Hacker News Reader

Comment by epgui | Hacker News Reader

The opposite position could just as well be said to rest on the opposite assumption.

Well, actually the status-quo was already challenged and proved to be "wrong" during 2 years of pandemic. Companies did not collapse because white-collars worked remotely. If your business was positively impacted by the pandemic, they actually thrived and expanded (even too much). So it is safe to assume that, while being different, remote work is not detrimental to a white-collar company, and more specifically to companies based on software.

Your standard for productivity is 'not collapse'?

Not collapsing was an hyperbole. Many companies went in real hypergrowth phase, with 100% remote workforce.

The burden of proof is much higher on remote work. The entire history of civilization from hunter-gatherers to 2019 was built largely with in-person work. If companies are going to make a permanent change to the way work is done, they will need affirmative proof that the new way works better than the old way, otherwise the much more tried-and-true old way is a much safer bet.

This is empirical, but I have yet to hear the cause for failure of a company to be “we worked remotely”. Otoh, hearing that operating expenses were too high, no product market fit, tech debt, etc are the usual culprits across remote and in office companies.

It's a fallacy to not having any data to back up the incumbent method. "People have drunk alcohol since prehistoric times, so why should people stop now and be sober?". Both sides need to have ample proof.

Well, in the entire history of civilization most people used to work at home, and not at some other place. Offices aren't part of human nature.

For most of human history people worked together in person, as tribes! (I think this is at least part of the reason companies so heavily push the "we are your family" meme, trying to artificially create that original level of collectivism and aligned incentives.)

Why does it need to be better? Here's my PoV: I want it, and frankly rely on it at this point, and employers want to hire me. If someone was really worth less working remotely, it could be factored into salary. Lo and behold though, I accomplish the same, or possibly more now than, as I ever did, and my salary has not plummeted. Quite the opposite.

Again, I want to reiterate: if it really made workers worth less, it could be factored into salary. It's not about that. It's about something else that has to do with management and control.

Don't get me wrong, I am not doubting for a minute that remote work has challenges, but that's the thing. We had to work those out. Security, compliance, VPNs, beyond corp, whatever... We already HAD to do it. The only reason now to discard that would be sabotage.

Sure, I don't have any opposition to companies offering it, or employees demanding it -- supply and demand will take care of that. I'm talking about whether I believe we should be making an effort as a society to push the market in one direction or the other.

Oh, well I'd agree with that position.

I think an assumption that I have is that the balance of supply/demand may be prejudiced against remote work, because it takes time for people to accept or be open to new ways of doing things.

> The entire history of civilization from hunter-gatherers to 2019 was built largely with in-person work

Not surprising, given remote work didn't exist for 99% of that time period.

> they will need affirmative proof that the new way works better than the old way

If they couldn't find enough evidence during the last few years they have bigger problems than the choice between remote and office work.

I think the burden of proof is not that high.

I agree that status quo and stability have at least some non-zero probative value, but you have to acknowledge that the status quo only exists because the dinosaurs didn't document their prehistoric internet well enough, so our ancestors had to rediscover the concept of a zoom meeting.

(Edit: obviously I wrote this in jest, but in all seriousness, when considering the value of "how it's always been done" it's extremely important to consider how we happened to stumble upon the status quo, with a holistic and historical bird's eye view. This is consequential to the analysis.)

From personal experience, I am MUCH happier getting out of the house a couple of times a week. Lockdowns felt like house arrest, and commuting 5 days a week felt completely unnecessary and exhausting.

For many people I know this is the case, so I don't think pure remote or location work are "it".

Remote work doesn't force you to stay in your house all week.

I work 100% remote with semi-flexible hours and a big part of this is the freedom to leave my house and do things during the day, like meet up with friends, or go exercise while the sun is out in winter etc.

> From personal experience

That's nice for you.

From personal experience on the other hand {statement of preference}

> For many people I know this is the case,

You guys can go to office together, and leave the rest of us out of this?

> From personal experience, I am MUCH happier getting out of the house a couple of times a week.

You can still do that. My friend rented an office a five minute walk from his home - it costs him 3% of his salary.

Yes, I live near a large park. I walk/run there every day, but the point is, the routine of doing everything alone (walking, shopping, working, eating) starts grinding on you.

> I walk/run there every day, but the point is, the routine of doing everything alone (walking, shopping, working, eating) starts grinding on you.

That's a completely different issue from remote vs in-person work. You should learn to be comfortable being alone/by yourself, especially as a man.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com