Hacker News Reader

Comment by shanusmagnus | Hacker News Reader

At the risk of caricature, it seems like there are two camps:

1. WFH is amazing and just as good for productivity and back-to-office is just a flex by evil managers.

2. WFH is bad for global productivity and so we need back-to-office.

Seems pretty straightforward that if #1 is right, then full-remote companies will have a massive competitive advantage, and the issue should be adjudicated decisively once more companies implement b-t-o.

View on HN

The game is rigged. There is always more behind the RTO. Examples include - political pressure to prop up downtown businesses (and real estate), easy ways to lay-off without having to announce it, hiring cheaper younger workforce as opposed to expensive senior workers, etc.

You’re assuming a fair world. It isn’t. As an employee the game is rigged against you.

I agree the world isn't "fair" for most definitions of the word. Unlike many, I don't attribute zero weight to human pettiness that desires a sea of toiling workers as a prestige accent to an executive's self-image.

But also unlike many, I believe that that weight, whatever it is, to be overwhelmed by the colder calculation of profit, growth, etc.

If our corporate overlords could get it done with 50% of the present workforce fully remote, they would, happily. Even better if they were in Bangladesh. Which is another reason to be careful what you wish for.

Yes and the profit in this instance is from resignation. That profit motive is also short term over longer term, who cares if it's not in the long term interest of the business, think of their bonus.

What about "whether WFH is more or less productive is irrelevant because people hired with the understanding they would work remotely shouldn't be forced to 'return' to an office they never worked in?" Sure, maybe it's more profitable for the company to have all of their employees in the office, but plenty of other things are more profitable that we also have decided as a society aren't reasonable, like paying below minimum wage or flouting safety regulations. If a company didn't think it could make a profit while employing remotely, they shouldn't have hired remote workers in the first place.

I think you're arguing with someone who isn't me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com