Work from home is great when you have a team of driven, motivated individuals. If your team demonstrates you can work remotely and make progress, there’s no immediate reason to go back to the office, maybe except for some team building events.
I believe many of the folks vehemently against the return to office are ignoring this detail. At my last company, I left because leadership refused to recognize that not all teams are the same. We didn’t want to manage people when they’re not delivering. Some organizations were working people to death while other orgs and teams became a form of corporate welfare. Imagine not showing up to any meetings, making no progress on your Kanban board, etc etc.
Either you have management find some way to motivate them, directly let them go, or force them to come in until they demonstrate they can work from home.
Ignoring the problem or pretending it doesn’t exist, or worse, making up for it by offloading even more work to your high performers is all wrong.
I saw managers who refused to do anything because it meant they’d effectively lose half or more of their people. Meanwhile, other orgs were unsustainable engineer burnout factories.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. I have to go into the office occasionally to get my work done. The energy required for commuting is non trivial. I’m not sure why nobody is talking about that.
I can parlay that energy into the product I’m building on the days I don’t commute and I feel like I achieve more.
Certainly the remote first culture will require more from managers so I get where the push to return is coming from, but that’s something we can deal with together as teams.
Because for some people it really does. We have one such example in our team that unless he has people watching over his shoulder, he seems to have spent lockdown twiddling his thumbs
Damn yeah, I never thought about it that way. The difference between the job I had a 45 min commute to and the one I could walk to in 2 mins was night and day. Now I know why. I’m finally not showing up tired to work.
Was working from home with COVID (second time, yay) this week and having that 1:20 of total commute time back every day was a huge improvement to my mental health. Second biggest was being able to go outside and throw the frisbee with my dog for 5 minutes every once in a while. I dread going back tomorrow.
The median commute is 27 minutes. Fewer than 10% of commuters have an hour's drive [0]. At a software engineer's income level, a commute like that is a reflection on your personal choice of home and neighborhood, not something inherent to working from an office or something your employer is doing to you.
Unless you live in the bay area, which is where a huge number of software engineers live. My commute was over an hour and I still couldn't afford to buy anything.
Managers who focus on activity instead of results are incompetent. I would prefer an employee who is never looking busy but delivers, compared with a constantly running at full speed employee who delivers the same results. There is no such thing as “slackers”. You either get stuff done or you don’t.
It's kind of amazing how so many people rallied against dev estimation. How so many people said that it was basically impossible and you never know when additional complexities will come up that require more time.
If they are delivering, who cares if they run errands or do hobbies? Look at their work and if they don’t meet the bar, let them go. This whole attendance equals work thing is more often than not coming from insecure/micro managers.
I was responding to my parent/gp comment about slackers WFH. I think by definition we can say "slackers" are people who aren't delivering at an adequate level - or at least that's how I interpreted it.
I am not sure how much you have been in leadership positions or dealt with hiring in tech, but things aren't as simple as letting people go. For one, a lot of people with performance issues know they have performance issues and want to be better - so if they have trouble concentrating/dealing with the temptation to slack at home, establishing formal work-from-office policies could actually help them. Basically, it's almost always better to try to coach underperforming people or create/find an environment that works for them rather than just let them go (especially for software where it's hard to find people already, it's a bad look to fire someone in under X months, and where as a line manager you actually have little discretion over firing people).
Also, once a culture of not delivering gets entrenched, letting people go gets hard. You don't want to let go of 4 out of 6 members of a team at once, even if they aren't doing anything. It's a bad look for the entire management chain and makes other employees scared. Investors may interpret it as a sign of trouble with financials.
I don't think there's anything wrong with requiring underperforming employees to work out of an office, as long as their job wasn't advertised as fully remote and the employer never formally told them they were not expected to return the office. I do agree that people who are doing a good job working remotely have every right to continue working remotely though. I just also agree with the GP that remote work enables slackers and can make getting shit done hard/frustrating.
They'll just slack at work. They'll watch tiktok on their phones, hang out at the coffee machine, chat with their coworkers. It's worse because their activities will waste other peoples time, not just their own.
Middle managers who are slackers or simply incompetent will be busy all the time arranging having plenty of pointless demoralising meetings in the office with people who would otherwise be productive.
Delivery of coding tasks is a proxy for your effectiveness as an employee in at most the first 2-4 years of your career. Past entry level, your work is the effect you have on the team's collective functioning (or if more senior, the org’s collective functioning), via the effect you have on its meetings. People dialing in remotely have a steeply negative effect on meetings by default.
It takes an extremely brilliant remote worker to add as much value to a collaboration as an average-skilled worker who is in the room. Most people aren't that brilliant.
In my engineering career everyone has always had a list of tasks as long as their arm. The assumption is that if one of your tasks hits a blocker or you finish it, you work on one of your many other tasks.
If everyone else is working to fill in their full hours even if they finish ahead of schedule, it seems unfair that one person who finishes early then just puts their feet up.
The opposite is true of course, some tasks naturally take longer than expected and you borrow time from the tasks you finished early
> If everyone else is working to fill in their full hours even if they finish ahead of schedule, it seems unfair that one person who finishes early then just puts their feet up.
So you rather they pretend to work or drag their feet getting work done? That's usually what happens when managers think this way because there is no incentive to finish faster. In fact, I remember there was a term for it: Sandbagging. That's the type of behavior you are incentivizing.
Unless you impose intrusive restrictions or surveillance on internet browsing, it doesn't really do enough to combat slack, and just antagonizes slackers further.
You measure productivity by output divided by time, eg. 10 items produced by hour. If output was the same during lock down, but worked time increased, then productivity decreased.
It’s funny how people act as if commute time is completely outside of the control of individuals.
Maybe that’s true in some places, but in the majority of places people can choose how long they want their commute to be. It’s usually a trade off between having a big house, a short commute, and saving money.
Which is why I think the solution is “office available.” You wanna come in and work, great — we have desks, coffee, soda, snacks, hardwired business internet and quiet. If you don’t that also cool.
It's a solution to that, but worse one than the disease for my office, where's there less bandwidth (shared among ~100 people), bad tea/coffee, and having to listen to other people on Zooms (or be on a Zoom myself in a noisy environment).
My problem with that is that I kinda have to be forced to go to the office or I will more likely than not WFH. I hate myself for it, but find it VERY hard to change my habit. I am definitely not strong mentally.
Buy why force everyone? Since I have ADHD I've made these kinds of arrangement with my manager before to be harder on me in some ways for motivation and softer in others because I get RSD real bad; it's never been that weird. Different management styles for different people.
But that isn't a work from home issue at all. You complain about people not delivering. That wouldn't change if they are at home or on premise.
Management must set timelines here or employees will maximize the time they can get away with. That is the exact same optimization we try to achieve in any other business process. Spend your budget or it will be cut.
Sure, intrinsic motivation exists in some teams but that can be highly dependent on the task. I have ones that I like and those that I don't. I won't hide the fact that the tasks I like might get done quicker. Shouldn't be that way perhaps but people aren't robots.
But still, the problem is the same if people are at home or at work. I personally didn't even like working from home but my office is just 10 minutes from where I live. Not true for most employees though.
We unfortunately have one of those people in our team and he just can't be trusted to work from home. Unless he has people basically watching over his shoulder, then he gets nothing done
Over the 18 months of lockdown, his weekly engineering updates showed little change from week to week.
No surprise that when the order to return to the office came in, he argued for months about it
You found that when they were required to come into the office, the underperforming employees+teams did more work? I wonder if you have any thoughts on why that is, I'm not necessarily surprised but I'm interested to hear more about your scenario.
Do you feel it was because they were held to a higher standard by managers etc. or ended up being motivated to do more because of camaraderie of irl interactions or something else?
I feel that my mental health has improved after going back to (voluntarily) office. It was no good being stuck with myself at home all the time. That said, I've worked out of some toxic offices and I don't miss that.
Smart employers will allow people to come into an office only if they want to. It doesn't have to be a binary. They don't need to lose people like you just because other employees want to be remote.
If employers allow some work from home and some work in office, after a few years, there will be lots of reports to claim the statistical differences of wage and promotion between those two groups are discriminations. And demand those two groups to have the same outcomes.
It's not about allowing or not allowing. You let everyone work remotely if they want to, and then you pay for a small office for the people who choose it. Remote should be the assumed default.
This semantic difference does not seem to be relevant to my point.
If say you choose to work from home and then you find out your coworkers working in office get more wage increase or promotion than you do, would you be OK with it?
This is how things already work. Companies like Google and Facebook are not shy at all about cutting your pay significantly if you move to some location they think doesn't merit the same level of comp as the bay area and nyc.
You would be Okay with it because you like to work from home and others choose to take all the trouble to go to office so that they can have more chances to get familiar with the bosses and learn about things not online.
But that’s just one narrative framing. Would you be okay if remote people got promotions more often because they didn’t waste two hours a day commuting, got more done, and met with their managers in more casual settings like pubs and restaurants and so had more time to shoot the shit?
“Not going into the office” != “never seeing coworkers face to face.” Being remote has forced our team to be more proactive about seeing one another and so we’ve ended up socializing more than we ever did at the office. It’s easy to fall into the trap of not doing anything other than working chat and water cooler conversations and never actually socializing because “we see each other every day.”
I am OK with either way, because my political philosophy is personal choice. It really does not matter which specific option leads to better outcome. My point is that there are people who do not hold this philosophy and they will demand for equal outcome. Read my top comment, it really doesn’t matter which way it goes, some people will make it a political issue.
Also, they can always link the difference to race/gender etc. Say, if there are more women or racial minorities chose option A, and then option A leads to less wage increases, then the company will be in trouble.
Caving to the demands from a small group is not uncommon. Also, they can always link the difference to race/gender etc. Say, if there are more women or racial minorities chose to work from home, and then working from home leads to less wage increases, then the company will be in trouble.
I actually am someone who would go into the office part time but I would still want to maintain the ability to have 100% remote work.
I am bothered a lot by people at home. I’ve been remote pre-pandemic so the affliction of people thinking your being at home means you can run their errands is not new. The pandemic made it worse because now I am bothered all day every work day.
You’d think, “stop bothering the person paying the mortgage” would be a motivator but it’s simply not the case for me.
I know many people in this position so it is worthwhile to have empathy for people who really need an office.
And of course to reiterate, that doesn’t mean that a return to office should be mandatory.
I've seen the errands and expectations problem from family. Clear boundaries can be difficult to maintain if one makes too many exceptions. Young kids especially can struggle to understand why a parent is visible on the way to the bathroom or for water but otherwise forbids interruption.
It takes diligence, patience, soundproofing, and sometimes locks and a detached shed / workshop.
I have the same issue and am really struggling to resolve it. I’m the sole income and have young kids. I’m constantly interrupted by the kids who want to come see me. I try not to turn them away because the advantage of WFH, or so I believe, is that we don’t miss all the things our kids do while we’re slaving away at an office. However, this requires me to push things to later in the day. Then there are appointments and things that my wife usually has covered, but with another adult in the house “can you take the baby for a couple minutes”. I tried explaining the concept of context switching but so think I just come off like an uncaring jerk. I’m looking for a 1-2 time a week space away from my home office because I can’t keep looking at these same four walls day in and day out. I used to be so much more productive in the office, but felt like a terrible father. I’m really trying to come up with a way to have my cake and eat it too.
Meetings with part in office, part remote, are so cumbersome and awkward compared to all in office or all remote. The cadences between the two conversations are totally off, making it odd to try and sync up and have natural organic discussions.
The problem is that even if everyone is in the office, they are often in different offices. I currently work at a company with people resourced into projects from two other countries (soon 4), with a plethora of customers on other sites in my country. We have three offices in this country as well, and the head office is in a different country again.
Almost every decision (which requires a meeting) requires someone from this diaspora. So we are on video no matter what.
In my experience, I've found that to be the case when the meetings are already effectively pointless and not well organized. One solution is to make meetings more structured and important. This has the benefit of also making them rarer. When I've been in meetings that have clear goals and an agenda/talking points to go through so that people stay on topic, I found them to be far more bearable with mixed remote and office employees.
Man, we used to waste so much time running from one conference room to the other. Not having to do that saves a lot of time for natural organic conversations.
Smart employers will embrace Conways law, and make sure that the in-office guys mostly collaborate with each other, and give the out-of-office people projects that are self-contained and well specified.
- if you are NOT full remote but also NOT full in office you need to pay both an infra for remote workers and offices;
- or you give double gears of you made some workers really unhappy moving their gears back&forth (remember you can easily move laptops BUT normally you do not move docking for them with external monitor and keyboard and mice for working in comfort;
- since potentially ALL workers can came back you can't save money for a smaller office neither...
Are such hybrid employers smart?
Oh, on the other side it's the same:
- why coming back to the office, so live nearby the office instead in more affordable and nicer places if you WFH more or less frequently and potentially you can WFH 100%?
- why having a home with a workspace if you work from the office more or less frequently?
Hybrid is HORRIBLE and should be there only for a very limited transitory period of time to let anyone change habits, definitively not something smart.
Smart employers, I think, will share workspaces. I can't remember the last time I really needed a piece of paper (I carry a remarkable for that) and as long as I can dock easily, with a decent screen and keyboard/mouse combo, I am kind of happy as long as it doesn't take ages to setup.
So you do not care at all about infosec, like keyloggers and co planted in shared places by who know who?
Or for the employer the joy of sharing some loans to find some others do not pay and he have to pay on their behalf than loose time in Court hoping there is something to recover?
That's essentially hybrid, it might not sound for the individual workers who choose home or office, but for the company point-of-view that's hybrid works and for all workers means being able to work in both configs...
It’s interesting how all this plays out at the individual level.
My employer is reopening as a “hybrid” workplace this week but teams also have the freedom to choose their own approach (including staying remote) for now. Some people are thrilled to get back in, others (like me!) are remaining remote with some mild hand wringing about how long we’ll be allowed to do so.
As a parent of young children (who can’t get vaccinated yet) the pandemic has been quite trying for us but the switch to remote has been insanely good for my mental and physical health.
I have filled the two hours a day I used to spend commuting with things like running, biking, strength training, reading, more time with my kids, etc. and this has led to improved fitness and diet, more energy, better sleep, _and_ increased output at work.
At this point I just can’t even imagine going back to having a commute.
On a normal day, I spend about two and a half hours commuting, but two thirds of that time are actually a brisk walk to/from the railway station(s) and the rest is a train ride which I spend reading. I would have walked and read regardless. But this is an untypical constellation of factors, yes.
In my final job (unless I unretire) I worked the last year at home. Most of the people I had to be in meetings with were on another coast, so most meetings were zoom/etc anyway. We did have some meetings locally but not too often. We were just as productive WFH as in the office. What I missed however was social interaction, eating lunch together with my team, occasional movie outings, etc. Living by yourself and not seeing people most of the time is not great for everyone. I'd rather see it be optional.
If you are experienced then WFH is easy to do, but for new people being in person makes it much easier to learn a complex business/code environment like we had. I could draw on a white board our crazy world much easier than try to explain it online.
Also the insistence by some people for cameras in zoom calls drove me nuts, I hate cameras so I never turned mine on (also my bandwidth was never great so video often made the audio fall out, a good excuse).
Been working remotely for more than 15 years and decline to work in an office ever again. I go in once every two weeks for a day to do white boarding design work and hardware analysis. Beyond that, no chance.
I think its the open office layout and commuting which are not good.
We need to go back to private office space and start with local work hubs where
people live.
Its also quite insane to spend 1-2 hours of commute per day back and forth to and from the office. Commute time is mostly waste.
I'd be fine going back into the office if I didn't have to deal with our horrible open office floor plan. The visual and auditory distractions make it really hard to get into the zone. I don't love commuting either, but there is something to be said about separating home and work, and interacting with people face to face occasionally.
> offices, public spaces, or public transport no longer feel safe
They are statistically as safe or safer than they've ever been, but the drama-driven "news" reporting today would love to have you believe otherwise, so that you tune in every day to learn about everything you're supposed to be afraid of.
I'm not sure about the first two, but the last one is a key point: many people who work in offices appear never to have been toilet trained at any point in their lives.
“High” is in the eye of the beholder. I grew up in the UK where petrol cost per liter what it costs per gallon in parts of the US. It’s also in the eye of the beholder in the US - in Texas it’s still super cheap, but California is definitely pricey.
Right? It's hilarious that the leadership of the people working on e.g. Google Apps thinks it's not good enough to run their business on.
It's even more hilarious that they think being in the office is much different. I used to have video calls with people on other floors of the building because we couldn't be bothered to walk up the stairs.
No forced commute, no stress positions in crap office furniture and the resulting daily back pain, no forced cheap hardware, no forced interruptions and conversations I have to compensate with longer work hours, no forced socialization with people I’d never choose to socialize with, no crap $20 lunches paying for the insane rents of the food places instead for quality products.
Please, do go back to the office yourself but don’t force others.
Having 10+ hours of additional personal time per week, working on much better hardware while playing my favorite music, eating quality food I cook myself and using the extra time to socialize with people I choose is worth finding another job if needed.
We just collectively proved the hypothesis that we don’t need to be in an office in order to be productive and that remote work is 20-30% more productive measuring the output of my department.
We have known this for a long time but companies were in denial and pushing strawmen.
But now we know.
So, forcing a much more painful experience and lower quality of life despite it being less profitable is insulting and clearly not about for everyone’s well being.
I think the crisis here is the crumbling of traditional power structures in corporate life, which many of us are now asserting are as toxic as we knew they were.
Office Space couldn’t be written about remote workers. Power tripping managers have a much more difficult time asserting themselves, and might be finding out that they’re not as important as they thought.
I think the rebellion against totalitarian work life has started, and that’s apparently worrisome enough that the productivity gains from remote work aren’t worth it.
The next step is realizing that the “theory of bullshit jobs” is at least partly true, and that modernization has removed the need for as many people to be working as there are. It’s actually resource limitation that prohibits our collective wealth, and not our labor.
Perhaps I'm just too cynical, but I have no trouble thinking that there will be an "Office Space, but for remote work" in due time. Power tripping managers aren't going to just disappear, so they will have to adapt and find new ways to trip. The details will change but the basic character of the relationship will be the same for many people.
For example, we're already seeing spyware being a condition for some remote workers. Whether that continues I don't know, but it shows the point I think.
I think WFH revealed very brutally who in an org is useless. Every large org has a lot of people who don't produce anything but still manage to get by using their good social skills. Those folks got hit hard by WFH.
> The next step is realizing that the “theory of bullshit jobs” is at least partly true, and that modernization has removed the need for as many people to be working as there are.
The problem is that this cuts both ways.
Is society ready for 15% more people being unemployable?
It's been many decades, and we never really "solved" the issues caused by the mills/mines/factories all going under. We simply ignored the people hurt.
I still see no one proposing a solution, 40 years later.
I started working mostly from home in 2015, and entirely from home starting in 2018. I was a little apprehensive, because I'd worked in an office from 2000-2015, and believed all of the "it will make collaborating harder" thinking. I've been sold on WFH ever since. I don't think there's anything wrong with choosing to work from an office if it makes someone happier, but it's not something I'm interested in doing again.
Yes yes, we get it, you don't like where you work or your coworkers.
Maybe that is a signal in itself you should find a place where you do enjoy it? We spend so so so much of our time at work, we should strive to make it something we enjoy.
I'm on year 8. I'm a normal person and I like people. I liked the office. My last office had dogs and kegs. I have zero inclination to to back. I have it too good from home and living outside of major US cities has vastly improved my savings and quality of life. I would never assume to tell other people that they must enjoy WFH, but I certainly enjoy it and it would take a truly staggering bribe or threat to get me to go back.
Devil's advocate: this would be a horrible office for a teetotaler with a pet allergy, an alcoholic who wants to quit (possibly - from a productivity standpoint - also one who doesn't), or someone with dog-related trauma. None of that describes me, but just saying. For me, frankly, that seems like a distracting work environment that values camaraderie more than productivity; there's nothing wrong with the former but it shouldn't come at expense of the latter (and the converse feels like a weaker assumption).
Some people have a genuine preference for a brutalist cube farm and it's not because their aesthetics barometer is malfunctioning.
And that right there is the absolute glory of the home office. You can be in a brutalist white noise ADHD de-stimulation box and I can be in my bathrobe with fuzzy slippers, winter spice tea, groovy bass tunes and pup curled at my feet. Our worlds need not collide.
Indeed - lest my comment be taken as pro-office, it absolutely was not. Just that dogs and bar is what I would want if I were to leave my home office which has both.
I don't drink and I don't like dogs, which is just to say that this kind of stuff appeals to some people and not at all to others. That sounds like my nightmare office.
I've been working remote for almost six years now and still am willing to quit my job to preserve this ability. There are small things I miss about working in an office but they're outweighed by an order of magnitude by what I like about working remote (or don't like about working on site).
I've been doing it on and off continuously for over 5 years just fine. I feel that working remotely tends to not work for people who don't have a separate social life from their job.
I’ve worked from home for 23 years out of my 25 year career. I guess we’ll see if I change my mind at year 30 :)
Any benefit you get from the office environment you can replicate on your own. I think that what people like the most about working from home is the absolute lack of commuting. I wouldn’t mind working in an office provided that office was no more than a mile away from my home, and I could comfortably walk there. But it’s really difficult to hire all your employees such that they live close to the same office. Conversely, the wider a net you can cast the more likely you are to find the employees that you need.
I see people who like the social aspects of an office. You can get that by socializing with people in your neighborhood. Get together for lunch regularly and you’ll soon have good friends that you won’t lose as soon as you change jobs.
I see that others like to be away from their families for a time, so that they can concentrate. Feel free to have an office space that isn’t directly connected to your home; just keep it in your neighborhood. Where I live there are dozens or hundreds of small offices in the commercial center that are rented out one room at a time. Usually they’re used by local lawyers and insurance agents and such, but there’s no reason you can’t rent one instead.
Everyone should work out exactly what their commute costs them. You can save a lot of money, especially if you can get rid of a car. Are the benefits you’re getting really so unique and irreplaceable that the expense and wasted hours are worth it?
What’s going to change for the worse in 5 years? If anything people will realize they can work for everywhere and congregate to live next to people they like thereby forming tight knit communities.
What will change, as all similar swings in workplace attitude have shown, is that the are unforeseen costs.
Additionaly, study after study has shown that non-verbal communication between people is an enormous part of effective communication. Argue all you want, too many studies, turn all over the weekend she the same thing. And the I've thing that video conferencing does is cripple that comm channel.
I love my partial remote work schedule, and love that it exists. But I'll never assume it's the "best" way, it that it doesn't have unforseen costs to me and my coworkers
> Additionaly, study after study has shown that non-verbal communication between people is an enormous part of effective communication. Argue all you want, too many studies, turn all over the weekend she the same thing. And the I've thing that video conferencing does is cripple that comm channel.
A few come to mind: Mehrabian (1981), Fromkin and Rodman (1983), Barnum and Wolniansky (1989), Pease and Pease (2004). In regards to the face specifically take a look at Atkinson (2002), Garau, Slater and Bee (2001). The impact of Hand and Arm movement in regards to communication were studied by Mulken, Andre and Muller in 1998, and in 2002 by Craig, Gholson and Driscoll.
Of course the study with the most impact is Mehrabian's 7-38-55 'rule' (which it isn't!). It's wildly misunderstood, but his study found in any communication scenario 7% of information received is through the words spoken, 38% is through the tone of voice, and 55% is though bodily movements. Regardless of the numbers, it just points out that just because someone 'says' something, people don't believe them unless their body language agrees. If their tone, posture, eye-contact, etc.. are saying something else, people invariably believe the non-verbal regardless of the words said. It's been a while, but IIRC, the other studies never find that low of an impact with spoken word, yet it never exceeds 50% either.
Lastly, the definition of nonverbal communications can vary widely, but I like Henley's (77) (as a starting point) which lists a few areas "... body postures and movements, facial expressions, gestures, touching, eye contact, use of space, and so on".
Even if remote work has efficiency costs, who cares about that outside of the employers themselves? And are these costs so great that employers in tight markets will be able to resist workers requesting the “perk” of remote work?
I'd have a similar attitude but there is something to be said for being able to go to an office when a pipe bursts in your house and it'll be unlivable for repairs for several months
I pay for a coworking membership as a business expense to have a desk away from home or when on the road. Remote first orgs usually have a corporate account with WeWork, Regus, or both for their employees (or a coworking provider stipend).
Not really comparable. In my current office I have my own desk, multiple monitors, comfortable chair, a fridge, microwave, coffee machine, bathrooms that are rarely occupied, I can step away from my computer without fearing it'll get stolen, etc. I enjoy working from libraries and cafes on occasion, but it's definitely a worse UX than working from an office.
was that from the recent FOMC meeting? They said there's 1.9 jobs per unemployed worker, and with high inflation that gives them some room to cool things down a little bit before hitting "real" unemployment. And they mentioned their mandate of "full employment" does not necessarily mean zero unemployment.
"Soft landing" is the magic term for this month rather than "crash;" I hope that's really in the cards vs. just trying to keep everyone from panicking.
Anyway here's the underlying data, available workers per job opening:
disclaimer: economics seems to be a powder keg these days even here so I'll note I am not making an argument, just saying what I remember from the FOMC comments. I know, there's U1-U6, various factors not in the numbers, the gig economy, "well maybe they should just pay more", etc.
> I’ve never seen a politician say “more unemployment!”
Lots of policies inevitably lead to more unemployment. This just happens to be an issue where you noticed. Also, I wouldn't call the Federal Reserve "politicians", as they are appointments which ultimately act-first, then rationalize with whatever politicians happen to be in office.
The Fed wants to raise unemployment because they are concerned about the economy entering a price/wage spiral.
It's a terrible feedback loop that can occur in a tight labor market such as this. Higher inflation --> higher wage demands --> higher business expenses --> higher inflation
Once the recession comes, tech workers will be put to the test whether our self-assumed irreplaceability will continue to provide enough leverage against management dictates such as the pullback of remote work. At that time many of us will be wishing that we had taken this opportunity to do a little organizing.
If HN is any indicator, in tech a unionization drive will get you N very smart troglodytes with N distinct first takes, cooked up from hand-carved first principles.
Probably garnished with a smattering of alleged uncles' union job war stories.
Believe me-- my own uncle used to be a union organizer in tech. After decades of dealing with this pattern he landed in hospital and died. (Doctors said most likely from a broken heart.)
And don't forget that unionization drives would necessarily introduce recurring interruptions to developers' coding flow. Just in the U.S. that could hinder development rates by a double-digit percentage.
In conclusion, I'd be wary of any unionization drive in tech.
Organizing tech workers can take any number of forms- I'm partial to the idea of simply strengthening the IEEE/ACM to something akin to the AMA for doctors or APA for psychologists in some capacities. But the main point is that this profession has taken its perks and relative labor power for granted in the past decade, and now that the good times might be ending, we will all soon see what happens when we are without the luxury of a bull market. Perhaps it would have been prudent to have gotten a lot of this codified prior with the leverage that a union or a professional association accords. It's a very "the grasshopper and the ant" situation.
I don't know about sports betting, that seems crazy, but I did know some people who partially bootstrapped their HFT startup by playing online poker at what would eventually become a trading desk once they finished building out their software stack. The few times I visited there was always one of the founders playing ~a dozen online poker games, one table per monitor. AIUI it kept the lights on in those early days for them.
Seems like stock and crypto trading completely replaced sports betting a year or two ago when pro sports games couldn't actually be played. Hence the rise of the r/WSB phenomenon. Bringing up sports betting seems anachronistic.
> Don't go compensating for your ludopathy. You need help. Seek help.
If you aren't betting on an head 2 head between an organization which has a total salary cost of 400M vs. an organization which has a total salary cost of 4M...
Sports betting isn't limited to North America you know...that's a 5% gain for your capital in just 90 mins that you can compound by always betting on Goliaths
If individuals have agency over their working conditions, it might encourage such thinking to extend to other areas of life. Such urges are better characterized as seeking the anonymous safety of "being part of something," which has the added benefit of reinforcing the herd instincts at the same time.
Employers are not fungible. In certain fields, there are a small number of high-prestige employers. It makes more sense to organize in support of remote work than to leave.
There's an organized effort to prop up the value of commercial real estate by ending WFH arrangements - of course there ought to be an organized counter-effort by people who value work-life balance, short commutes, their health, whatever.
Rebellion? Seriously? The drones are not happy and are not falling in line with what the feudal lords want?
"Is getting serious": like up until now people were casually joking about this until they figured out it's an option to WFH.
We, people, pretend to be the smartest creatures around to continuously do things that are directly against our best interest even when we have evidence to point us in the right way. It's stupid af and preserving a failed way of doing things should not ever be a priority (the focus should be on the transition to something better)
