Hacker News Reader

Comment by Levitz | Hacker News Reader

Assuming that there are no differences in productivity, working on-site is borderline morally evil.

It's unhealthier (loads of sleep deprivation out there), it's bad for the environment and its costs are higher. We can argue all day if the perks of in-person work are worth the cost, but if there aren't any perks besides "I just prefer it that way" I don't think there is even a valid discussion to have. We are talking some of the largest CO2 reductions possible from the average fellow together with more free time, less usage of infrastructure and possibly changes in the housing market.

A corporation doing this "just because" is comparable to a corporation purchasing mattresses to burn them in an open field "just because"

View on HN

I love remote work but I don't know if I'd call it morally evil to have people on site. There's something to be said for being in the same physical space as your peers and the social bonds that form, etc.

But the only way I commute now is by train and/or bike, most commutes to some godawful office park hellscape in San Jose are agony.

> There's something to be said for being in the same physical space as your peers and the social bonds that form

indeed it seems that effective remote only work requires a more coherent team or more formalized processes.

"Net negative" is a more neutral way to put it. The way it's stated, if there is no productivity benefit and the employee doesn't like going to the office, then it's a loss for the employee and no gain for the employer. Overall a net loss in utility, no weightings needed in that example.

I see stories of people who have worked remote at a company for a year or so, and still have yet to see the faces of any of their coworkers. I get that dev work has a disproportionate amount of basement dwellers, but man, that is still so crazy to me.

For what it's worth I can have interesting, fulfilling relationships and friendships with people I only know online, both in and out of a work setting. But it is fun to hang out in person.

I haven't met a single one of my coworkers. About 4 of them are scattered around the US, the rest are in Europe, India and Southeast Asia.

Assuming that there are no differences in productivity, working remotely is borderline morally evil. It's unhealthier (loneliness, lack of work/life separation, physical inactivity), it's bad for the environment (climate control of a 100-people office is less energy intensive than that of 100 individual homes), and its costs are imposed on the worker rather than the business.

To be clear, I don't honestly believe the previous paragraph. I'm just using it to illustrate how one can pull out a "just so" story to argue the exact opposite that you're doing. I believe your argument is flawed in that makes a universal condemnation supported by generalisations based on local specifics.

I work in a company which, for all intents and purposes, allows its employees to be almost fully remote and yet a significant number of us actively choose to come to the office (partly motivated by things like free brunches from office management). The overwhelming majority of workers come to the office on foot, on public transport, by bike, or by electric scooter, and a tiny few come by motorbike. How is that "borderline morally evil"?

I agree with your example paragraph. I think it is only beneficial for highly motivated senior engineers with families to work remotely. As a junior who doesn't know what I'm doing half of the time and feels demotivated without support, and as a single young person without a family that got cut off from building a community because of COVID, when I have worked mainly remotely I've been severely depressed. Not seeing people or leaving my house for most of the week makes me want to die not work harder.

Well said. When I share a similar perspective some people seem to assume I'm extremely extroverted, or don't have friends or hobbies outside of work. I'm not very extroverted and I do have a full life outside of work. I still prefer a decent office to WFH, which makes me feel extremely isolated after awhile.

Yeah, I'm not extremely extroverted either which is an issue because trying to make sure I reach the minimum amount of socialising I need to not tank my mental health is quite hard for me when I'm expected to do it 100% by myself. When you have a life at the office, you have a certain amount of passive social interaction and I think that's actually easier for people who are a bit shy. I certainly have a few friends left from uni and hobbies outside work, but trying to make new friends without any settings where you meet every day is quite hard imo. And I do not have as many friends as I would like so it feels hopeless for me. Or it did until I joined a sociable workplace with compulsory office time and other young people.

GP implicitly assumed a large portion of cost is commute by car beside the general time/happiness cost.

For one, one would need to look into how many car commutes are avoidable to more precisely quantify the species-level irrationality of fossil-powered forced cramming of office towers inside cities day-in-and-out.

I'm sure it's all been done...

Commuting by car on daily basis is the most dangerous activity most people do.

- risk of accidents

- sitting longer hours, leading to loss of muscle tone etc

- inhaling particulate from engines and tires

This stuff builds up over time. The decrease in life expectancy is real.

I work on-site, and #1 and #2 of your argument do not apply to me. You forgot to define preconditions. You are finger-pointing at those which work on-site and have a relatively high distance between home and work. I walk to my workplace, which is healthy and does not produce any CO2. And I am not loosing sleep, because I walk 10 minutes. Just because you dont like a thing doesn't mean you thought it through.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com