Hacker News Reader

BLS did a great job here https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-13/remote-work-productiv...

Everything in that report basically confirms what I was saying.

Most importantly, it looks primarily at the data from 2019-2022. Most execs (and many have said this publicly) are not that concerned about the short-term impacts on productivity. Indeed, many have argued that a good reason things were able to transition relatively smoothly during the pandemic is all the personal and professional networks and workflows already existed.

But that study can obviously not measure the longer term impacts on overall competitiveness. And again, since I'm talking about longer term impacts, no study that only took place from 2019-2022 could measure these effects. But I think it's important to acknowledge that, rather than just leaning on the "See! Studies prove remote work doesn't hurt productivity!" argument, which is an invalid interpretation IMO.

Not the previous poster - but the study which confirms that remote work is not bad, was one done at Stanford. The devil in the details was that Hybrid resulted in productivity gains - not remote.

Do you have a link to that, I'd be interested to see their methodology. That confirms my experience. Even before the pandemic, I would often work from home one or two days a week when I needed to be in "heads down" mode and just knock shit out. It was more efficient for me because there were fewer distractions and it was easier for me to get in the zone. But then I still had plenty of time for in-person collaboration with my colleagues.

Ugh. I feel bad sharing this, because I am a proponent of Remote.

https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2024/06/hybrid-work-is-a-w...

this should have a link.

Also a correction - it showed increased retention rates, but no change in productivity.

From personal observation, we were at a point in the technology cycle--networks/Zoom et al./etc.--where people were able to work remotely in many cases. Indeed, some organizations I'm involved with now hold at least some meetings remotely rather than spending half a day or more trudging somewhere for a meeting that takes half a day or more.

On the other hand, I felt very disconnected at work latterly with a larger group and mostly kept up tighter connections with people I already knew.

What about all of us that were already working remotely for a decade or more before COVID?

Didn't seem to be a problem then.

>But that study can obviously not measure the longer term impacts on overall competitiveness. And again, since I'm talking about longer term impacts, no study that only took place from 2019-2022 could measure these effects. But I think it's important to acknowledge that, rather than just leaning on the "See! Studies prove remote work doesn't hurt productivity!" argument, which is an invalid interpretation IMO.

It didn't though, and if companies and managers are supposedly results driven, data driven orgs (many claim to be, some times very loudly), why would they go against the actual data? Famously, Amazon's CEO couldn't even show something - anything - that supported their RTO position.

If you start to see issues downstream in a few years, you need to ask questions as to why, but assuming - which is what RTO does - that going back to the office is right because its been the historical norm - without actually truly studying the effects of remote work - is the problem here.

This is simply the executive class flexing what power they have for purposes other than the goal they claim its for

>general "disattachment" people have with their job

At least for me this is a consequence of the instability, extracurricular demands from my employer (signaling our relationship is not important to them) and deterioration in the labor market making my career less of a priority than my side projects (as at least in my mind the expected long term payout has dropped.) Being forced to commute would only exacerbate the situation.

And you have never seen people on the job showing disattachment to their job? Wow. Go to any cafe, any school, any McDonalds, or any restaurant not run by a family that owns only one restaurant. And even those are havens of dedication and inspiration compared to the average government office.

More general, look up the "bullshit jobs" phenomenon.

> And you have never seen people on the job showing disattachment to their job.

I made no such argument.

But the "execs" you write about are making the argument that "disattachment" is a more outsized problem for remote employees vs. onsite employees. Otherwise, they wouldn't have brought it up in the context of why these policies are happening.

> In nearly every case of RTO, there was no recorded dip in productivity associated with the move to remote work.

I am extremely skeptical of this. On the contrary there is a mountain of direct evidence that people barely work when working from home. People have been openly bragging both on the internet and in person about how they do laundry and watch netflix and mow their lawns while looking productive

All you need to do is look at the crowds in the park or lines at the grocery store on any given friday to gauge how much work is being done on wfh days

And I am extremely skeptical of your "direct evidence" (source?). Most jobs are not measurable, they are more like N amount of employees collectively moving a target / goal. And just like in school projects there are the lazies of course, but again, direct measurability is mostly an illusion sold by consultants that get sweet money by lying to executives and telling them what they want to hear.

Consider that you might be in the bubble of yes-people.

Work from home allowed many people to find their exact productive schedule, motivators and rhythm. But we can't have that, 8h or leave!