One day offices will be a thing of the past | Hacker News Reader

One day offices will be a thing of the past

virgin.com

103 pointskschrader89 comments

In general, predicting that something that has been around for centuries will be gone in decades is a bad bet. I wonder if Richard Branson has ever spent long periods of time working alone.

I spent six months working remotely in 2004. What led me to start my company in 2005 was not the desire to make money; I had enough back then. I really missed the in-person interaction with other hackers. I was living in Buenos Aires at the time. What I wanted did not exist there so I had to create it.

Hypothetically speaking, in a society in which "offices were a thing of the past", a problem so common as loneliness would likely be solved in a multitude of ways. Perhaps by changes in social conventions (e.g. friends working from each other's places) or by entrepreneurs directly attacking the problem (e.g. more coffee shops with fast internet, better tools for being social from home, etc).

That's the same argument that is often heard against home-schooling, the lack of socialization with other kids. What such people tend to not realize, or ignore, is that there are opportunities for kids to get socialization other than through school. True, it requires some effort on the parent's part but that doesn't mean they are not there.

If you work remote then there are avenues for socialization outside of an office space. Just because you find it lacking in one area doesn't mean that's the same for everyone nor should you ignore the possible advantages.

The problem, though, is that there's no "forced" interaction with others outside your own interests/background.

When I was in school, I was a white kid from a white neighborhood in a school that was 50% black. Had I been homeschooled, even if I had interactions outside of home, I would not have been exposed to the diversity of cultures.

I feel this will lead to a form of tribalism.

My anecdotal experience with homeschooled kids (my son is not old enough yet) is that the lack of 'forced' exposure at school is more than compensated by the habit of indulging and exploring one's curiosity. Especially because it applies not just to social aspects but to any area of knowledge, activity and culture. By the time the child's direct interests and background start showing their limits (9-ish years old?), they will have plenty of opportunities for interaction outside that circle (extracurricular classes, sports, travels, etc). Homeschooled does not mean hermit.

> Homeschooled does not mean hermit.

Agreed. My three oldest were public schooled, my two-youngest are home schooled. And what do they do after school hours? They're outside with their friends in the neighborhood, doing kid stuff.

I went to public school. The tribalism existed there in full force. One just had to look around the lunch room to see all the blacks at one table, all the asians at another, all the whites at their own tables further subdivided by various labels.

Clearly this is a YMMV thing.

I was public schooled, semi-rural Oklahoma in the 1970s.

The only diverse culture we had was 'town' vs 'country'.

My kids, who _are_ home schooled, have more exposure to diversity because of where we live, who we associate with.

I would say that "forcing" interaction is not a correct way of attempting socialization because if a child is forced to do something that they do not wish to participate in, then the outcome is often less than optimum.

I went to high school in the Deep South, it was more or less evenly balanced between black and white. Tribalism was in effect in this "forced" environment, granted this is going to be different from area to area. The black friends that I had were because we shared a common interest/background.

But again, if a parent wants to "force" such an interaction upon their child that is homeschooled, then chances are there would be ways of achieving that with after school programs. My local YMCA didn't turn away black children at the door for example.

Coercion is not the way to teach kids we should deal with everybody with respect for their rights. Respecting everybody's choices is far more consistent with that purpose.

I'd rather kids develop their own ability to choose than to force them to make what I think are the right choices.

To believe force is the answer is to ignore the role of force in setting up segregation to begin with. Separate facilities that the oppressed are forced to finance, for example.

People adopt beliefs that fly in the face of reason BECAUSE of threats of violence and actual violence. Thou will be going to hell unless you believe. I will be harassing daily until you profess the same beliefs I do. That's how many parents of haters operate.

As if children never had friends before schools were invented.

As an aside: working from your friend's can be a blast. If you're recently freelancing/starting up and loneliness is hitting you, working from the house of a friend (who is also working from home, obviously) can REALLY take the edge off.

Exactly: you were not forced to work in the office. You chose it. Exactly what Brandon is saying.

Who says everyone will dislike working remotely? I haven't worked in an office since 2005. I'm in Florida, my primary office is in the Cleveland (Ohio) area, and we have developers in New York and Toronto. I love it.

It wasn't much more than century ago when the majority of the population did work from home (on the farm). It really has only been decades that the office has been the primary place of business.

To see working patterns shift back to "the farm", so to speak, doesn't seem unreasonable at all in my mind. It probably will not completely eliminate the office, but we could see only, say, 10-20% of the population still working in offices in the future.

One interesting question is did they actually like being alone on the farm? Or were they doing it because it was the only option? Pretty much everywhere you look, kids are leaving farms for cities. Cities offer more options. Now, a lot of them do go back, but it's often a decade or more later when they're settled down with families.

Perhaps we will never shift to mostly working alone simply because we're basically herd animals.

I recently had a friendly debate about this with a friend (ex-Yahoo of the golden years). The interesting thing is that a distributed organization, such as Yahoo or Google, or pretty much any multi-national, telecommuting is already in their work practices - whenever you have to coordinate across office locations, you are effectively telecommuting to that office.

However, that's not the interesting part of the conversation. What we pretty much both agreed on is that as the technology progresses, what we term in person interactions will change drastically. Today, when we talk about virtual reality, we are still bound in our conduits into that world.

Imagine if we had the ability to completely immerse ourselves into a virtual reality, Matrix-style. In that world, your commute is nothing more than going to a chair and loading the program. From there, you can appear anywhere in that virtual reality. It can be in the shape of an office, or a green field with desks, or no desk, pretty much anything the organization/group of people wants. With the totality of human senses present, neither of us debating the issue could see anything missing that a physical presence would provide.

Throw in the current trend of shrinking employment, and the future of the office buildings in the next few hundred years seems to be in question.

Technologically, we are not there yet and it's not clear if this will happen in our lifetime. However, it no longer feels like a pure sci-fi notion.

In my opinion we're actually a lot closer to it than most people may realize. I think virtual-offices are going to be a reality in 3-5 years. This will be driven by a few key technologies that are coming out in that timeframe:

  Oculus Rift - fully immersive digital environment
  Leapmotion/Kinect - natural UI for interacting in 3D
  Google Fiber - high-speed bandwidth networks
  Modern GPUs - can already produce movie-level graphics in realtime.

In fact, I could see the first prototype virtual offices being released within 18 months.

I agree with you that this is certainly going to happen soon-ish, but 3-5 years is wildly optimistic, particularly when it comes to the Leapmotion/Kinect (which are cool, but a long way away from resulting in realistic 3D interaction) and Google Fiber (only applies if we all move to Kansas City -- I know Google plans to roll this out to other markets, but in 3-5 years I wouldn't expect significant progress, maybe 1 or 2 other metro areas max).

Is that not one of the best use cases for Google Glass(Regardless of their marketing pitch)?

Conceptually I agree with you, but the challenge is that there are signals transmitted between people in the same room that don't come through electronics well.

I'm talking about all of the non-verbal signals that feed back into your visual cortex without you even realizing it. Things that inspire you to follow someone, or realize they aren't understanding you, or that you are offending them, or that they don't themselves believe what they are saying.

Lots of human factors work has gone into this and we don't have a clue yet how to transmit that stuff much less render it in a virtual world. I expect we will get there, but its an area that I am not seeing much in the press about.

Would love Trevor to jump in here with what they've been learning with the AnyBot with regards to present/not-present sort of work.

That's true, but the constraints and nature of the medium open up new avenues of expression. We're not likely to catch subtle facial expressions-- or, for that matter, smells and touch-- for a long time, but we'll gain incredible new powers in the mean-time.

I'm thinking gesture capture (hands and body) and words/sounds in a virtual environment. You can fluidly interpret those inputs into sights and sounds which illustrate ideas. It won't be intimate in a physical sense, but it will be extremely expressive, and that's what the office needs.

    Choice empowers people and makes for a more content workforce.

...

    people are going to look back and wonder why offices ever existed

The choice employees make is always going to be to work from home? Surely forced attendance at an office every day 9 - 5 will be looked back on as something that should never have existed, but offices disappearing completely seems unlikely.

Agreed. I enjoy working in an office environment. My ideal would maybe be four days in the office instead of five, but I wouldn't want to go without it entirely.

That setup works well for me. I work from home Mon and/or Fri, and I'm always in the office Tue through Thur. It's nice to save some commute time and being able to really focus on coding, but I think I'd go crazy doing it every day. There are also lots of conversations I have with coworkers that wouldn't happen if I were never in the office.

We make machines to replace workers, for lots of really great reasons. But, where does that end?

I'm struggling to think of a task that a machine cant or wont be able to do. I cant get further than art and thinking up things for machines to do, but even then I'm not so sure. I'm sure even philosophical issues could eventually be determined by a computer program. Robots can perform most mundane tasks, and equally highly complex tasks we cant even do. We even have machines that design and build machines.

So yeah, offices will be a thing of the past, because workers will be a thing of the past. Well, just a few workers who watch over the machines. But, wont they be deemed inefficient?

When they invent a computer that can write poetry or paint a painting or start a startup, I think your vision will have come true. Fortunately, I think we're still a long way away from computers that can do these things with the creativity a human can.

I've read a lot about telecommuting here on HN lately. While I do this myself, I'm hoping that one day infrastucture and cost of living near the workplace will be at a point where everyone can just walk to the office (in 5-10 minutes). This is the best of all possible worlds for me: healthier, allows working from home and still dropping in at work for meetings or lunch or whatever comes up and no getting stuck in rush hour traffic (not in the car and neither in the subway/tram), no dangerous biking (in the city).

Also, Mr. Branson does not look too comfortable in his outdoor chair next to the street. ;-)

Doesn't that imply living in cities? Not to everyone's taste, by any means.

Also, how is this going to work out for couples/families?

I'm not GP, but I think it implies either living on a human settlement (not necessarily cities, they could be towns or villages) and working there, or working from one's home and/or farm, field, etc.

And suddenly changing jobs means either moving home, or limiting your search to within a very, very small radius.

It could mean unhooking your housing module (something like this: http://www.arcspace.com/features/kisho-kurokawa/nakagin-caps... but bigger) from the provided base near your workplace and transporting it to one near your new job.

OTOH, in large cities, there's plenty of possible work places within e.g. 1 square Km or mile. Perhaps they should be clustered so that similar companies are close together? Plenty of room for optimization (from an utopostic viewpoint).

These kinds of black-and-white views need to stop.

Some jobs (highly self-directed, autonomous, don't need teamwork) can be done just fine from home.

Other jobs (collaborative, creative, culture-building) just can't, or it's very difficult.

And then there are obviously a lot of gray areas in the middle, since a lot of jobs are a mix of things, as well as accountability and productivity-measurement being a big factor too (some people will get away with slacking off if they can).

Every kind of job and company is different, and needs to figure it out for themselves. And when you don't work at a specific organization, it's hard to know what they really need.

I think you're strawmanning Branson into saying something he isn't.

Let me ask you this: why do you automatically assume that this decision rests with the organization to fit its needs? Don't a firm's workers also have a lot of different situations that may require different solutions? Some workers love working at the office. Others love working from home. Others like to have a mixture. It sounds to me what Branson is saying isn't necessarily "telecommuting good, office bad" as much as "It's a bad idea to rigidly force choices on your employees", and I think there's some truth to that view. After all, I don't buy that employment at Yahoo necessarily means that a person won't be successful working from home.

Regardless of my views, I don't think it's accurate to say that this is black-and-white thinking.

People seem to think there is only one answer to this question but companies need to figure out what is best for them depending on their employees, culture etc. Right now I think the core problem of remote work is verifying that people are in fact working efficiently. Also people really need to use better metrics to make judgments; parking lot 'emptiness' or even VPN access logs do not hold meaning if projects are on time, and the deadlines are not lax.

A lot of proponents of home working seem to ignore one of the big reasons people may want to work in a centralised space (be it an office, co-working space, somewhere else..) - the interaction with other people.

I hate working at home - I get cabin fever, bored and lonely. I prefer being around other people and having that interaction (IM, video calls just aren't the same). I like a change of scenery during the day.

It's nice to have the option to work from home when necessary (e.g. to avoid having to take a sick day, wait in for a delivery etc) - but I'd hate to do it every day.

I don't doubt that the nature of offices will change (e.g. I find it hard to imagine that cubicle farms have much future), and that the number of people working remotely will increase, but I'd be very surprised if offices disappear completely.

I work remotely but I have space in a shared office about 10 minutes walk from my house. This means I never have to a long commute, can work from home or work around others when I want a bit of company. In terms of working conditions this seems to be the best of both worlds.

This sounds absolutely perfect.

I do the same, and find it invaluable to be able to spontaneously decide where to work in the mornings.

This does sound like a good balance. Do you have a dedicated desk or is it just general tables where you setup at?

Also how much does it cost per month?

I have a dedicated desk. I'm based in Spain(work is in London) so it's pretty damn cheap! I pay 200 euros a month for a bright, modern office on top of a block in the center of town(Granada). We have a terrace that surrounds the office and the views of the mountains are spectacular!

I hope companies of the future will at least offer working space as a perk. I am much less productive at home with my pets around, and I can't imagine what it will be like once I have children.

In my experience, offices are a painful place to watch the clock but a great place to actually get stuff done.

I've worked remotely more often than not over the last 3 years. It's becoming a more common trend. I am glad for it.

I was skeptical at first as I was prone to the common, ephemeral ailment of loneliness. However advances in group video chat, online whiteboards, cafes with high-speed wireless and power bars, shared working spaces... I prefer it to working in an office. I can choose when I am distracted, I can change my environment to suit my mood, and I get more work done over all.

I also get to spend more time with my family and less time commuting (which is a complete waste of your life).

I look forward to offices being "optional," but I doubt they will disappear completely. We are, by nature, social creatures. I predict that we will instead employ communal spaces instead of the traditional, "company office."

Agree. I worked in-the-office for 12 years. Then, the past 2, I've worked almost exclusively remotely. It's been really good.

Just as when I started my first job, I had to learn new skills. As a diligent, good employee, I tried to learn quickly. And, now, I'm probably more productive than I ever have been.

But, then again, I don't sit on FB or Twitter all day. Each morning, I set out with a focused list of goals, and I try to get them done. And, I need a quiet space.

The hardest part, for me, was learning when to shut off. As an office worker, there was a natural dynamic and rhythm of the team. When the lights started going off, or when the cleaning staff showed up, you knew that it was time to go. But, sometimes, at home, I forget to turn off. I think I have gotten closer to burnout, working from home.

Collaboration is an issue, but we work in such small teams nowadays, that there aren't as many communication channels. Long gone are the 15-20 person teams. Now, I work with targeted groups of 4-5. We communicate regularly. For more high-fidelity communication, I have face-to-face meetings with subject matter experts and stakeholders and designers maybe once a month.

As a software developer, I can't see how this trend can stop. With the state of things, I will never again have all the people that I need in the same office every day. Skills are just too specialized now. And, services are specialized. To get everyone (and all their dependencies) in the same office would mean sacrificing a lot of quality and agility.

Offices are a cost center and have their own set of inefficiencies. I think Mayer was correct in "correcting" an issue at Yahoo! which is that many employees were gaming it. There is a value in face-to-face connection. We can do away with offices as long as there are community spaces (public or private) where people can connect. There is good value in finding a balance between isolation time and collaboration time. Offices might tend towards collaboration time and lose out on isolation time, while the opposite is often true with strictly home offices.

I worked from home as a freelancer for several years until one of my clients insisted that I spend a full, regular work-day at their office at least once a week. When I did that I discovered that I was far more productive, even if the space they gave me was noisier.

I'm a lot different from others, though, in that I'm not only easily distracted, I also have chronic problems with motivation. I.e.: when I'm at home I'm a slacker, and when I'm at an office I'm not (or not _as much_).

After a few weeks of this I began offering to spend full days, once a week, at some of my other clients, and observed a boost in productivity there, too.

I know of some work-at-home freelancers who have set aside a room in their home that they treat quite strictly as their office, even dressing in a suit and tie every morning and "commuting" from their bedroom down the stairs or across the hall. They find that it helps them get into the right mindset so they can more easily suppress the temptation to knock-off for a few minutes and watch TV, or play with the cat, or whatever.

Meyer might be doing something slightly different, though, which is that she needs to get Yahoo! onto a new track. This must be accomplished psychologically as well as technically and logistically, and I know many companies have tried a variety of tricks to get their employees to think differently, shift into a different mindset. Changing decor, company colors, cubicles-to-open-space or vice-versa, different dress codes, and so-on.

This might be a permanent thing at Yahoo!, or maybe they will begin slowly re-introducing work-at-home. A kind of reverse if what I did, perhaps: one day a week, or month, while keeping tabs on how the employee's performance differs. Some may perform better, some (like me) might not have the discipline.

Working Remotely != Working from home. Often when I'm working remotely, I'm either in a coffee shop or a co-working location, vary rarely at home. I don't like driving, so being able to control when and where I drive is huge.

The big issue is that of being able to control my own environment. If it's too hot, I can work someplace where it's not, same if it's too loud. When you require everyone to work in one shared area, this control disappears and you're often left to the whims of either the weak common denominator, the highest paid person, or the loudest (ie the small thin woman that keeps the office incredibly hot)

If you want dedicated employees, don't run a shitty company.

Apparently I'm an anomaly, but I like going to the office. Currently my company's offices are utter shit, but I'm still not opposed to the concept in general... and I still come in despite the less-than-inspiring setup we have at the moment.

I think what's crucial here, however, is that I don't extrapolate my "I prefer to work in an office" sentiment to everyone, like Bloomberg does. Furthermore, I'm lucky in that I have a choice in this and my bosses are constantly encouraging me to work from home more.

So I think if there's one thing it's better to predict, it's that employee choice will be much more of the norm, not that offices themselves will be history.

I agree. Having worked in great offices, not-so-great offices, and currently working on my own (i.e. from coffee shops, coworking spaces, and at home), working with other people at an office isn't horrible. Not something I always want to do, but also not something that I would want to rule out.

Empowering employees with choice is always a good thing as long as results are prioritized above their choices. My policy has always been to present company goals to our staff like so: Get X done, by Y, and be sure it meets our standard of quality. I don't care if you work in your childhood tree house up until Y as long as I am able to contact you if needed & you produce the desired results.

Marissa Meyer likely saw that the freedom wasn't producing the results she would like & decided to reel it in. I'm sure it will return when appropriate.

The wave of the future will be MORE offices that make people not want to leave.

Choice is a great thing and for some jobs it's reasonable to allow people some flexibility in where and when they work.

But I would be less happy flying on Mr Branson's airline if the pilots were allowed to telecommute.

Employers like the current setup because they can make sure people aren’t playing Minesweeper all day. And people still feel that face-to-face conversations have higher information density.

But if holographic teleconferencing becomes mainstream, then I could see a lot more knowledge based work being done remotely. That has downsides as well. Why employ an American, if you can get a qualified person in say, Poland, who speaks fluent English, is willing to work in your timezone, and has the equipment to virtually be around in 3D?

What's the downside? You say that as if it was bad to hire someone from Poland...

I meant that it's bad if you're an American knowledge worker, and you have to compete with cheap foreign labor, thanks to holographic technology.

Employers like the current setup because they can make sure people aren’t playing Minesweeper all day

This is the aspect of the argument that makes me have to take a self-imposed time-out.

The prime time of every major online site is during office hours. Ebay, Reddit, Slashdot in its prime, Digg in its prime, even our loveable Hacker News. Most of the people here are sitting at a desk in an office, biding the day away until they clock out.

We know that many (if not most) office workers piss away a significant portion of time that they're in the office.

A good manager of people knows the realm that their charges work in, and understands the contribution each of them makes. That they warm a seat 60 hours a week is absolutely irrelevant if they make no contribution, yet for mediocre managers everywhere it is the only thing they can competently measure so you see that desperate fear of people working remotely.

Marissa Meyer has become the hero of terrible managers (and jealous people) everywhere. I mean no ill towards her (Yahoo is in tough times, this may be a way of letting go of some people, they're regrouping everyone, and the initiative might not even have been hers), but there is a cluster of mediocrity that is raising a banner around this action of Yahoo.

I love working from home and also enjoy the occasional day in the office with my peers. But I prefer to work at home most of the time. Avoiding the daily commute is a wonderful thing.

I actually like my commute most days - I spend half an hour walking outside, and half an hour reading (each way). Those are good things I might not otherwise make time for. But if I had to drive, that same hour would be intolerable.

I'd far prefer to work in a well configured space, vs. itinerant coffeeshops. But that might be personal space vs. a business, and wouldn't have much in common with most offices I've ever seen. (I'd like a big hw lab space, smallish but comfortable private office, and various areas on a campus or large building which are either dedicated to a specific task or just interesting.)

Maybe closer to a university's layout for a professor or postdoc than most commercial offices.

This has to happen sooner or later, if for no other reason than the tremendous amount of damage that commuting by automobile is doing to the environment. Commuting is also a huge, inefficient waste of time and a major source of unhappiness and poor health.

Self-driving electric cars and buses will help alleviate this pain point, but electric cars still cause pollution--just at a (often coal-burning) central power plant instead of an internal combustion engine.

One day jobs will be a thing of the past. How will our current society adapt when we reach a point that we are so productive that we don't need everyone to work?

As idyllic as that sounds, they've been predicting that since the start of the industrial revolution and the trend has continued in the opposite direction.

Manufacturing desires and trumping economic needs over social goods is so entrenched now that I doubt most people would choose a more relaxed lifestyle over the next shiny bauble dangled in front of them.

I wish it were not so, but I see little to no evidence to the contrary.

Offices? Probably not. Entire floors and buildings without any purpose other than holding offices and cubicles? Yes, they were a fairly recent invention and will probably be gone soon.

Remote work may be somewhat inefficient now, but when our technologies get good enough to build a room for consistent telepresence, there will be little point in having a cubicle across town when you can own a customized office and virtually project it anywhere.

"Yes, they were a fairly recent invention and will probably be gone soon."

What do you mean by "recent"? They have existed for perhaps more than 100 years and before that there wasn't the type of work where they were needed and so they didn't exist. (There was no paper to be pushed? Or phones to be answered?).

"build a room for consistent telepresence"

There is much nuance you can pick up when someone is right in front of you vs. by telepresence. I'm not saying you aren't right or that what you say won't happen but don't discount the value of face to face at least in business, negotiation and management.

It takes much more work from me to buy something face to face (because I have to act and hide visual cues) then it does by email. But on the same hand I can pick up visual cues in the seller and make split second decisions based on them. It all depends on the situation of course.

If the work gets done and deadlines are met working from home should not cause any problems.We have technology to support working remotely but the real issue is that human interaction gets lost if we move towards this trend. This debate depends on the industry you work for its not a black or white issue.

I think that offices will always be around. Yes, being able to work from wherever and connect with people through tech is amazing but there is NOTHING like a face to face discussion. Human contact is essential; especially where company culture is concerned.

"One day people will just swallow a handy pill instead of eating food!"

The future will be completely weird and amazing, but it won't be the weird and amazing you thought of...

Whether or not Branson is right (I don't think he is), it's completely irrelevant to the yahoo situation which is just one company at one point in time.

That's a sad prediction. I like going into the office.

"I have enormous respect for Michael Bloomberg and have rarely disagreed with anything he has done or said..."

I really could not get past this introductory bit. It tainted my opinion of everything Branson said. If Branson has enormous respect for Michael Bloomberg, I can't really muster much respect for him in turn. Which is a shame, because I essentially agree with him on this point--working from home--in particular.

Though I also feel it's any company's prerogative to allow or disallow working from home.

Was anyone else like "wtf is a one day office?"

At first read yes. I thought it meant that there is an office shared by 5 people and they each go "to the office" 1 day a week and the other 4 they work at home.

On the same day, jetpacks and flying cars will be released. With a half-price introductory offer.

Tangential : every time I read this title, I ask myself what a "one day office" is.

This seemed to completely ignore expensive shared capital, like the tens of millions of dollars of digital test equipment engineers use to design iOS devices, Android devices, perform diagnostics in medicine, fly that capital as Virgin airlines, for examples. Nice buzz-generating headline, though.

I don't think anyone would claim that there's no job that can't be done from home. However, are these things always necessarily blockers if someone really wants to work from home? I mean, I can access an iOS or android device from anywhere in the world. Or my company can buy me one of each for probably less than one or two thousand dollars. I can pay a lab to do that expensive diagnostic. About the only one I see as problematic is flying for Virgin, and I think that's more a technology limitation than anything to do with the job itself.

One day we will have teleportation and this discussion will be pointless. :)

I love how he ends it with a question. Most blogs are so dictatorial.

How about non-performing workers?

Do the same thing to them as you do when they're in the office.

Performance management for mobile workers is harder for the manager. There's a lot more metrics and measuring than most "soft skill" managers are comfortable with. And until recently, many managers are selected because of their "face skills" and not their project management chops.

There will always be jobs were people will go to a place and work with other people (McDonald's, Prisons, Hospitals.) But there will be a increasingly large sector of the economy where it will be economically beneficial to "do away" with the office. Those who have those skills are destined to benefit.

Yep, partially due to technology but I also think in 30 years almost everyone will be a freelancer and "jobs" as we know them today will be very very rare.

Not without some serious legislative and financial changes - the deck is stacked very much in favor of 'companies' (and generally larger ones at that) than smaller ones, and certainly not in favor of freelancers.

Big in number of employees or capital? I wonder if you could have a fully outsourced company, where a mesh of algorithms would allocate capital to hire freelances, adquire resources, etc. I suppose it'd be hard to create new products and services, but you could always automate the acquisition of startups ;)

Firms exist to reduce transaction costs. In order to freelance everything, you'll need to bring the costs way, way down -- and that includes learning what you're working on and figuring out how to cooperate with other people much faster than we've ever seen that happen.

I suspect this is not ever going to match the efficiency of a good team with history.

Unless something happens to cause the cost of having full-time employees to rise higher than can be sustained. Examples can be government intervention in terms of taxes, wage controls, or mandates such as benefits.

In the US, that could mean a number of 1099 employees instead of the normal W2. Possibly long-term contracts would become the norm. Much of this would be the employer pushing the cost of employment onto the employee.

Also, I'd imagine that there are several examples where having a good team with a history is not much of a consideration. If you have access to enough people in the field in your area that have experience, it most likely would not be difficult to ramp up a good team that can suit your needs quickly. Professionals tend to be professionals.

I can't imagine the pain of having to assemble a team of freelancers every three-nine months for the next iteration on some product/project. Unless the freelancers are utterly interchangeable, which is a pretty awful vision (people think they are cogs now?). When you want to organize a team you'd spend 25% of your time just assembling a team. The freelancers themselves would also spend tons of time waiting for a team to be ready to go. Probably the norm would be for freelancers to have multiple projects going at a time, so any project would only get some percentage of each individual's time & attention, requiring larger teams or slower cycles, each of which requiring more overhead on communications and coordination.

The obvious alternative is to maintain a group of people that have developed a good working relationship together for a longer period of time. Of course people would come and go occasionally due to other opportunities & changing needs for skills. But wait - that sounds an awful lot like what we already have.

All good critiques of freelancing today. "Freelancing" in 2043 will be very different.

Of course no one knows the future (maybe lifetime union jobs will be back in 30 years?) but I just feel this is the way the wind is blowing. But then again maybe it's just where I'm standing.

That sounds exactly like a movie production. I'm sure they have figured out how to bring teams back together for sequels.

Movies take years to produce. At least from what I've seen, people switch jobs every 3-6 years. So not much different really. I agree that the 25+ year tenure at a company is by and large gone for good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com