- cross-posted to:
- work@group.lt
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m fine with that.
Turn them all into housing we desperately need
“But office building pipes aren’t set up for that!”
Okay so make communal housing/bathrooms for cheaper rent or invest in expanding the plumbing
“But that’s too expensive!”
More expensive than $800 billion??
they’d never do that. then they’d be killing the housing bubble as well. think of the investors!
Okay so make communal housing/bathrooms for cheaper rent or invest in expanding the plumbing
This is how you get dystopian highrise slums
Sounds generally positive to me.
Why not. Cheaper rent for ailing urban areas, and more incentives for residential construction.
Plus people commuting less = less pollution and less congestion.
Good for people, good for the planet, bad for profit for some.
Yeah but less pollution in the sky means people can see the clouds, and that’s where my data is stored. 😡 I don’t want people seeing my data.
It’s insane that we as a society are even having the debate between pushing capital investment strategies to adapt and come into the 21st century or dragging globally-distributed workers back to the 20th century just to avoid short-term pain and costs associated with updating outdated laws, tax incentives, and capital business practices.
Boomers. My former boss was like this. Sit in a crowded, loud, hot, glare on every screen office BeCaUse it ProMotEs CollAborAtiOn. Yeah. No one “collaborated.”
When did we sign something that said I’ll work for you but also in some of the worst conditions because well just because.
The problem is that the idea of WFH being more productive is slowly being shown to be false.
It can be a viable business strategy of you design for it, but WFH being the best in all cases has shown itself to be false.
Edit: The working-from-home illusion fades from TheEconomist
That is the source. Feel free to post your own sources.
What would you expect The Economist to say?
Their reporting has a financial bent to it, but they would write an article defending WFH productivity wise if the data was there.
The article also doesn’t dismiss WFH either, noting other reasons to keep it.
The good news is I don’t care if it’s more productive fuck offices :)
And I like that answer because you’re being honest. You don’t like working in an office, and that is fair.
What you’re saying is absolute bullshit. But, even IF it was true, I’d still be for WFH.
Society should make things better for people. Less time spent in cars, more time spent with family is worth the 5% stock dip for the investor class.
The worker has been taking it up the ass since the 60s and getting more and more productive while wages have stagnated.
So yea what you say is nonsense, but even if it was true in the immortal words of Red: I don’t give a shit.
It is fine to want to WFH, I get it. It is a great perk for some people.
I’m not saying that WFH is horrible for companies.
I’m just saying that there seems to be productivity reasons why employers want their employees to work in an office.
IMHO it’s more of a management issue than productivity. Managers like seeing you work.
If you expect results in given time and you’re not getting it, you’re gonna have talk with employee, WFH or office, doesn’t matter.
The “productivity” is an illusion and always has been.
source? even before WFH, even before the internet it’s just common sense that if I need something from the Phillippines office or the London office or the California office while I’m in New York it’s much more efficient to call them than it is for me to get on a plane and go there.
The working-from-home illusion fades from TheEconomist
The article refers to several peer reviewed studies which you can look up.
Dumb opinion is dumb lol
The productivity metrics at my company were consistently up by around 150% month by month for the entire duration that we were all permanently working from home without the distraction of the office and the time sink of in person meetings where nothing is achieved.
The only reason we were forced back to a hybrid arrangement is that none of the middle managers had any work to do and it became painfully obvious how little they actually contribute. They don’t actually generate any value.
Instead of restructuring, and distributing the heinous waste of money that they and our real estate holdings represent they made the decision to limit WFH arrangements to two days per week and our metrics went right back where they were previously.
Please provide sources with who funded the study and we can provide sources that show the opposite!
Every efficiency study, environmental model, and psychological model disagrees with your sentiments that WFH productivity is less than in office productivity. I am a software engineer, so it might be anecdotal and industry specific, but my experience as well as the studies done by my employer show that they get more out of WFH employees or Hybrid (1-2 days a week in office) than the traditional route. Commutes, in office distractions, etc are massive drains on the employee.
The working-from-home illusion fades from TheEconomist
The studies cited in the article say otherwise. Feel free to show your studies.
That article is pretty trash, a half finished doctoral study from 2020 and it draws some wild conclusions from this authors work who comes to the opposite conclusion than what was provided by the article. You can see more information mathematically here in this paper that seems to suggest that a lot of the WFH productivity might be eaten up by the lack of effective tools at the disposal of the worker provided by the company. You can also find more data driven, finished papers on WFH efficiency here:
This is a chinese study from 2013 for a call center, similar to the unfinished 2020 paper mentioned in the beginning of the terrible Economist Paper. This was done without the current tools and innovation, so I imagine if it were to be run again the numbers would probably be higher: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/does-working-home-work-evidence-chinese-experiment
Here is a study on jobs that could be done from home. The above study allows you to see that the environmental impact from having those jobs actually be done from home could be massive. Especially since most of those jobs are located in urban centers and require commuting and/or massive carbon footprints.
This is a small (n = 519) study showing that peoples general mental health and happiness are higher when they are WFH. Also, a study showing that people who are happy are more productive.
The problem with the argument is that it is reductionist, it makes it seem like the ONLY thing that matters is how much more productive it is. It is more productive, and it can have a HUGE benefit to both the mental health of the individuals who are able to WFH as well as the environment.
So, like I said. The large company I work for is 80% WFH, with an optional hybrid approach and spent a bunch of money researching this and are looking to keep it up because their workers are happier, healthier, and more productive… That single economist piece that misrepresents data and uses kind of trash studies isn’t really a great one to be leaning on.
Edit: There are absolutely jobs that cannot be done from home, and people who can’t handle WFH because of their personality. However, WFH is primarily a good thing. All these hit pieces and garbo articles trying to justify people returning to these monolithic buildings without any value are trash and shouldn’t be promoted as information. At their core they’re opinion pieces.
If you want to want to make the argument that productivity isn’t the be all end all reason, that is fine. WFH is a great perk and I can see why people like it. I also agree that it can work, but there is a difference between being able to work and being the best option.
But the argument is always that WFH is the best and most productive option where that may not be the case.
Since I’ve had more time to read your sources.
The first study you cite only discusses the ability to work from home. Nothing in the study talks about productivity. I agree that a lot of jobs can be full remote.
The second study is about employee satisfaction, which I didn’t argue as well. The third study may be a thing, but it doesn’t outright compare those who work in an office to those who work full remote.
And as I’ve said earlier, it is fine if you want to make arguments for WFH outside of productivity. However, none of the studies you provided tries to directly measure the two. Thank you for providing some studies, though. You were the only one who tried to argue this via academic studies.
Source?
Anecdotally, I can’t get shit done in the office. I like to talk to people, people interrupt me with questions, and towards the end of the day I’m watching the clock and dreading traffic.
When I need to get something done I work from home. My coworkers are the same way.
Can you elaborate on this?
I can’t WFH so I haven’t really kept up with the trend
Don’t listen to the bootlicker below. He’s just spreading propaganda for his corporate overlords.
Basically there has been a mantra from people that WFH will always be productive and that, therefore, going into work is a waste. What is being found is that there seems to be a minor productivity hit, but it isn’t the end of the world and there may be reasons to allow WFH even if workers are less productive.
Saying that WFH isn’t anything but good gets a lot of people pissed off.
If you design for work in office, WFH probably isn’t going to be more productive and the other way around. A lot of companies made the mistake thinking that WFH is the same as regular office but with everyone being home. This is not the case.
I have experience with company without WFH employees, where any team that wasn’t literary all in the same building had some serious communication and cooperation isuues. I have experience with company where there was no office whatsoever, people were across globe and time zones and we managed to cooperate effectively.
I’m not saying that WFH can be always more effective. But in many cases it’s just terribly implemented change and companies are just moving back to investing into office space instead of investing into proper WFH culture.
Folks at Zapier wrote an excellent guide if anyone is interested. It’s serious effort, sure. People often feel like this is extra work to keep WFH viable, but they tend to forget that keeping the office running is also a serious effort. Many companies probably have office manager, how many of these have some alternative of that for WFH?
I would agree that implementation of WFH could be better. I also appreciate the link you shared. WFH can also be a viable option provided you set up for it.
However, I tend to find that a lot of the people who work best in WFH situations are generally friendly and productive people who will reach out on issues and cultivate relationships.
In contrast, those who seem to advocate the most for WFH online seem to want their direct manager to plug them into a system that will turn them into a cog that doesn’t need to be proactive in solving problems. That isn’t everyone who wants WFH, but they seem to be a loud minority.
Yeah, you absolutely have to set up for WFH. Which is no different than working from office. We just take that effort for granted.
Another issue is, that lot of the office work cost is not paid by companies. (At least not directly) For example the commute to work can easily be 10% of overall time spent from leaving your house until returning back home from work. But both the commute cost and time spent is paid by employee. So obviously companies are reluctant invest into WFH, because that does generate some expenses.
Come on you rich idiots, convert those offices into something useful and they’ll be valuable again.
That would require effort and work. People this rich don’t do that. They may lift a finger to ring a bell to have a prole come and take instructions on how to deal with the situation.
They themselves have money to count and caviar to eat out of their mistresses anus.
Don’t expect the rich idiots to spend a dime doing that.
You know what they’re likely to do, tho? Convince the govt to PAY THEM for some bullshit reason. That’s how a portion of them get rich.
Like housing. So people can afford places to live again!
But that would bring down the value of all the residential property these same people own.
Those poor commercial real estate investors
Convert it to affordable housing. You made a bad investment corporate America, kindly eat shit. If you need us, will be working, from home.
Time to practice the rugged capitalism that corporations preach. You want good workers? Follow them.
Nah let’s just pump out more propaganda articles on why WFH is bad. /s
A whole lot of Americans who don’t work from home look like that today :/
Yeah cause sitting at a desk all day in an overpriced office building is sooo much different than sitting at a desk all day at home
it’s funny because I was able to get a standup desk in my home office
I’m in better shape now than when I was sitting at the office (plus zero distractions from the cOlAbErAtIvE oPeN fLoOr pLaN)
What a joke of an article. Claw hands? Wtf?
Some people have been working remotely for decades, they are fine.
LOL I’m sure the depiction of what someone could look like after years of working from home, created/paid for by a work furniture company, is totally accurate.
Our interdependence as workers could redistribute capital, if we speak in unison with our wallets. It could be possible with the equipment you’re holding in your hand. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Alternative headline: remote work adds billions into workers’ pockets and an immeasurable amount of happiness
And there it is. This is the reason why so many companies are insisting on RTO. The C-level bosses are being pressured by their ultra rich friends who own the land to justify their high real estate valuations and rent so they can continue to make more money. They’re happy to do it too… No compromise for them… Most of them are old conservative fucks that are probably angry at all the technology disconnecting them from their ability to interrupt their workers whenever they feel like it, so they can dump their stress, anger and frustration on their subordinates by reprimanding them without just cause.
It’s the same old story, rich folks screwing over the common poors for their own selfish reasons to their own self-serving ends. Progress? No problem, as long as it makes them more money, costs them less in expenses, and gives them more power over the rest of us.
Removed by mod
Captialism is more conservative/right than liberal/left. Most of the left-leaning people I’ve met are more communial/“communist” (to the dictionary definition of communism, which, if you’re unaware, is: “Communism is a left-wing to far-left sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement, whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need.”); whereas conservative/right tends to be more authoritarian/capitalistic usually believing in a universal justice system, where if you do good things, you will be rewarded in kind, therefore, being successful = doing things right and being just in your actions.
I’m not sure what you believe, honestly your comment is rather confusing to me, but the fact of the matter is that communism and communal services are generally good for everyone, especially the lower-class, and capitalism only rewards those with money/power/influence to gain more, at the expense of everyone else. Yet, conservatives fly this banner of communism is bad and capitalism will react to the market (whatever that means); economically speaking, a healthy, well educated public is a more productive public; regardless of what system you subscribe to, more productivity is better for humanity overall; to have a healthy, well-educated public, you need communal resources that people can leverage to be healthy, and well educated (like highschool, and healthcare). To tie personal responsibility for healthcare or education (financially) to your own productivity is a net-negative to all, as many will need to decide between survival day-to-day and being healthy and/or educated. A large driving force for people dropping out of school is to make money to take care of elderly/sick relatives/family; pushing those that cannot afford such things, even those that might be the next albert einstein or nikola tesla, into poverty and working at slave wages, never seeing their full potential and their full benefit to society as a whole. There may be an underprivileged, poor kid living in rural massachusetts who can’t get educated enough to get a job where they can make the society changing breakthrough they could all because their parent needs them to work at mc.donalds to make ends meet to feed themselves and their family, and cover their medical bill payments. Since we don’t know who, or where the next genius is that will change society with the things they invent, condemning them to a life of incremental payments on an unfathomably large, life-long debt may stunt the ability for society to reach the next level of development for decades or more.
meanwhile in a communal/communist society where everyone can get the medical coverage they need, free, or at least at a deep discount, nobody worries about food or housing security, the cost of education, etc. then each person can live up to their full potential, given the freedom to do so. The main problem with all communist systems of government to date has been that someone, namely a human, has to decide what each person is able to receive under that system, which, since that human is a human and in being so, they are inherently flawed, greedy, and self-serving, the system fails; since they will prioritize themselves and the people they think are worthy, instead of the society as a whole. Communism is a good system, putting the control in the hands of the public, the problem is that someone has to represent that public interest, and nobody is capable of doing that without having their decision tainted by their own selfishness and greed.
Bringing this back to the point: the capitalistic c-suite and their views are deciding everyone’s worth, and dictating rules and stipulations on how you should function for and at work, including work from home. It’s interesting because it’s a microcosm of authoritarian socialism inside of a capitalistic society. Each organization is, unto itself an authoritarian socialistic governance which is itself governed by capitalism. The c-suite decides what each worker can and cannot have, how much they are compensated for their efforts, what resources are available, etc, often without any input (or at least very little input) from workers, and when a decision is made, there is no method for appeal by the workers. Modern businesses are authoritarian communism, while society is a capitalist paradise of shitfuckary.
Personally, I support things like universal healthcare, and universal basic income, as well as several other communistic/communal supports, whether I would personally need those supports or not; including for post-secondary education, which I believe should be fully compensated by the society in which we live, so that society can benefit from a younger generation that is highly educated; despite the fact that I paid for my education (100% paid off), and would see no benefit from it. Giving people the freedom and security of always having access to healthcare, and always having access to education, and always having food on the table (by proxy of UBI), and a roof over their head (again by proxy of UBI), is a good starting point IMO.
We the people (the workers in this case) have no say in how, where, and what we’re working on, we’re essentially slaves to our authoritarian masters, who are the c-suite. They say jump, we have the choice of jumping, or quitting. that’s it. Our ability to protest or enact changes that would help with safety, wages, workload, etc, is basically null. We can voice our opinions to our superiors, who are free to ignore anything we say/want, and do whatever they please, and either we play ball, or we quit or get fired. That’s not capitalist, that’s authoritarian; which, if I may point out, is exactly what the problem with communism has always been… some person in the position of ultimate authority dictating what you can or cannot do, and what you get in return for your efforts.
Yet, here you are apparently defending such people, under the guise of “capitalism”. incredible.
Removed by mod
I’m not sure how relevant it is, but I’m no stranger to doing things for the sake of doing them. My score: https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=87.2&d=78.9&g=69.1&s=87.2
just as many others, my views are also tainted by my own personal situation and experience, and all I want to say about that right now is that I’m presently fighting with my management staff about WFH vs RTO; I don’t think I have to say this, but I’m largely in favor of WFH, and they’re largely pushing RTO. The problem is that it’s “their way or the highway” more-or-less and I’m frustrated in this situation. A friend of mine is so strong in that opinion that he left his high paying position when they announced mandatory RTO, and I think he did the right thing. There’s many others that feel the same.
Fact is, this translates directly to the authoritarian viewpoint of business owners; there’s a lot of people who want WFH to be permanent, and many business owners that want RTO to be mandatory. The more I view this issue, the more the scientific data shows that WFH is often more productive, and yet articles I keep seeing lately, seem to be alleging that “WFH doesn’t work” usually citing management’s FEELINGS or OPINIONS on the matter, with no hard proof, studies or scientific analysis of whether those statements are in any way accurate beyond how managers feel. I’m very much in support of optimizing progress, and I want people to be the best they can be, and work as productively as they can, yet, we’re often pushed into situation where we would rather do it another way, one that improves employee morale and productivity, yet for no good reason beyond some manager’s feelings we end up having to do it the way they want us to, and often our work and productivity suffer for it.
I don’t hate capitalism or consumerism or conservatives, regardless; I’m very much in favor of personal freedom, as long as that freedom doesn’t restrict the freedoms of others; you can think/feel/believe/whatever anything you want, just don’t force me to do it your way or get financially ruined in the process of seeking my own freedom. Don’t get me wrong, there are jobs that are incapable of being WFH, but as the last few years has taught us, that number is far smaller than what the management would like us to believe. Often, not only can those jobs be done remotely, but they are often done more efficiently and productively than if you’re forced to work in a place you would rather not need to be. Every person is different, so WFH vs office work should be a personal choice; in many cases, it is not, simply on the whim of some manager’s say-so.
In the end, my belief is that everyone should be allowed to choose their own way through this life; to be productive on their terms and decide what they can handle and what they cannot. I’m no stranger to work, nor working for little to no compensation, provided I have my basic needs met, then I couldn’t care less what I’m being paid. The fact is, I’m forced to push further into my career, in a direction I don’t want to go, simply to gain more pay, I don’t want to be management, I don’t want to be a business owner, I want to be in the weeds of a problem and actively work towards fixing it, in my line of work, that can be done entirely at a computer, and 99% of the time, it is entirely done at a computer screen. The geographical placement of that computer and screen are 99% of the time, irrelevant. Regardless of these facts of my job, my employer, under threat of financially ruining me with unemployment, is forcing full-time in-office work.
Turn the page and just about every workplace is doing the same, regardless of what’s required. It doesn’t matter what their justification is, if it’s not a safety concern, or a proven more productive way to do something, then employees should be free to work in their own way with very few exceptions. The part I’m most offended by is the fact that every individual worker is required as condition of being employed, to pay for their own transportation to attend a workplace, whether that attendance is required or not. So you have to contribute freely, your time and effort to satisfy their requirement for you to be there, under the threat of unemployment and potential financial ruin as a result. The argument being that they didn’t tell you to, nor are they responsible for, where you live, or how long you have to travel, nor what mode of transportation you choose to utilize; fact is, I didn’t choose to have to be in office, and I should be compensated for the time, effort and money I’ve spent to be there to satisfy their requirement for my physical presence; regardless of how long of a trip it is, by which mode of transport and whatever amount of money I had to spend to get there.
but it applies to more than just travel to the workplace. The list is long, and not worth going over every point, I’m just selecting a few highlights from my own recent struggles and frustrations. There’s a lot more to my story, obviously, but I’ve already typed several hundred words on the topic expressing my point of view. I may not be the most articulate speaker or the most refined, as my mind is often spinning on all the different frustrations I’m dealing with instead of typing a coherent and focused point, but the concerns I have are valid for my situation and I imagine, many other people’s as well.
We speak of freedom, but I’m not sure we really know what that means; right now, to me, it seems that I’m free to choose my employer from a slew of bad and worse options; none of which will meet my requirements for employment, so ether I choose to work for terrible pay to get what I want and struggle to make ends meet, or I compromise my freedoms in order to achieve a higher wage, where I won’t struggle nearly as much to make things work. The whole thing is a mess. When it comes to employment, you don’t have freedom, the companies hold the cards, and you either play their game, or go find another table with similar hardships placed against you, and the deck stacked in their favor.
It’s authoritarian, and it doesn’t make me happy.
Removed by mod
Strange way to frame it. It sounds to me like businesses are saving $800 billion in unnessicary expenses.
Someone is holding that bag, though. Unfortunately for us, the people holding that bag have the kind of money to make our lives hell just for a fraction of a percentage point of value for their bottom line.
We were always going to pay for their failures; this one, or the next.
The really bad news is the one left holding the bag is the commercial real estate market, which if it goes under due to remote work reducing demand for office space theb it’s likely to heavily impact bank stability. So there is reason to be concerned as individuals low on the chain
I’ve been wondering why this isn’t talked about more.
All those commercial mortgages are intertwined with banks, and retirement accounts, and all sorts of “stable” investments.
Plus it’s not just the offices directly affected by pandemic remote work that aren’t renewing their leases. New companies wont lease a building since it’s not expected anymore, and big companies will be counting the beans to see how much they can save by reducing office space.
This is a phase shift in commercial real estate that I don’t think banks have budgeted for.
I’m sure everyone on wall street knows it’s coming, but if they can act surprised and get another bailout in a major crash, that’s just going to cost you and me our futures, again.
To clarify (what I think you’re talking about), CMBS ie commercial mortgage backed securities is eerily similar to the bullshit that kicked off the '80 ‘great recession’, which was speculation / shorting on MBS. I remember reading an economist at the time of '08 saying this is very bad, but he predicts we’ll just about scrape through it, followed by a long period of stagnating growth, zero lessons learned, then a crash which will make '08 look like a fender bender.
I always hoped he was wrong but day by day, month by month, I saw his prediction coming true.
This is also really bad news for all the small businesses that rely on the office workers who work from home now. I’m all for shoving it to the billionaires and mega corps but it seems like everyone’s forgotten about all the small(er) businesses they deal with on a daily basis and all the people who work for them.
There’s also the tax revenue streaming from the offices, small businesses, and the people who work there. Less people taking public transportation makes them less safe and slows progress on improvements. It’s not difficult to imagine city coffers shrinking, leaving room for more abandoned store fronts and an increase in crime.
I mean, if there’s enough people who are no longer going to work everyday, there’s a potentially devastating outcome on the horizon. Let’s not get distracted by our elation of the wealthy (possibly) suffering. This is bad news for everyone who lives in a city.
well my hope is it pushes investment back.into leisure and third space usage, to encourage people back into cities for fun reasons rather than just to operate a keyboard which I can do from anywhere
I agree and actually if the commercial areas of the cities become more residencial. In my experience they become safer because some massive commercial areas when the sun goes down they are not nice to walk.
