It's amusing reading all of the HN comments that insist that any attempts to not work remote must be some ploy by "the suits" and act like remote work is some panacea for all the problems in the world.
My very large tech company did a survey this summer about remote working conditions. Out of tens of thousands of respondents, less than one third said they wanted to continue working 100% remote. Nearly half said that their work/life balance was worse when working remotely. Over one third said they are less productive.
HN lives in a bubble of pro-remote talking points. In reality, most of the tech workforce (to say nothing of the non-tech workforce, which I assure you is much more anti-remote) does not enjoy it.
Please don't frame comments like this as sneers at the community. Perceptions of the community are extremely subject to bias (see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...) and it detracts from the substance of your argument. The community here is simply divided on divisive topics—reality is that tautological.
It's disingenuous to frame my comment as a "sneer", and censoring (via pushing this comment down, when it was previously the top comment of this thread) mentions of community self-introspection is doing this community a disservice. If it truly is not a bubble, then my post would not have been upvoted to the top comment of the thread. Clearly it was something that people wanted to discuss prior to your intervention. Living within an echo chamber is a bad thing, both for the community and for society in general, and HN should be able to discuss that without your intervention.
Your comment was previously near the top because newer comments always start near the top. It's gone down because it has failed to attract enough upvotes and newer comments have taken its place. It doesn't take a moderator shadowban for a negative comment to lose ground on HN.
I know how HN works, but thanks for explaining it. New comments are only given the top spot for a small time period. My comment was at the top long after said time period, because it previously had more than enough upvotes to stay at the top (in fact, it actually had been knocked down to middle-ish of the thread, and then garnered enough upvotes to again be the top). As soon as dang commented, it suddenly was at the bottom.
>HN lives in a bubble of pro-remote talking points. In reality, most of the tech workforce (to say nothing of the non-tech workforce, which I assure you is much more anti-remote) does not enjoy it.
Absoultely. I think there's a place for remote work, and a lot of people do manage to make it work really well for themselves and their organizations. I don't think it's broadly generalizable though. People's priorities are diverse. I'm a pretty well-established person in my field, and I would hate to do WFH 100% because I enjoy mentoring junior folks, and I just can't form connections with people unless I'm in the same space as them.
I really value the option of discretionary WFH, but in reality I'd exercise it fewer than two or three days a month. I find a ton of value in being present and attentive in meatspace.
Every article that I have seen on HN about remote work (including this one) has had people strongly expressing opinions that cover the full spectrum, from "remote is awful" to "it really depends" to "remote is a lifesaver". Far from being a bubble, I've learned a lot about what the pros and cons are for different types of people.
I would posit that a lot of those negative reactions to remote work is because the company culture has been sufficiently altered to support it.
Most negative experiences I've observed have come from split companies, where two classes of employee occur, or from companies who say they're "remote first" but have a culture that hasn't evolved past the office. With the right process changes and the right culture, remote work can be enjoyable, rewarding, and more productive. Not to mention the big advantage: no commute.
Nice hypothesis, but incorrect. This is at a company that has always had a large remote workforce, and if you do want to work remote, it's always been an option, and there is an actual culture to support it (and in fact, all of our internal tooling is built with remote work in mind. All meetings happen via Zoom even if you are in an office (partly because of lack of meeting rooms, but also because we don't want to disadvantage remote workers)). We've been trying to grow our remote work force because of lack of office space, but filling these remote roles has actually been hard. It turns out that there's a reason that most of our people choose to not be in those remote roles. They genuinely do not enjoy it.
Actually i think a lot of the arguing is because of people's conflicting interests. For example you will find that european workers are more warm to remote work, while a lot of SF workers are not. There is a large percentage of people who are invested in SF properties for example, and they are unconsciously biased against changes that will cause those values to drop.
What bubble? A large part of the world is working remote, and it seems like every company didn’t fall apart from the paradigm shift. Would this discussion even be entertained otherwise? Proof is in the pudding.
Bubble ad reductio, someone add that to the list of logical fallacies.
My very large tech company did a survey this summer about remote working conditions. Out of tens of thousands of respondents, less than one third said they wanted to continue working 100% remote. Nearly half said that their work/life balance was worse when working remotely. Over one third said they are less productive.
HN lives in a bubble of pro-remote talking points. In reality, most of the tech workforce (to say nothing of the non-tech workforce, which I assure you is much more anti-remote) does not enjoy it.