office space. Except they likely get tax benefits on a lease so that’s not happening.
I want to say I am participating in less gossip, less pointless meetings and less ass-kissing rituals. To me, personally, this counts as a major win. What I certainly do not generate is more 'spontaneous collaboration" that various executives are quick to trot out, but.. I never have beforehand either.
We should theoretically expect WFH compensation to asymptotically approach getting paid (prorated per head cost of office space) more.