Hacker News Reader

Comment by xwdv | Hacker News Reader

I have noticed that most people that say this tend to just have shitty homes. Not every home is suitable for working from, you really need all sorts of amenities and plenty of space to walk around and refocus, and a good outdoor area. If you literally just have 600 sqft of bedroom, living room and kitchen then yea I can see why going to the office would be better.

View on HN

Another thing I've noticed is that the people who are anti-wfh seem to do better with externally-imposed structure rather than internally-imposed. I can't relate at all to people who say their sleep schedule is ruined, their work and personal life blends together, etc. I wfh lately and my work day is a hard 9 to 5 unless something out of the ordinary's going on, I get 8 hours, work out most days, stick to my diet, etc. The less external constraints I have, the more I can create a routine that's perfectly suited to myself.

I disagree on this point. Most of my colleagues at work tend to agree that the shift to WFH has been very negative, regardless of type/size of home.

Presence or non-presence of kids in said home definitely is a factor, but I have heard unhappiness expressed by both parents and non-parents.

The biggest factor is that the lack of an office simply reduces the effectiveness of social communication. People still talk, but the talking is simply not as effective nor, importantly as fulfilling as the in-person chatter is in the office environment.

> shitty homes

I mean, that's a bit disparaging. I've seen some beautiful 600 sqft apartments.

But to your general point, I agree. I just don't think a space needs to be shitty in order to be inappropriate for daily work. If its small or the area lacks food outdoor amenities, it's easy to get cabin fever.

I think in context that could be read as "shitty for the purpose of also being an office", not a general disparagement of their living situation in general.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com