Working from home can bring big health benefits, study finds | Hacker News Reader

Working from home can bring big health benefits, study finds

theguardian.com

65 pointsBerislavLopac72 comments

> “In the old days of office working, people realised that if you put everyone in the same room with no sound-proofing, it was all unpleasant and you didn’t have a very productive workforce,” he said.

Did they? The trend I've seen my entire career has been finding new ways to pack more people into less space, damn the drawbacks. To the point that a common theme on here is lamenting the death of cubicles.

> lamenting the death of cubicles.

I’m too young to have worked in cublicles but man, each time I see pictures of them, I don’t get why they were so unpopular. I’ve never had so much room for my stuff and so much privacy during my career in open-spaces (except of course WFH).

I’m amazed at how nobody understands that open-spaces are awful to do a job that requires focusing.

I think the reaction is in comparison to having a private office. Though truth be told, everywhere I've worked with offices, the norm has always been open door policy unless you were on the phone or otherwise needed some privacy or maybe heads down time. It was never typical for people to go the day with their door shut and would have been remarked on.

From 1997-2001 I worked in a glorious place where everyone had an office with a door and a window. Indeed, the doors were mostly open, but they opened onto corridors, meaning it was [by overwhelming] default quiet in the offices.

I have the same experience. Where I worked the offices were 2-person offices, and this worked very good for mentor-student environment, or when 2 ppl had to crack a really tough nut. The doors were also mostly open, and the corridors were quiet and peaceful. If you wanted to chitchat etc you would walk to the social area with a coffee machine, the lunch setup etc.

It was really nice, and if I ever have to go back to an office, this is how I would like it to be again. Otherwise I continue my working from home.

I worked for a very small company for almost 10 years. For about half that time I had a spacious office that overlooked a river. From a scenery perspective even better than my home office which is nicely appointed but doesn't have much of a view although it's in the country.

I think at the time they were mostly perceived as a downgrade from individual or duo offices that office workers may have expected at the time. Coming from the bullpen offices we have now cubicles are great, coming from having a room with a door you can close and window to outside they are strictly worse.

A lot of this is obviously perceived prestige too, but degrees of (mostly unstated) prestige have always been part of the compensation packages of white collar professionals.

As someone who worked in old fashioned cubicles for over 10 years, I think the prestige was definitely part of it. Outside of executive suite, as I recall it, very few offices had windows. In fact, more cubicles probably had some natural light than most offices did.

The great irony is that open-space offices (or cubicle'd spaces) were to preserve flexibility in case one wanted to use the space for something other than offices in the future. Now that we actually need that flexibility to convert those offices into residential space, we're told it's impossible so none of the flexibility ever mattered anyway.

> nobody understands that open-spaces are awful to do a job that requires focusing.

The people making the decisions don’t have jobs that require this level of focus, and can’t even imagine what a job like that is like (or at worst, they just want the geeks to stop complaining and deal with it, because if you really were that smart you’d be the boss making the decisions).

> The people making the decisions don’t have jobs that require this level of focus

Most of the time they either have their own office, or work from home. Thus not feeling the pain of the open floorplan setup.

You’re missing the point. It’s that the type of work they do does not require hours of deep focus. They’re doing things like having calls, sending emails, and making PowerPoints. All of that are things that happen in short bursts and aren’t affected by lack of prolonged focus.

If there’s one thing people on HN need to realize about this topic, it’s that not everyone has the same type of job and therefore the impact of RTO is very different depending on the job.

They know this quite well.

What you are arguing about is if they care enough to do something about it.

At some point our society-breaking universal presence of principal agent problems is going to break our society. It's absurd that it didn't already, and people have been observing that absurdity been absurd for some good 50 years at minimum. But assuming the problem doesn't exist this late on the game is hard-core cognitive dissonance.

Things have gone through cycles. In the early 80s when I interviewed with Boeing everyone except managers were in big open rooms with desks. The company I ended up working for, everyone had offices.

Then there was the high-wall cubicle phase. More recently things have gone through variants of open and semi-open plan.

The nice thing about cubicles were their abilities to absorb sound. That made headphones optional. Conversations in the next cube could be had that kept the noise down to a minimum for the neighbors.

But also, and you had a semi-permanent place to do work. So you could effectively show some personality on the walls, if you wanted. One person was learning Mandarin at the time and had a poster of common characters -- which was cool.

I went to work for an open concept that exposed concrete for a couple of years. It was very anti worker. Conversations 2 rows over were heard clearly as it would reflect off the concrete. There was always a constant level of noise in the environment. Most people just brought in headphones when they wanted to buckle down and work.

They did and it's been known for a while. That wasn't lost on the productivity side of the equation. The other side is the cost side. The cost side often won out.

Peopleware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopleware:_Productive_Project... was first published back in '87 and had a long list of references back then on previous studies.

> The cost side often won out.

I was in two offices in the past decade where they renovated an office to make it more open. Other than burning down a budget in one case, the renovations had no purpose other than opening up the office. They didn’t even make room for more people

Workers did. Management didn’t. Or maybe they did, because they kept their private offices.

There was no suggestion that anything was done about it. Had to consider the cost of space vs headcount growth vs loss of productivity. Anecdotally, I never had a problem with open office environments, but understand why they suck.

In 5-10 years I predict there while be tons of mental health articles about how WFH is killing us. Less social life. Less relationships. Less friends. I'd prefer my 8 hours at work to be fun. It's not when I'm at home alone. I get that some people hate their co-workers. I've been lucky I guess.

It really depends.

It sounds like in your case those things (friends, etc.) Are work focused. That's the case for many folks.

In my case my friends are mostly not work focused. I have tons of friends I made at work, but work is not the primary way in which I engage with them.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that my experience is exactly the opposite.

When I work from home I see my friend who runs the local Cafe, I see my friend for lunch, I spend more quality time with my wife and family, and chosen friends.

Work from home is not like Stephen King style, a lone warrior in a cabin in the middle of the woods.

Some people get their community from work, some don't. That is not dependent on work from home or not, it's a conflating metric.

Much like iancmceachern, my experience is the opposite of yours. The office forces me into human interactions I wouldn't have chosen of my own free will, and WFH significantly increases the time I spend on relationships that matter, those I've chosen. A lot of it has to do with living in a dense urban area and cultivating a circle of friends that I can meet with little to no planning.

I think it's got a lot to do with one's personality, priorities (whether to live in a dense area or not), interests (how big of a share work takes in the things you enjoy) and willingness to proactively cultivate human interactions.

Like other things related to WFH, there doesn't seem to be a one-size-fits-all answer and I like it. Having more room to allow more varied types of individualities to co-exist freely is a good thing in my opinion.

We should apply the same logic to other things

Kids should school from home. They don't get to choose who their classmates are so they're being forced to have human interactions who they haven't chosen of their own free will.

Colleges should all be remote. Same reasons.

I'm relatively confident that interacting with others is kind of the point of school and college and I'm just as confident that many (not all) of those same reasons apply to work. WFH ignores those reasons.

I think a lot of WFH proponents are people with families, kids, or other household obligations. For those people I could see how WFH is great

I see fewer benefits for younger people with no household obligations, e.g. single people living alone (particularly if you don't have a strong social circle outside of work).

WFH also makes it harder than it used to be to relocate to a new city and meet people. Over the past decade I've relocated to NYC and then to SF (and then back to NY). But when I first relocated, with only a job and no social circle, work friends was how I met people (and then happy hour with coworkers would lead to meeting more people outside of work).

Definitely pros and cons. Hopefully we eventually find a steady state where the people who want in-person work are able to find in-person jobs, and vice versa for WFH. Neither is objectively better than the other.

> work friends was how I met people (and then happy hour with coworkers would lead to meeting more people outside of work)

Genuine question - did you actually make lasting connections with those people you met at happy hours or do you just mean they were interesting strangers to chat with one day?

For dating, social norms and expectations make things relatively easy. Meet a girl, ask for her number, go on a date a week later. For platonic friends it seems far murkier. Do you ask the guy you've been chatting about football with at happy hour for his phone number and text him about the game next week? Do you add him on facebook? Hope he shows up at another happy hour with the mutual acquaintance another several times to build up enough rapport that it doesn't seem weird to connect?

> did you actually make lasting connections with those people you met at happy hours or do you just mean they were interesting strangers to chat with one day?

I met someone who eventually became my best friend at a coworkers birthday party!

> For platonic friends it seems far murkier

In my experience moving to a new city the easiest way to make platonic friends is to wiggle your way into an already-existing group of friends.

Re: all your other questions, put yourself out there and don’t be afraid of being turned down. Also highly recommend just being super upfront if you’re trying to be friends with someone, literally just ask “Hey, want to be friends?” and go from there.

When I’ve wanted to make more friends, making the intention known to people around me seems to work

That’s only the case if you solely rely on co-workers for friendships. The key is having a social life outside of work. Personally, I’ve never felt the need to be friends with my coworkers, so WFH isn’t really changing that equation for me.

On the other hand, WFH has allowed me to eat healthy and stay fit. I can workout in the middle of the day, take the dog out for breaks and then come back refreshed to get work done. I don’t like working out early morning or at night. So just having the flexibility to focus on fitness in the middle of the day alone has made a massive difference to my health.

But now my employer has mandated working from office all 5 days in a week. I see about 10 people in my entire floor, I don’t work with any of them, cafeteria is crap so I have to go out to eat, 30 minute commute each way. I’m doing the same work, alone, just in an office now. It’s definitely been a net negative for me.

> That’s only the case if you solely rely on co-workers for friendships.

Wow, way to exaggerate. I have a social life outside of work, but I'm working ~40 hours a week. Why should those be lonely, isolated, unsocial hours? They're the prime hours of my life!

I sympathize with all your latter points, but that's no reason to make up another.

> Why should those be lonely, isolated, unsocial hours?

This can easily be fixed with one of the many available video platforms out there. You are only lonely and isolated if you dont use the tools available to you (or your employer does not facilitate those, which means you should look for another one)

"video platforms" compress or delete most nonverbal channels of communication, and the resulting culture is filtered down to a thin broth.

I'm quite content with social life outside of work, so I don't really feel the need to "have fun" with coworkers during working hours. Maybe it's just my personality and I realize others may have different needs. I certainly don't think WFH is killing people like how OP is generalizing.

> I don't really feel the need to "have fun" with coworkers

What are we talking about, here? Having fun? I'm talking about social affirmation, collaboration, feedback, and community memory. There are a thousand social mechanisms for productivity. "Having fun" doesn't have to enter into it.

But it should! Humor is a valid form of communication, and it's my experience that the brightest people are the funniest—see: Tom. Lehrer. Smart teams wield levity among other tools. There is nothing virtuous about dourness or severity. There is a time and place for gravitas and decorum, but it's not 40 hours a week.

Besides all that, it's good for me! As you said, others may have different needs and, in general, humans are evolved to rely on one another to maintain psychohomeostasis. 40 hours is a long time to take me out of range of my evolved external organs.

OP talks about having fun 8 hours a day at work, building friendships and social life with coworkers. Your idea of social mechanisms for productivity are valid, but I don’t think that’s what OP meant.

Generally, I believe in the right to the pursuit of happiness.

It's going to change things, but it doesn't have to be for the worse.

WFH will mean more meaningful connections with the communities in which we live, rather than the communities forced on us by the cities we commute to, and the people who we happened to work with because we passed the same interview.

My mental health was far worse in an office. The drudge of the hours long commute, the dark evenings on the packed commuter trains with only an hour to myself at home before going to sleep and doing it all over again.

It's not for everyone, but it's certainly not a universally bad thing.

> WFH will mean more meaningful connections with the communities in which we live

I don't see how that follows unless you're not actually "working" and instead using your time at home as an excuse to not work.

No, it means you'll spend more time in your community naturally. Less time commuting.

You'll spend more time not in the city where your office is, and more time in your local area.

I don’t hate my co-workers, however, commute time means less time for friends, family, and hobbies. When you have young kids time is very limited.

If I were single and younger I’d likely want to be in office.

I have trouble imagining graduating and then working from home in a small apartment. Today though I'd quit before having a material commute--especially since basically no one I work with is local.

At the end of the day, working in the office is a net-negative for all other relationships.

Sure, you may not be out "socializing" during work hours when you WfH, but you have more time for anything outside of the 8A-5P window since you have no commute time - more time for your partner/kids, more time to go out and do something social, more time for yourself if you want to do something out but on your own, more time for errands and chores, etc.

The flip side of this is the move for most jobs to try and consume every waking hour of your existence through Teams/Slack pings and Teams/Zoom meetings outside of normal working hours, but this is happening to people regardless of whether they work in the office or work from home, meaning working from the office is still strictly worse due to commute time.

That's really a you problem, you need a hobby that you can make actual friends at. coworkers are never friends. Why should a company subsidize your need to have fun at work, we're here to get a job done, not horse around on the company dime.

I spend 40hrs a week working. Why should that be a lonely solitary 40Hrs?

> Why should a company subsidize your need to have fun at work, we're here to get a job done, not horse around on the company dime

they do. Why do you think places like google and facebook have so many cafes, perks, group activities, etc. Because they know people that are friends are more productive than people who are not. people who have a good time at work and like their coworkers stick around, collaborate better, help each other more

I’m with you here. Just my own situation and not trying to say it has to be the same for all.

I like the clean separation from home and personal stuff. I like my office building, the view and being among people. There is a lot of stuff that makes it fun compared to being at home.

My commute is short so that works out for me. I also feel a lot more productive at work as my role involves a lot of collaboration to see things through.

Commute is really the thing for me. If I had a short commute, I'd probably go into an office more if just for the change in scenery. But the only office I have any reason to go into is about a 2 hour trip each way so I really need a reason to go in.

2 hour trip each way and I will never go into work :)

I tend to think of it more as living from work, and it did contribute to a mental breakdown. The thought of being chained to my desk at home (I'll admit it's a long chain at least) for all my waking hours for another few decades seems like a diet version of hell.

I've been fully remote for a few years. I'm not the luckiest nor most social person (plus health issues limits socialization too). Workplace are dreadful to me way too often. And not me only, I stopped counting the number of times other colleagues in different jobs mentioned how some person is weird, unbearable, how they avoid lunch together, have to ignore others in the train on their way home. The amount of stress is often too high.

I can list all benefits people quote, no commute being the most blatant one, one more hour of sleep for free.. etc. But I agree that it alters your life rhythm, and your brain needs a light dose of chaos (seeing random faces, seeing different landscapes a bit) to not feel stuck in a loop, and it can feel weird at times. Also you can have bad colleagues annoy you on zoom :)

I lost 10lb in 2020 while WFH. Didn’t put any real effort. I just ate a lot more home cooked meals. Didn’t even exercise. Walked very little, drove everywhere.

Then I went back full time to the office in late 2021 and gained all of it back. Only difference is I started eating office food again - office food that is specifically supposed to be “healthy”. I even walked and biked a lot more thanks to the commute.

Calories are king, healthiness of food be damned. You're consuming too many calories is all.

Yes. Just surprising how calorie dense the “healthy” office food is versus home food despite not seeming so.

The home food was not made with any particular effort to be above and beyond healthy or low calorie either.

It's impossible to consume a healthy amount of industrialized "office-safe" food and still get enough nutrition from it to go on with your day. That's as true for the "healthy" alternatives as it is from the proud to be junk ones.

So why didn't you cook meals at home and bring them in? You can't blame weight gain on laziness.

Because my commute is lengthy and grueling. Whatever time I had to cook for myself is consumed by the commute.

My job pays me well enough to bite the bullet and endure the senseless commute. But not well enough to move closer to the office and trade my nice suburban apartment for a (older, rattier, with less amenities) shoebox half the size for more the cost.

So your telling me you don't have five minutes of your life to make food for you to take to work? One baguette, two bagels, three rolls. Throw whatever you wish in there and you'll be done in less than ten minutes.

Unless you were cooking roast turkeys for lunch.

What about the time it took you to read HN, or even type that message? No judgement but there is always time in the day to make food.

[I am an HN Edit Bot and make snide comments when downvoted: 1 person(s) dislikes the concept of making their own food]

Of course I have five minutes, or even thirty minutes, or more. It's not literally just the time.

After a tired long day at work, followed by a soul draining commute on public transportation, I'm simply too - yes, lazy - and tired to do anything productive, even for just a few minutes even though I know objectively it's not that much effort.

I'm sure many people know this feeling.

My health benefit is that I walk 3 miles in the morning and 3 miles in the evening. That is time I would commute. You cannot beat that.

And since I keep no snacks at home I don't snack!

Some offices are too good at having great treats and snacks. Those are bad for the body.

>One of the studies reviewed found that 46.9% of employees working from home had gained weight, and another put the figure at 41%. Most of the papers reviewed showed that homeworkers were more sedentary.

This is an important caveat.

And the decrease in blood pressure is apparently just referring to blood pressure taken at a company office vs. blood pressure taken at home.

What's the base rate for the comparable population? That sounds bad on a first read, but:

If only 47% (or 41%) of surveyed gained weight, that's probably lower than the population-wide average.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9106499/#:~:tex.... (results from a 10-year study show a higher rate of weight gain)

It's probably a little easier on the environment too.

Source article: https://academic.oup.com/joh/article/66/1/uiad013/7473692

if i could go to the office and leave as and when i wanted i would probably go more often. even just for an hour or two.

but the issue is not having a choice. presenteeism is the greater evil.

Commuting to and from the office five days a week is a hell that I never want to go back to. WFH has transformed my life. Being more productive is a nice bonus, though it’s the personal life benefits I care most about. Work is already so dehumanizing, can we just have this one thing in our favor for once. Four day work week next would be lovely.

post-covid made me realise life could be so much better if the working people just had a bit more leverage.

it was a fleeting glimpse at how quickly the norm can be broken and rebuilt as something better, if only temporarily in this case.

Hoping it’s not completely temporary, and more of a significant fork in the road— there’s the path leading back to the office, but the path leading home has at least now been paved.

I’m on paper a field worker now, so I don’t even have an office to return to. Company doesn’t seem to want to push for RTO, but I know these things change on a dime. Just like layoffs are NEVER EVER WE PROMISE happening, until, very suddenly, they are. Enjoying it while I have it, but if I lose it, that little WFH fork in the road is still there (I hope)

Fight for it, don't ask!

Like what, threaten my employer with an ultimatum? I’m not willing to do that, as the risk/reward balance is way off. I’d find another job if a six day work week is proposed, but not if a four day work week isn’t.

I’d like to see it happen, and soon, so that I have it for most of the remainder of my working years. Back here in reality, I need (and like) this job, and there are much worse limbo states to be in than working for a respectful tech company, from home, hoping for the four day work week.

Yeah you just have to seek out better employers if you want it to happen, but I understand they work very hard to get people under the thumb :)

Return to (hybrid) office working is in full swing in London now. The trains are packed again, long queues for lunch. Fully remote roles are becoming rare

Why should we be allowed to work from home yet those who work in retail, cafes et cetera don't get the same benefit?

You can't argue our jobs are more important when theirs are just the same, if not more.

As with out them you wouldn't have your conveniences, food.. We are a very entitled bunch.

To be fair, you choose your career. Not only that, but each job comes with perks that may, or may not, appeal to you.

For a kindergarten teacher, they get to spend the whole day with children. That's horrible for some people and beautiful for others. You get hugged a lot, if you need that in your life, it's unthinkable doing a different job.

I can't get to do anything physical in the morning (walking kids to school is a lot of effort for me), but my brain goes full power in front of a pc in the morning, so it's great to have WFH privileges.

> Why should we be allowed to work from home yet those who work in retail, cafes et cetera don't get the same benefit?

Different jobs have different requirements. This is also why I don't have to wear a respirator to be fair to workers at a chemical plant or move around heavy boxes to be fair to warehouse workers.

The fact that my job has different requirements doesn't make it "more important". Just a different job that needs different things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com