Hacker News Reader

>I believe the WFH shift is inevitable for the information industry and whoever tries to resist it will be in the wrong side of history.

I believe the WFH shift is currently in fashion, in the same way that cubicles used to be, then open-offices. 10+ years ago, it was a big thing for a startup, for example, to get some office space at a accelerator just to have a physical location - even though you could do all your work remotely.

At some point, I suspect, work-from-office will come back around.

Big picture: Some people like remote work, some people don't. Some companies will embrace remote work, some won't. This is the same with how some people prefer cubicles (like me!) and others see them as soul-less cages.

Regular WFH is definitely not in fashion, the discussions of these last few days show it's still in early stage even in FAANGs outside of the COVID context.

> Some people like remote work, some people don't.

And a lot like to have the option to do both, because even if I prefer working at the office being forced to be there every day of the week no matter the circumstances makes no sense for me. What is asked here is flexibility.

> At some point, I suspect, work-from-office will come back around.

It already has. The forward-thinking job candidates advertise willingness to work in an office now, (correctly) inferring that it increases their hireability and promotion chances.

You're being downvoted but, as someone effectively if not officially full-time remote, I agree with you. There are almost certainly far more opportunities for someone who can come into an office even if just for a day or two a week, a few days every other week, etc. than there are for people living in the mountains someplace who can fly to a week-long team meeting every quarter.

The latter opportunities exist too. That's effectively the situation with my very distributed team although I could drive into an office (where the vast bulk of them are not located). But there are probably far fewer of them.

We were asked at my company to indicate our wfh preferences for the future so we can plan real estate (we re a big intl bank).

As soon as the result in each team came out, managers were talking abt who s engaged (0 wfh) vs who's not (4-5 days wfh).

I dont care, I put 0 to increase my popularity upstairs as it cost me nothing at all, but you cant help to wonder if companies are sincere in asking people to choose. Just dont ask if you dont want it to happen.

> This is the same with how some people prefer cubicles (like me!)

For me it goes like this (best to worse).

    WFH Forever (as I currently do).
    On-site own office
    Small Office (only devs)
    Cubicle
    Open Office.

Should note I will not work in an open office as in I used to ask in the interview if it was an open office and if so terminate the interview politely.

Small Office/Cubicle you'd have to be paying spectaculary well.

On-site own office I'd consider for market rate and WFH - just pay me the average for my level.

Basically if you want me on-site it'll cost more, if you want me on-site in a less than ideal working environment (for me) it'll cost even more.

Interesting that you prefer a small (shared) office to a cubicle -- I never worked in one but I imagine it to be a special kind of Hell.

At least with a cubicle your space, such as it is, is your space -- you don't have to share it with John who smells funny or Larry who talks to himself, and so on.

I can smell and hear my co-workers from my cubicle just fine. In the floor I'm on we have accountants, developers, the help desk, people that write contracts, and our travel desk. There is a lot of competing noise about a ton of different topics. To those, including my boss, that say as remote we miss out on the overhearing about an issue and coming up with a solution, I present you that I overhear about how accounting is categorizing funding, or whether contracts need to have contractors submit insurance more regularly. The developers all have on noise canceling headphones and send chat/email. On really fun days someone cooks fish in the microwave in the nearby kitchenette, but usually it's just smelling the dozen or so cubicles around me.

A small office with only devs in is generally quieter than a cubicle surrounded by cubicles full of non-devs.

There are two things that stop me from working comfortably/well - noise I can't control and visual distractions (and it's gotten worse as I've gotten older).

Most shared offices still have separate desks and/or cubicle-like dividers between spaces.

> you don't have to share it with John who smells funny or Larry who talks to himself, and so on

A cubicle room is a shared office with more participants. It's the difference between trying to find an dorm room with a roommate or three versus a cabin full of bunks with dozens of roommates. (The fact that "apartments" with proper offices are so far below the "norm" in work environments versus home environments/living arrangements says so much. When was the last time a cabin full of bunks was something you expected to be in 90% of the year? [Also, I think in this analogy the open office is the church basement full of sleeping bags.])

> Also, I think in this analogy the open office is the church basement full of sleeping bags.

Only if half the people using the sleeping bags are also practicing the drums.

Note that there are three things going on here:

- how good is your office environment as a work environment? (e.g. does it have productivity-destroying measures like being open, or is it acoustically quiet, or has nice facilities, etc). Also applies to home environment!

- how good is your commute (time/cost/gruellingness/exposure to infection from other humans)

- how much are you paying in land/real estate cost to have (a) an office in a prestige location and (b) workers within commuting range to it? There is a huge amount of money being paid to landlords and rentiers in the broader sense, and it would be a big efficiency for the economy as a whole to .. not do that.

The commute is the big thing. My preference for WFH has far less to do with the office than it does with the commute. Even living physically close to my job, the commute could be bumper to bumper and just aggravating.

I'm not so sure: now that I'm 40 and have 3 kids I really love WFH. It saves a commute and lets me balance my life/work effectively.

However 21/22 year old me would have hated this! Working from an office was so much fun back then. Plus you'd meet girls at lunch and stuff. Fantastic time. Lots of work, lots of learning the soft skills and lots of laughing around and enjoying myself.

I hope that 24/7 WFH doesn't become a thing, but that we get a mix. Flexibility from both sides, whenever possible.

>lots of learning the soft skills

This is actually something that didn't cross my mind through this whole thing, and I don't know why. I love WFH, and wish my employer would extend the option, rather than take a hardline stance against it (old administration doesn't understand productivity tools so we all suffer).

That being said, if I was just starting out in the working world, my prospects absolutely would've been different as time went on. Working in an office full time 100% helped me realize that soft skills are as, if not more important than technical skill.

As a director of a very diverse department now, I actually look for soft skills more than anything. Technical aspects can be learned via the on-boarding process. Soft skills are so much harder to hone, though. Especially if you're entirely remote.

It will be a blend in the end.

Right now it is more a fashion thing. Depending on the structure of your company it will work very well or not at at all.

Sometimes throwing 3 people in a room with a whiteboard and a few markers fixes a lot of issues. That sort of thing does not usually happen remote from my exp. But in an office it happens all the time. Sometimes there are too many help vampires. They are good enough but require a lot of hand holding to get up to 'works independent'. The ones they goto are usually the most productive people and that does not happen as much remote. So the more productive ones say 'this is awesome' because they get so much done, but meanwhile the rest of the org is struggling.

Also when you work remote after a few years people 'forget' about you. You get left out of things. Because they just do not see you. If they do not see you, you do not exist to them. I worked remote for about 10 years. I had to be very diligent to be included into things. Recently a few years ago I got to work in an office again with a great group. It was amazing. I learned so much so quickly. I became way more productive. I was able to share a lot more to more jr devs. But now it is back to the same things where I have to spend a lot of time being noticed for anything, and basically having to play a interesting game of 'be nice in email'. Also if you do not have an advocates in management it will be even worse (luckily I do not have that issue this time). Remote work has a lot going for it but also a lot going against it.

But in the end companies will need to measure it. If they don't it is nothing but a guess.

<<too many help vampires>>

This is my first time ever to see this description. It is perfect. I am currently sitting next to someone who is exactly this! I cannot figure out if this person is lacking skills or just plain lazy... but they sure take up a lot of my time compared to their net output!

The best way to help them is to challenge them with questions. Basically teach them to learn it and ask things like 'did you look at the docs and what did they say?' 'if you were going to do it how would you?...' and so on. One important aspect is to teach them to have their own authority to do things. Basically do not show them exactly how to do something but guide them to learning how to do it. But it can take awhile to 'fix'. No quick answer for that situation.

"meeting girls at lunch" is a lot less of a benefit under modern expectations of workplace behavior.

There may still be benefits though.

But anyway why not join a social club for dating? That's where people go intentionally to socialize, so your "hit rate" will be much higher.

> "meeting girls at lunch" is a lot less of a benefit under modern expectations of workplace behavior.

I doubt human nature will change because or recent social mores. It will just adapt.

But over time, people tend to date people they meet regularly and get to bond with. I forget the percentages, but I remember reading a study saying that most marriages involve people who were classmates in high school, in college or were coworkers.

> But anyway why not join a social club for dating? That's where people go intentionally to socialize, so your "hit rate" will be much higher.

I'm not OP, but that's an additional effort and not always easy to do (for example your work hours could be longer, the social club might not be close by, etc, a myriad reasons).

See my previous part of the comment: a lot of people find their life partners in their vicinity, without going out of their way to look for them.

They don't have to be colleagues, but going out with the guys at lunch was a lot of fun :)

This sounds out of touch with reality.

First of all, a social club for dating? Really? Are you sure you're in the right century? People most frequently meet each other dating the same way they always have, with a twist -- friends, institutions (including the workplace), bars and online dating (that's the twist).

Secondly, 22% of Americans met their spouse at work [1], and 27% have indicated they'd be open to it [2]. Does that mean that it's always a reasonable idea, or that it's free of risks and messiness? No and no. The fact that it's sometimes playing with fire isn't going to deter anybody.

Pandemic notwithstanding, Americans spend so much time at work in deeply intimate psychological settings building deep social bonds that it's only natural that romance often develops.

[1] https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140211005135/en/Kee...

[2] https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/one-third-u-s-marriag...

<<"meeting girls at lunch" is a lot less of a benefit under modern expectations of workplace behavior.>>

From what country or culture did you write this comment?

I have lived in East Asia for a long time. Office culture is a major benefit for young people (men/women/straight/gay) to meet partners. It is actively encouraged in many countries in the region.

Here in the UK, I see the battle still raging from both sides. I have been remote for 3 or so years now, so during covid it was business as usual for me. I have a dedicated room in my house for a "work" office, and plan to convert the roof into a hobby office. Having a dedicated room really helps me get into work mode.

In the UK I'm starting to see a push to get back into the office by the media. Stories about how "most" people want to go back into the office, which goes strongly against what I've heard from colleagues (which, to be fair is only tech people). I've heard the argument about being trapped in a small home/flat can be an issue, especially with kids, so I can see that being a driver to get back in the office.

Some more management and sales type people have told me quick communication face to face is missing with remote working, but for me, an information worker, I value not being interrupted every 10 mins. I can put my slack on DnD and block out mornings or afternoons for deep work.

I lived in the outskirts of London and commuted in for a long time when I was getting started in this career. Now I'm 10 years in, I'm over spending £650/$900 a month on a train ticket, spending 1h 30m each way to commute in and then spending £10 on lunch every day. At home I can cook good, cheap, home cooked meals. I can go for a walk at lunch time and start and finish when I want to, as long as work is complete.

People have also told me they miss social time in the office. I'm more introverted, so I miss this much less, but if it's a big loss, maybe you need to socialise more outside of work.

Now, 18 months into COVID, I have decided I never want to go back into an office, if I can help it. I know not everyone can do this, but for me, I've committed so much that I've moved away from London up to the North of England. I want to continue to arbitrage between London tech rates and cheaper locations as long as I can.

I'm sorry to say but I think most big cities will keep a significant loss of visitors. Those that can move will do. The brain drain from a country into capital cities I feel is reversing, and I think it's for the best. We can help revitalise smaller areas and tech like the internet, video calls and the acceptance of things like Slack will power it.

So right now, I think its a battle between employers and staff. Employers mostly want people back in the office (for some reason, I'm still not sure why), and most employees want to be remote, or at least have the option. Who will break first is the big question. An employer willing to hire from a bigger pool of people is bound to, over time, gain a competitive edge.

> spending 1h 30m each way to commute in

That's crazy - where on the outskirts of London did you live? Birmingham?

No opinion on the accuracy but there are numbers out there [1] that an hour or more is pretty average. Not London, but I live about 40 miles out of a major city in the Northeast US near a commuter rail and a major highway and it takes me a good 90 minutes+ if I'm traveling into the city for the day either by train or car. (I did actually commute about half-time for about 18 months at one point.)

[1] https://bmmagazine.co.uk/in-business/londoners-commute-74-mi...

I had a 2 hour commute in - and I was 30 miles out of London. Drive to train station, get train, walk/Tube to office and that was on a good day with no train delays, I stuck it for 4 years Moved to the Midwest where I had a 15 minute commute and could afford a home (which I am currently WHF from)

Get a house that's 30 mins from your job via walk-train-walk [1] then change to a job on the other side of london, via walk-train-underground-train-bus [2]

[1] https://goo.gl/maps/UcNQmsbTE5Q3ni5c8 [2] https://goo.gl/maps/aFJ2Ut1ZLgmNGN266

Not the GP or in London but this was my commute in LA from Pasadena to Santa Monica (~20 miles). If I left at 5am, it'd take less than 30 minutes but return traffic wouldn't clear up till 8-9pm so on most days it made sense to just suffer normal traffic. On a bad day I'd be in my car in bumper to bumper traffic for 5 hours.

Let's just say I have mixed feelings about the pandemic

Wow this is so real. Thank you to share your anecdata! Internet jerks asks: "Who don't you just move to Santa Monica!!??" Zero trolling: Do you have a romantic partner who is tied to Pasadena area or is there a better(!) reason why you suffer this awful commute? I could understand well if you are caring for an elderly or sick person in Pasadena, but worked long term for a firm in Santa Monica. (Real life is tough.)

I was splitting an apartment with a family friend in my hometown in a really nice quadplex where I grew up, for $700/mo. Something comparable in Santa Monica would have cost well over twice that and I'd have a stranger for a roommate. The savings worked out to $10-20 per hour of driving so while not life changing, it was pretty substantial.

I quickly learned to cope by making full use of the company provided gym: I'd leave at 5am and spend 3 hours at the gym doing stretches, exercising, watching TV on my phone, and going to the sauna/steam rooms (daily! it was amazing). Since everyone was in the same boat wrt traffic, we'd all take a long lunch most days and leave later, like 7-8pm which made evening traffic more managable. Most weekends I'd drive 3 hours one way to visit family anyway so I got used to it.

Like I said, I have mixed feelings about the pandemic. Getting 3-4 hours of my life back each day has been incredible. Never going back to any commute.

> An employer willing to hire from a bigger pool of people is bound to, over time, gain a competitive edge.

I am not too sure. When you recruit in really small pools (say 10 devs in a town) and score one of the worst engineers in the pool the next one to recruit is probably better. You don't have that effect in big pools where the untried pool share is almost still the same.

Also if the recruiting is worse than chance (quite common in my experience), having a bigger pool is worse and you ideally want one qualified candidate.

A 90 minute commute? No wonder you prefer remote work...

> spending £650/$900 a month on a train ticket

Holy cow! People switch jobs when offered smaller raises than that.

I'd be about $500/month to commute into Boston daily between rail/transit pass and parking.

I don't know that the climate impact is necessarily settled: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200218-why-working-fr...

(note that I'm generally pro wfh, but on the climate side it is feasible that running the AC or heat in your home more during the day is less efficient than driving to work and congregating with bunch of people in a building designed for energy efficiency. I'm not saying that the claim in that article is true, just that I'm not sure that it's settled)

Anecdotally, I ended up getting a CO2 monitor for my house, and had to set the central air fan to run pretty regularly (when not feasible to open windows, which is much of the year year -- quite hot) to circulate the air to keep CO2 levels at a point where they weren't potentially effecting my cognitive abilities (i noticed that's I'd start feeling lethargic and getting headaches, etc). The house is just designed to be sealed up for efficiency, rather than an office building which is often designed to circulate air to avoid that problem. CO2 levels throughout the house have dropped, but there's certainly an energy cost to that.