Hacker News Reader

Comment by jrockway | Hacker News Reader

I don't know if there is any amenity at the office that would make me want to commute (and it is like 20 minutes for me to get to work). Like, I already have a private office. Nobody I work with wants to be interrupted with random conversation. So what would going into the office achieve; we'd each spend 40 minutes a day packed into a subway car, while still not actually talking to each other.

If you want employees to be happier about work, assign fewer tasks. "Welp I'm done with everything this sprint, guess I'll not come in for 3 days."

As an aside, I propose a new Olympic sport called "software engineering". We take the world's best 100m dash runners, and have them run 421.6 100m dashes one after another! If you're a sprinter, why can't you also be a distance runner!

View on HN

That’s nice for you.

We can’t afford to move to an apartment with two extra rooms, so wfh full time would require a raise for both of us.

The WFH vs in-office debate is very much one that is dependent on personal circumstances and I do wish more people understood that

The average price difference between a 2 bedroom and a 1 is about $3000 annually. I'm guessing that one bedroom is probably enough for 2 desks.

An average couple will use about $5-$12k annually in terms of needing 2 cars, gas, maintenance etc not to mention spending collectively nearly 500 hours commuting over the course of the year.

Details matter for instance your commute may be very favorable or the cost of changing apartments very expensive if you already have a good deal but on average WFH is a financial gain and a pretty big one at that.

Where I live, the average difference between 1 bedroom and 2 bedrooms is about $12,000/year, which generally requires $20,000 pre-tax income.

As an alternative one may consider setting up an office in a corner of the existing space or nook. Mine is about 5"x6" for instance.

This is highly situational. Full time office would cost me $2500 in public transport. Rent difference to 2 bedroom is $15k pa here. The increased amenity of the extra room is totally worth it, but not everyone has the means to pay up to 10k a year extra in rent.

I mean, transportation is pre-tax, so not really $2500.

There's also no such thing as a free lunch. If your employer is buying you an office, then that comes right out of your take-home pay. Or, you're underpaid. Ultimately you provide $X value to the business, your salary and rent for an office don't increase the value, so they directly compete with each other. That's why open offices are so popular, people only compare offers with the $ that they take home. So, they don't put anything else into the other buckets. (I watched Google gradually remove all the perks in order to give people higher total comp. Part of it was taxing snacks and health insurance like income, but part of it was people leaving for the other FAANGs that had less benefits but paid more. The market decided they didn't want private offices at work.)

> If your employer is buying you an office, then that comes right out of your take-home pay.

That's not really how this works. At all.

If it was the case, big tech wouldn't push for return to office.

Good point. As you move towards expensive urban centers the advantage will tend to decrease as space becomes more expensive and transit improves.

That said I've lived with 2 people in a shoe box of a studio and still enjoyed working from home from it although I did have customers from time to time commenting on what was on the news across the way or my cat. I understand that the equation is different for others but I'm definitely firmly committed to this lifestyle.

Why do you need to live in the city if the commute requirement is gone?

The city is where all the fun things are. There's nothing more enjoyable than going for a five minute walk and picking which of the 10 restaurants and bars I pass I'd like to stop at.

This "problem" pretty much solves itself with the current trend.

Those who want to be in cities because of what you listed will pay the premium and stay and deal with the crowding constraints and workarounds such as open offices and high rent. People are sensitive to prices differently and crowding is not too big of a deal since they like people generally.

Those who want space and privacy will move out and work remotely and somewhat ease the crowding.

Personally I can only "enjoy" a city for a couple days before being drained, then it's back to life as a hermit.

But it doesn't look good for those who like in-office w/ private offices. I see no trend to bring that back.

Sad because that's the only way I would work in-office.

You might consider developing an interest in more sustainable hobbies, like running, the gym or an instrument. They offer less immediate gratification, but you can get out of living paycheck to paycheck as people with bar/restaurant habits do.

A good way to ease into it is moving somewhere where it’s a 5 minute bike ride instead of a 5 minute walk to bars and restaurants. You’ll save money, get more fit, and get a dopamine detox.

Good luck surviving the 5 minute bike ride to a restaurant in the suburbs.

Or just live in Europe where most places still have a 5 minute bike ride somewhere. Even provincial France or Germany where everyone owns a car.

'Just'

Most people in this forum possess the skills and education necessary to get a skilled workers visa. So yes, just.

Yeah they're educated enough to know what a 50% pay reduction looks like.

If you live in Europe, you may just as well stay in the city. Still not as boring as countryside and bike-traversible.

I'd be more concerned about the bike ride returning from the bar in that suggestion, actually.

Vouched for the dialog.

I didn't read their comment as a problem to be solved in the slightest. The great thing about living in the city is that one can also walk 5 min to their gym, then see people they might know from the gym on their way to the grocery store, and occasionally invite them to a drink within walking distance to their home if they want.

Or alternatively you can get on your bike and go wherever you want too, like many city people also do.

Living near options doesn't mean you're constantly engaging in those options, but if you are engaging in those too much, ya maybe move a bit further away.

Problem with many suburbs is that they're basically only a place to live in isolation, with a few exceptions. You see maybe a few scant people who walk their dog, everyone else is either at work, inside, in their backyard, or they've driven somewhere else.

You're only comparing suburbs to cities. Suburbs don't make any sense in the remote era.

Small towns are a great option, you can bike literally everywhere and meet people very easily. Only two gyms, but not crowded!

The suburbs really only serve a purpose to house people near a city to commute to, which is moot if you're working remotely.

There's no perks of a city or a town living in a suburb. People live in them because of their jobs.

Lots of suburbs - especially the so-called exurbs - are places that used to be a small town and still maintain a main street, but with a lot of living areas close to the main street. These suburbs are also "semi-suburbs" of the town, if that makes sense, and maintain many of the small town amenities.

I'd argue that North American style suburbs have no legitimate place in the urban landscape at all, regardless of the nature of residents' jobs, as in they're an insufficient, half-hearted, and often ugly solution that people just get used to living in. I find them unsettling places to be most of the time.

The difference between a small town and a neighborhood though that favors my disposition, is that there's generally more variety and specialization available in the local economy and community, as well as less of a dependence on a vehicle for visiting anywhere outside the neighborhood. There's not just 1 gym, there's 4, there's not just one physical therapy office, there's 5, there's not just one dentist or coffee shop, there's 13. Of course, I'm not visiting even 2 of these places at any given time, but others are, and it's nice to know that there are alternatives.

And it's not just meeting people for the sake of socializing, it's also a platform for a broader exposure to diverse cultures and a hypothetically larger dating pool, more education opportunities, access to an international airport, more telecom providers (in theory) that can provide better services if that's important to you.

Small towns however seem great if you've already done all that and just want a quiet place to putter around and maybe have access to the mountains or enjoy farming. There's a certain serenity you might not get near/in a city, and there's absolutely a lack of space that small town wouldn't have. People in that small town might be welcoming and friendly as opposed to cold and hard to pin down in the nearby city, but the reverse could also be true depending on where you've chosen. It's a perfectly valid choice, it just depends what you're into I suppose, and if there's train access that would be even better.

I think you have a somewhat generalizing idea of small towns

In a town w/ a pop. of 6,500 I have:

- 1 gig internet (+ starlink, but I only use when traveling now)

- 2 dentist offices

- 4 local coffee shops + 1 starbucks

- 2 grocery stores + 1 walmart supercenter

- 3 gyms (but one is a curves so essentially 2) but none are crowded ever.

As far as international airports, I can either drive to the nearest city, about 45mins - 1hr but I have flown to a big airport from the town's airfield in a small aircraft.

You can find many small towns with many amenities and most of the times you have at least 2 options.

There's no denying there's more variety in the city, but often it's really not the drastic limitations you're imagining.

I will say, with what we do have there's no crowding, everything is very friendly, there's a lot of local options and people will go out of their way to help you.

But God forbid you live in the town 15 minutes from me, it barely has cell service.

You really can't lump small towns together, there's such a wide range.

Ya that's fair, I'm definitely thinking about them from the Canadian perspective (in terms of connectivity) at the very least, and tend to think of what you're describing as sort of a big town or tiny city rather than a "small" town. Here, we don't really even get fiber in anything but relatively known mid to large cities, and any small cities that grew after the 50s are mostly beleaguered by huge parking lots and bland franchises. Small to midsize towns that have some kind of older area with small streets and small commercial spaces tend to seem pretty livable though.

Having traveled across the U.S a bit by road, there are plenty of great places like Olympia, WA that sort of sound like what you're describing, and seem pretty livable.

The airport thing is just a matter of reducing the overhead and increasing the accessibility of me travelling elsewhere and others visiting me without a car. When my Mom visited last time, she asked me to pick her up somehow so she could avoid an Uber or taxi, to which I just said "Just swipe your credit card and get on the train, then swap to bus". Back in my home city though, each relative lives in some suburban corner that's only served by a rickety bus system, and people are pretty used to just paying for a taxi or long-term parking during the entire time they're away. If I had the car, it would only take 45 min to get to them from the airport, but without one it takes almost as long as the flight did across half the damn country. Clearly, even among cities, things vary quite a bit, but I'm glad that there do exist viable and desirable options for both of us, and hope more open up in the future.

If sustainability is your metric, you should prefer cities. The general environmental impact and resource usage of rural living is much worse per capita than city living. (And yes, that can be true while cities generally use much more resources and pollute more: they also have many more people living there)

I see this talking point rattled off a lot but it makes no sense.

Concentrating in one spot will be more efficient but cause more damage than dispersing.

The efficiency you gain in centralizing is irrelevant since you lowered the total but concentrated it so it can grow instead of disperse.

Which is worse, dumping a ton of salt in one spot in the ocean or dumping 1.2 tons throughout a large area?

There's a reason cities generally have smog and towns generally don't.

Dilution is the solution to pollution.

Dilution is only a solution if the total amount isn't harmful once diluted. That's not the case for greenhouse gases, at the very least. To say nothing of the other end of the equation: limited supplies of the raw ingreadients. The earth could likely only support a fraction of the current human population if they all lived rural lifestyles.

> That's not the case for greenhouse gases

It certainly is, especially for SLCPs.

That long debate aside, today we can see the palpable smog in big cities vs the clean air in rural areas, small towns, and small cities.

You also risk ozone depletion in areas with concentrated aerosol emissions, these are short lived and would disperse, but they cause the most damage of all pollutants in concentration.

> The earth could likely only support a fraction of the current human population if they all lived rural lifestyles.

I'm not suggesting that, I'm suggesting people live where they want to and don't fall for that inaccurate guilt-trip talking point.

It's interesting how different we can be, this meandering seems dreadful to me

If it's 100% gone then you're right, you can move anywhere.

But there's still a lot of activities that people like to do on site. Shopping, restaurants, meetings, concerts, exhibitions, etc.

There's also a difference in lifestyle; some prefer an apartment (less maintenance), or not owning a car.

It doesn't really make sense to me. Why can't you just move to a location where apartments are cheaper?

You don’t necessarily need extra rooms, just be smart about integrating a desk into an existing room. We added one desk in the living room and one desk in our bedroom and both work from home without issues while the kids are in school.

I mean when the pandemic hit we all made do with what we had, and put a office setup somewhere in the house. But not everyone likes or wants the aesthetic of living room/WFH office. And then when you're off work, your office is right there looking you in the face from the webcam when you're trying to relax in your living room.

I think what they meant was that you can build home offices which can sort of be “folded” away once you’re done with them. I have an office space in the living room which is what you wouldn’t want, we’ve sort of hidden it with some book shelves and some walk decorations and plants, but still, I don’t think you would want it.

Anyway, my daughter has a “gaming” setup at the wall next to it and it’s build into a bookcase with a folding table. When she’s not using it you genuinely can’t tell it’s there. It did require some woodworking and some creative furniture “hacking”, but neither my spouse or I are great craftspeople and I think most people would be able to do it. We found our inspiration on YouTube and some actual woodworking help for how to integrate a folding table into a bookshelf on DIY web sites.

It’s not for everyone, but you can do it.

I don’t work from home more than maybe once a week myself. I don’t really want to. I use it ti work shorter days and then do the rest of my hours at nights/weekends.

> I mean when the pandemic hit we all made do with what we had, and put a office setup somewhere in the house. But not everyone likes or wants the aesthetic of living room/WFH office.

The home office I have shoved into a corner is better than what any employer will provide.

I too wish for a raise, and the financial ability to afford an entire room to dedicate to work, and the crazy things I might be able to put in there, like a whiteboard.

> And then when you're off work, your office is right there looking you in the face from the webcam when you're trying to relax in your living room.

Post-It that webcam. But I agree, here, it does make it harder to disconnect.

But "the commute" is such a heavy negative, I think it outweighs it, still. Having so many weeks per year of my life back is wonderful.

> The home office I have shoved into a corner is better than what any employer will provide.

> I too wish for a raise, and the financial ability to afford an entire room to dedicate to work, and the crazy things I might be able to put in there, like a whiteboard.

How can you claim that your home office is better than your employer's when it doesn't even have a whiteboard? To bring it back to the point of the article, bring back private offices. Employers that want employees in the office should invest in offices to the point that it is a better office than a corner of your home. It won't be able to complete with your commute, as you pointed out, but why do you claim that the home office you have shoved into a corner is better than what any employer will provide?

Yeah, I really like my home office setup, with a curved ultra wide screen monitor and my special chair. I don't think that it's unreasonable that, if they want me in the office, that I have the same sort of set up there.

> Employers that want employees in the office should invest in offices to the point that it is a better office than a corner of your home.

And yet, they typically do not…

> How can you claim that your home office is better than your employer's when it doesn't even have a whiteboard?

Because "better" is a function with multiple inputs. The whiteboard was better, true, but by comparison the commute sucks, the noise sucks, the desk sucks, the chair sucks. The whiteboard is a pretty minor thing, in the scoring of it all.

(I actually do have a whiteboard at home, but it's ~8x11". Pen and paper, and Krita, make up the difference, I suppose.)

> Employers that want employees in the office should invest in offices to the point that it is a better office than a corner of your home.

… they should… but they don't? I've worked the majority? all? of my career in offices on 4ft desks, most of it on open office floorplans. The "best" in half-height cubical. Best I ever got was a summer internship with a full-height shared cube.

> but why do you claim that the home office you have shoved into a corner is better than what any employer will provide?

Larger desk area, quieter environment, better view, better equipment.

> I don't think that it's unreasonable that, if they want me in the office, that I have the same sort of set up there.

I agree. Employers, in my experience, don't.

Because we, as an employee group, put up with that. If only there were some way we could band together and say we don't like these working conditions. some sort of disjoint set of a group of people.

See, you would not like that someone would force you to work from home. Same goes the other way around. So why not let people choose and refrain from carpet bombing policies mandating everyone be the same.

if you didn’t enforce RTO mandates, how else would you do your 15% layoff without paying severance or worrying investors?

I too can't afford a room to call an office … but I still prefer WFH?

It does get a little hectic if there are two of us, and we both try to take a meeting overlapping each other. But the same is true of the "real" office, too, only balanced by meeting room availability. (But that only works for meetings where one can forego the rest of their computer, since you have to disconnect to move…)

I bike to work. I sometimes want to go to the office just because I enjoy the commute so much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com