One thing to keep in mind is that this is NOT what working remotely is really like. During normal times if I am missing socialization at work I can make up for it by going out more during the week. During normal times if I want I can spend a few hours working from the local cafe. But the cafes are closed. During normal times, kids are at school for most of the day so they don't disrupt you. But schools are closed.

I'm not suggesting people will prefer what normal remote work life is like, but I don't think they're experiencing it right now.

It doesn't matter if I have my laptop and a hotspot at the beach with tacos and a bucket of beers. It's an issue with a lack of effective communication on emails/slack/zoom compared with meeting with your colleagues face to face. Productivity has fallen off a cliff among everyone I've asked, and this is the reason.

>Productivity has fallen off a cliff among everyone I've asked

You're not asking but I'm here to tell you that productivity has skyrocketed for me & those that I work directly with.

At the end of the day, that comes down to the type of industry/work and whether you have effective management. Organizations that are able to make 100% remote work function properly are at a serious competitive advantage in many ways.

Were these people with "person" jobs or "thing" jobs? Person jobs are sales, marketing, maybe even business analyst, etc. Thing jobs are coders, DBAs, accountants, etc. I find it very easy to believe that people whose job primarily revolves around other people will have serious productivity issues remotely. It's harder to comprehend that jobs around code/numbers/widgets have the same problem. I'm not saying it's impossible, just harder to understand.

Things and person I guess? This is in research, but any research is about communicating ideas. People need other people to help with their research and strategize the next steps, and it's hard to properly explain your thoughts and engage people with your ideas if you aren't in the same room with zero body language and have to speak one person at a time, and are bogged down by having too many zoom meetings to make up for the lack of informal meetings to do any real deep work with the time left.

It's a two pronged effect that myself and colleagues are experiencing: the meetings themselves aren't very productive due to the lack of in person communication and need to be longer to share the same quantity of information and understanding, by having to coordinate meetings between multiple people they are perfectly interspersed such that you can't really get any deep work done until 5pm rolls around and you can start burning the midnight oil uninterrupted.

Plus there is the mental side. We are friends who work together as much as we are collegues, and losing that side of interactions is tough for everyone. If I we had been working remote full time I would have never made these friendships stemming from casual random conversations, which imo really improves productivity in the group more than anything else.

How much of your day was taken up by meetings before and is the same amount of time used for the equivalent meetings now? Do you have additional "status" meetings that were hastily put together just because?

Most of the marketing teams I work with were pretty distributed anyway. Direct sales does a lot of F2F normally but many/most don't have company offices. And there are Thing jobs that involve, e.g., working with hardware that can't really be done remotely.

Zoom, despite being better than the past software, still is fairly bad compared to talking face to face. Low bit rate video, walkie-talkie style communication due to noise cancellation, even when you all have headphones on and other issues just make it frustrating and lower quality.

Also for tight knit teams, the lack of a daily lunch with your coworkers is something else you miss.

Personally, I've been way _more_ productive during all of this. And before the pandemic, I was somewhat of an in-office advocate myself.

Same for me. My team members have all told me their productivity is up sharply without me prompting them during 1:1s. I was a strong advocate of in-office work before, but now I think we'll probably plan 2-3 days weekly from home once work returns to the office.

What are your thoughts on companies like Basecamp, Gitlab doing remote so well?

That is a really important point, but I think that it still doesn't counter the argument about the career downsides of being remote when you don't work for a 100% remote organization.

My company is pretty flexible but as a scientist/engineer I still have some duties where being in the lab is necessary. I'll probably increase my remote work for now but likely not move further away. I enjoy my bike commute in the East Bay.

People weight "career downsides" differently. A lot of folks who are further in their careers are done trying to climb the ladder and would be happy working remotely.

Two other cynical additions. Not everyone is as concerned about "productivity". Also, there's a nonzero chance that someone whose productivity drops dramatically when working from home were only ever productive because they were leeching productivity out of others. Every team seems to have someone like this, and they can be safely gotten rid of.

I used to work in N Berkeley and live in Oakland by the lake. A lifestyle where you live and work in the E Bay is simply unparalleled.

Yea but during normal times coworkers will be having face to face conversations at the water cooler which you will miss being remote. So you are missing external interaction, but on the other hand the playing field is level in a way that it won't be once people start going back to the office.

If your company is in multiple offices you miss those anyway.

This is also somewhat of a self-correcting problem too. If these conversations really matter so much and either information isn't transmitted efficiently throughout the organization or it becomes a remote vs office clique thing, management either finds a solution or you probably go back to everyone in the office.

What I do know is that a lot of businesses are functioning perfectly fine 100% remote right now and there's a lot of fat that can be cut converting to full-time remote. Those benefits are likely going to outweigh "But what if Timmy gets left out of a conversation?!?!" If 100% or majority remote work becomes a competitive advantage, businesses will find a way to fix the communication gap.

No idea of the business your in but remote work is not working for many sales people or client services and many others that need to deal with external customers.

If those who keep the sales and contracts coming in want offices then ceo's will ensure they get them.

Offices will become smaller and more regional but they will exist.

Over the years via osmosis I have learnt so much by overhearing colleagues talking. I met people I would not normally as not quite my line of business or typically we are both just cc'ed in emails. These have become contacts, friends, allies and others simply provided opportunities or put in a good word for me.

I can choose where I work and have pre Covid era worked a lot at home due to projects I had on. But was planing a lot more time in the office this year as I knew I needed to ensure I mixed more.

Chatting with very senior managers, directors and ceo's simply won't happen if remote. But does when your both some of the only people in a quiet satellite office.

No need to brown nose but being more than a name on a chart helps.

Everyone is working very effectively at the moment as in most places there is with lockdown little else distraction wise and many focused on ensuring they stay employed.

In fact for many employees I think the moment they don't have to take a video con call which runs on as the client knows they have no commute and little else to do. Many people will be happy.

Some companies and departments will go remote and thrive in the long-term and others will once things settle find they need many staff back in an office.

And guess what, having meetings with a purpose agenda and notes both reduces meetings and makes them more useful.

> young, no kids, etc

There is your major reason for that survey result. Companies with median-older workforces will see more enthusiasm for remote work.

In my 30s, married, with kids, and a dog. Will NEVER willingly commute into an office. I'm significantly more productive and have build a life style around getting my work done, quick lunch break, walking the dog is get up from my desk at healthy intervals. When paired with a results only work environment, allows me to handle errands during non peak hours and then finish up any remaining work in the evening hours after things calm down and there are fewer distractions.

1. Morning: Meetings 2. Afternoon: Actual work 3. Family/dinner 4. Evenings after a break: Catch up with any email/work slack 5. Time with wife/family 6. Sleep and repeat.

I LOVE not having to factor commute time in with all this. So productive.

Super agree with this. I have a wife, twin 7 y/o boys, and an infant. I would so much rather not have to deal with the commute and office BS on a regular basis.

The time that I previously spent on commuting can now be redirected towards spending time with my family, straightening the house, doing yard work, getting groceries, working on personal projects, reading, exercising, etc.

Even with normally short commute, I find myself saving 1-1.5 hrs daily. It doesn't sound like a lot, but when your margin for time is already SO tight, it can make a big difference.

God yes. That extra hour or two a day is worth any pay cut I might theoretically take. And I'm content maybe being a lead or a senior engineer for a while. I don't care that much about promotions.

I actually got a huge raise changing jobs from a fully in-office one to a fully remote one though.

I think you are right. I worked on a startup that had a few hundreds employees. Most of them in the early twenties. Every week day, a rotating subgroup of 5 to 10 of them would go to the bar after work. On Thursdays and Fridays there would be more like 30 to 80 people. I was already married, in my late thirties, so I would go home. You could tell everyone was eager to the end of the day. They were personal friends, not just coworkers.

I miss that environment, even though I was not part of the bar tradition (I don’t even drink). I can only imagine how they are feeling about working from home these days.

Remote is not a no-brainer forced by shortsighted employers like the general impression I get from HN. It is an option with serious trade-offs on both sides.

Indeed a lot of people especially when they start out, move to a new location. Away from family and friends and the office banter and social keeps them sane and not lonely.

Same with many older staff, kids have moved out or have their own lives. So many again love the office gossip and banter. Enjoying poping to the cafe or pub at lunchtime with others.

They also realise they need to ensure they are not just a remote voice on a concall and the odd email.

It seems at present the younger and older with lockdown are suffering more than those in more busier households.

Median older workforces own more square footage and are probably much happier and better situated to build out a home office. I now need to devote some of my 600 sq feet to subsidize my company's office needs out of my own pocket. All my friends from growing up who lived in big houses with pools are moving back in with their parents during this pandemic, basically having childhood 2.0 with far more booze at all hours. Being strapped to my desk in my tiny apartment is not fun compared to pool days all summer.

I read it the other way. Only people who are young with no distractions at home, favor working at home. People who usually have family members at home, get too distracted compared to a office environment, to prefer working at home.

Mid 30s, partner, two kids, will only work from home. Will not consider a commute or an office. Have worked remotely for almost a decade. Doing the math, I've saved almost 3360 hours by not having to commute (~2 hr/workday), not to mention wear and tear on a vehicle and the associated commute costs.

When my office door is closed, everyone knows I'm "at work". If you don't have a separate physical space where you only work, I can see how this might be a challenge.

I'm 30s as well, partner, no kids, will only work in office. I won't consider remote anymore after two experiences with different companies (during 4+ years). Worked in office and remotely equally long in total. I never see the same productivity in myself or others when working remote compared to the office.

I think it just boils down to different people have different needs and work differently. Remote works well for some, offices work well for some. We will never find something that works 100% for everyone.

Thanks for the anecdote though :)

No worries, hope it helps others makes the leap. I agree it doesn't work for everyone, but there are so many benefits for both society and workers, it should be mandated that businesses are required to accommodate it similar to what Germany is discussing [1].

[1] https://www.dw.com/en/german-labor-minister-calls-for-right-...

There are also a lot of people who like aspects of both in person office work and remote work, and would like the flexibility to plan their weeks accordingly.

I personally value the in-person collaboration at the office, but many days I don't feel like facing the rush hour - usually on the way home which is more crowded.

I'd prefer to routinely WFH in the AM after the kids start school, go into work around 11AM. have meetings and lunch with teammates, leave around 3, and then finish the day working from home. This would let me avoid rush hour while still getting in person interaction with my coworkers.

Who is taking care of the kids when the 'door is closed'? I guess it depends on how old your kids are... I have a 4 year old and a 1 year old, so someone has to be watching them all the time.

Also, my house only has 3 bedrooms, and the kids take two of them. My office is in the corner of the living room with no walls. I can't lock anyone out of it.

Your house has to be large enough to support a home office to work from home full time.

Although if I wasn't living in this city I could probably afford a bigger house... we pay a premium to live within 10 minutes of work, so we don't have to face that 'two hour commute' you speak of.

> Who is taking care of the kids when the 'door is closed'?

Same person taking care of them when you're at work. Except for 3 hours a day less

Most day care centers are still closed.

You miss the point -- if you send your kids off to school/daycare/whatever while you commute an hour to an office, spend 8 hours there, plus socialising, then an hour back, you can send your kids off to school/daycare/whatever for 8 hours.

==When my office door is closed, everyone knows I'm "at work". If you don't have a separate physical space where you only work, I can see how this might be a challenge.==

Now add a partner who also works from home. Will the extra space (and hardware) needed to comfortably fit all these new home workers be another cost shifted from companies to employees?

If my company wants me to work from home much longer; they need to provide a better desk chair, a new screen, and better keyboard/mouse attachments.

So... $1000 for a fancy electric standing desk. $1000 for a fancy chair. $1000 for better monitors + arms. $200 for a keyboard. $100 for a mouse. We're looking at less than $3500 for a mid-level setup.

The cost of a bit of equipment is a joke compared to the cost of another bedroom. Adding another room to a house is tens of thousands of dollars. Buying a home with another room is also the same cost or more depending on where you live (bay area - another bedroom can easily be $200k+!). Renting - same problem.

I wouldn't get hung up on equipment costs when the cost of space is far greater. (Even if you replace all furniture every 3 years)

I have my same £120 ikea desk + chair I've had since 2011, I have a 5 year old desktop (£1500), three monitors (£400), a 9 year old laptop (£900), my own printer (£50), and multiple network options (£150 of switches). Work provided everything but the printer and desk/chair. Pretty tiny.

If I go to the office (mainly for socialisation, sometimes for large whiteboarding afternoons), I have a fight to see if I can perch on the end of a desk nowhere near anyone I work with on a tiny laptop, massively unproductive.

My office at home is about 80 square foot, and it has a pull down bed in it too for guests. London office prices puts that at £4,000 per month[0]. Manchester is £2700 a month, Liverpool £1300 a month.

The mortgage on my _entire house_ is 20% of the cost of a desk in London, the cost of my house is about £1 per square foot, and that includes the capital repayment.

[0] https://www.mgmt.ucl.ac.uk/capital-of-entrepreneurs

==I wouldn't get hung up on equipment costs when the cost of space is far greater.==

I think you misread my comment because this was my exact point. Fundamentally shifting 8-10 hours of our day back to our homes will directly impact how we set up our homes. What might those impacts be? More space is the first one that comes to mind because I feel it everyday with two people working-from-home.

On the bright side though, you can move to a location that has more space at a lower cost. As more people do so, you should also expect to see more restaurants, coffee shops, etc. open up outside of the highest density areas.

And then prices increase... and it's almost like you've just moved the problem from one area to another.

I'm convinced America is just going to continue to sprawl. I don't think there will ever be a case where we'll actually increase the density of cities overall beyond that of typical SFH density. (And thus more cars, less public transit, etc.)

> And then prices increase... and it's almost like you've just moved the problem from one area to another.

Yes, making a location more desirable by increasing its amenities will raise prices. The way to counter that is to make those sorts of amenities that people desire (cafes, transit, walkability) more broadly available, not to stifle them.

Where the hell do you live and/or shop where a suitable office chair costs $1000?

That's the (more or less starting) price of a high-end Herman Miller chair like an Aeron or Embody. Which is simultaneously a lot of money and a very reasonable purchase for something you spend a lot of time in if you can afford it.

I cannot recommend an Aeron chair enough. It is worth it. I'm sitting in one right now, the one I picked up for a song in 2001 after the dot com bust from (ironically enough) a liquidated startup. It has lasted me that long.

For anyone who is interested - you can regularly get these used for under $400 from a variety of used office suppliers.

For obscure chairs - you can sometimes get a roaring good deal by just setting up alerts on Craigslist. It's how we got a Hag Capisco for $350 instead of paying nearly $900 - good as new too.

Unfortunately my ~15-yo Aeron which was getting increasingly wobbly seems to be down for the count. I'll look into repair when I can. Fortunately I have another chair at home which is by no means an Aeron but isn't bad.

Contact herman Miller, it can generally be repaired, and it may even be under warranty still. I’ve gotten an aeron repaired, it was easy and relatively painless.

My company provides a very generous allowance (~$1000) for work from home equipment (desk, etc). Yours should too, and if they don't, vote with your feet.

Good call, I should just go get a new job in the middle of the worst destruction of jobs in history. After I do that, my one-time $1,000 stipend won't make my house bigger.

The point is that if more people are going to work from their houses, then houses will need to be bigger in the medium- to long-term.

Should you live near your job if it's expensive? Your choice. Should your employer pay you more if they can pay someone less who lives somewhere cheaper? Their choice. If you want to live in a small place in the city, there is a cost. If it's not pleasant to work from there because there isn't enough space, that is part of the cost. You are competing with folks who can now work from home, and have the space to do so effectively. Is that good or bad? No, it just is.

Life is about choices. I'm enumerating my choices because I want to help others make choices that help them have a higher quality of life when the choice presents itself. Do what is best for you. I apologize if any of my responses come across as anything less than helpful; my intent is to be helpful.

What decisions were made years ago? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

A lot has changed in a matter of 3 months. Decisions are constantly being re-evaluated with new information. I was simply opining on how something like "an increase in working from home" might actually have larger societal impacts.

This article suggests people might move away from expensive places like Silicon Valley. I am suggesting there is another angle, the amount of space people have available at home to actually perform work. It shifts the burden of finding a work station off employers and onto employees. Does a one-time stipend of $1,000 cover that? Probably not for many people.

>Does a one-time stipend of $1,000 cover that? Probably not for many people.

On the other hand, commuting is usually not cheap--even if it's just a transit pass. Your points about space are reasonable though most people I know with houses seem to be doing OK. (But then we're a large distributed company so many are on video calls from home on a regular basis anyway.)

It's certainly fair though that, if you have a tiny city apartment that's just a place to sleep, that can't be very pleasant right now and you'd probably want to rethink if going into an office becomes no longer a typical daily activity. (Some companies will pay for co-working space so that may be one option.)

==On the other hand, commuting is usually not cheap==

Not cheap, but tax advantaged and sometimes even reimbursed. The tax advantages for working-from-home are much harder to unlock, especially in the short-term or if you work from your bedroom.

Anyways, I thought it was an interesting economic thought-exercise to discuss the second-level impacts of a work-from-home society. I've seen a lot of talk on people fleeing cities, but I think there is a lot more nuance to the discussion.

"tax-advantaged" just means "discounted". It's still a large expense. Why would an employer reimburse commute costs but not pay a workstation stipend to non-commuters (possibly marked down 50% due to taxes)?

The government reimburses the commute costs through the tax code.

Which government? In the UK there's all sorts of effort in the tax system to ensure that commutes to work are not tax deductible.

Should I subsidize my employer by reducing the need for them to rent an office space? They're basically now getting free space and shifting the cost to me. Same applies to the cost of electricity, heating (I'm at home 8hrs more than I would otherwise), time spent getting food / cooking, etc. There may be more hidden costs and some people may not be OK with their employer not participating in those. Everything's a choice, but I think people should be careful and make sure they are not cheating themselves out of something that the employer would normally provide (or at least make sure they're fine with it).

You're already subsidizing them by driving to the office, unless they are paying for your car, gas, and time.

By working at home, I'm saving time and money. I'm happy to take the increased responsibility of creating a workable space. Most people end up doing that anyway and call it a workshop/sewing room/etc.

> Should I subsidize my employer by reducing the need for them to rent an office space?

Bob working from home, costs $salary, say $10k a month

Carl, working from office, costs $salary + office space

Office space costs say $5k a month, so total $15k a month

If all things are equal, who would be employed? Maybe Bob charges $14k a month, still undercutting Carl's $15k/month total.

> You are competing with folks who can now work from home, and have the space to do so effectively. Is that good or bad? No, it just is.

Also, out of curiosity, how far would you be willing to take this sentiment? I'm originally from Poland - if I could live there and still earn my current US salary, I'd probably be able to buy one apartment every year and still have money left over to live comfortably. So, should you actually compete with others? If so, are you OK with them undercutting you? Would it be good or bad if they did? :)

> People who usually have family members at home, get too distracted compared to a office environment, to prefer working at home.

Don't mix up "working from home" with "remote work", once you leave the city of your office.

I know at least a few people who would love to go live near their "core communities" from their youth, to rent their own little office downtown near the only diner with unlimited coffee, next to the two lawyers & one dentist.

And at least for a couple of them, they'd love to "commute" once a month out of Middletown/Discovery Bay, stay at the same motel 6 in Sunnyvale for a Thursday, Friday & expense it as business travel.

Though, a lot of this isn't about economics, but mostly about personal goals.

People with younger kids are probably having a hard time balancing work with kids' needs. My 14yo is absolutely independent with distance learning. In the 6 weeks or so that she started it, she needed help less than 10 times.

You can't imagine the relief from just being able to throw in a load of laundry mid-morning, take the dog for a walk at lunch, and starting a meal immediately after work. Working from home is a major stress reliever for family people. My wife and I are also saving quite a bit from not driving our cars, not going out for coffees or lunches, etc.

When we're not in the middle of a pandemic and kids are at school, camps, etc., working from home is a major boon for family people.

There's likely a few things at play. While working from home might be a little harder with distractions, those distractions generally imply of a lot of other considerations that make working from home appealing. Juggling work and getting kids to school, and getting them ready for school, and various errands needed for kids (i.e. teacher meetings, after school activities, after school care), mean there are many, many benefits to opening up your schedule somewhat by not being requires to be at an office. I would be happy to shift an extra 30-60 minutes of commute and other time to productive work time if it lessened the stress of juggling all these competing responsibilities.

Working from home with kids around as we are now is distracting, but under normal circumstances the kids are at school, daycare, or otherwise supervised.

Having a family brings with it some other major concerns. You will want a larger home, a good school district, a safe neighborhood, and a short commute. A childless person who lives in an apartment in the city and doesn't think twice about getting home at 7 is likely to value the time in the office much differently than a parent trying to make brutally expensive house, a miserable commute, and family time work.

As others have touched on, single people might really enjoy the atmosphere of their office space as an escape from small apartments.

It really depends on how old your kids are. If your kids are of school age then the distraction at home is minimal. I'm sure someone is going to come in reply with "omg but they're real rascals in the morning!!!!" I would weigh that vs morning commute time and then throw in saving the post-work commute for free.

Even if they aren't of school age, paying for daycare vs potentially much lower cost of living is an easy trade for a lot of people. That's not even getting into the difference between public school choices or much reduced private school tuition available in the rest of the country.

When we had daycare, I liked working from home. With no daycare, I can't get anything done at home.

But working from home doesn't require people to pull their kids out of daycare?

No but covid-lockdown induced WFH is not allowing also daycare to go to work I guess, also al schools/day-care business are/should be closed?

Fair enough. I assumed this was regarding a more normal state after covid.

Currently all daycare are closed where I am.

> get too distracted compared to a office environment

Opposite for me. I bought a house big enough to have an office without distraction. An environment I can control, unlike the office where distraction is everywhere.

I came here to say this. Working remote forever with my kids at home would be difficult, but when my kids were at school, it was great. The flexibility and lack of commute more than made up for the lack of socializing at work.

When I was younger, the latter was far more important.

In my company it’s the opposite. Every parent in the company is voicing very strong opinions to work from the office.

The main issue seems to be that (a) they need full time childcare during the workday period, regardless of whether they are home or not, and (b) the childcare cannot take place inside the same house where they are working.

The opinion I’ve heard most is that if it was non-pandemic times, at best they would be indifferent or maybe commute would be the factor, because the kids would be going to stay somewhere via family / day care / school.

But in the case that kids have to be home because school is shut down / child care closes / child care has to be hosted in the same place where they are working, it’s a straight up no-go, 100% dead set against it. The employer must provide some different pandemic-acceptable option, like private offices that don’t require mass transit to get to.

It has been almost completely one-sided in our surveys and company all hands meetings, all parents with school-age kids or younger are completely against remote work (this is maybe 200-300 staff), and everyone else is completely against anything other than remote work (around 700 staff).

Full disclosure: I am one of the 700 with no kids who prefers switching to 100% remote.

I'd love to know their children's ages. My experience is that people with kids under 12 have a very hard time working with the kids around. The kids just need more help. My daughter is 14. She goes into the room we setup for her each day, does her school work, attends Hangouts her teachers setup, and then entertains herself when her school day finishes. At lunch, we're able to eat as a family and go for a walk so working from home with her around is a pleasant experience.

An important factor is that my team works from home regularly so, when offices shut down, we were already setup for 100% remote work. People who haven't had time to really setup may have been overwhelmed for a bit.

> But in the case that kids have to be home because school is shut down / child care closes / child care has to be hosted in the same place where they are working, it’s a straight up no-go, 100% dead set against it.

So basically, they expect their spouses to deal with the problem by themselves? At home they pretend there is no choice, while at work lobby to keep excuse to not have to contribute?

Do I sound salty about phenomenon I noticed among some of my male colleges too (using work as excuse when they definitely had choice, but actually wanted to avoid boring or uncomfortable home-work)?

I'm young with no kids and appreciate remote work / working from home (up to 3 days a week but not more).

Can exercise when I want during the day, easier to run errands and less frustration of commuting.

That, or employees a little suspicious of consequence-free honesty here.

I'm 24, live independently and don't have any children. I am very enthusiastic about remote working because it let's me live a life outside of work.

Living in a place ~70 miles from London, commuting eats up to 4 hours of my day. That's 4 hours unpaid that I could spend on hobbies, socialising and maybe even just doing absolutely nothing. Commuting to London also costs a ridiculous amount of money - which I would rather invest in my future.

For me, it's about balance. Sure, I'm expected to work 8 hours a day. But when I'm working 8 hours, and commuting 4, what life do I have to myself other than eating, cooling off from working and eating, and sleeping?

Before quarantine, working, eating and sleeping were my life. I was miserable. Due to the obvious health concerns we were then allowed to work from home.

The additional free time made me realise how much of my life I wasn't living for myself, I picked up my hobbies, I exercise more and am overall much happier. Due to that, I am lot more productive. I don't think I'll ever go back to that lifestyle, as I would rather live than just exist. I feel like I deserve a life, and I don't think I'm alone in that feeling.

What I guess I'm trying to get at is, it should be on an individual level, an individual balance. And I personally believe, on an individual level people want a life that suits them rather than the company they work for - and that's how I believe life should be.

Capitalism seems to suggest the one size fits all, be in the office during working hours, or you won't succeed is the only way to succeed - and it's painfully ignorant to how people actually may want to live their lives, and doesn't reflect what we're capable of as a society.

Of course, this is my personal opinion, and the above may suit an awful lot of people. But there are also an awful lot of talented people in the world that have commitments that don't allow them to make 12 hours a day sacrifices, and cannot afford to even consider moving to Silicon Valley (or in my case London) to access opportunity.

I am happy to accept there is value of socialising with colleagues in person, but that shouldn't be a necessity to offer your skills to the world.

We have the Internet, and I believe we should use it to create a more decentralised economy where more people are able to reap the benefits of capitalism and invest in their families, their local communities, businesses and their futures.

I've seen/heard different numbers from elsewhere:

20% want to work from home permanently

20% want to get back to the office full time

60% want flexibility somewhere in between

Personally, I think the specific breakdown is less important than companies realizing that letting people be remote can improve work/life balance, reduces office space needs, and they have most of the infrastructure to support it.

As an industry, we still need to figure out mentorship and career development for remote/partially-remote teams, but I'm optimistic on that front.

==reduces office space needs==

While increasing their employees home-space needs. People will need bigger houses and apartments if everyone is going to work from home long-term.

People need bigger houses for other reasons too, including a growing family, having space for gathering with their friends and community, for their hobbies etc. And I’m not talking about a luxurious McMansion, just something bigger than a $3500 1 bedroom apartment where you can’t have a friendsgiving with more than 4 guests.

Being able to work from home long term means not being tied to ultra-premium land for your private space. Not eating up the externality of your company deciding to hire 10s of thousands more workers in your already crammed city, not being forced to choose between the externality of longer commute time or inflated, subpar housing services.

You are talking about personal reasons that people need more space, which is absolutely true. I am talking about a fundamental shift in how we perform work as a society.

If everyone, all at once, starts working from home and avoiding offices, it is reasonable to assume that some of that office space will need to be re-created in houses, which will increase the necessary size for houses. Things like the average size of a new house and the average amenities people include (an extra office, an extra bathroom, a separated "play area", mesh wi-fi friendly, etc.).

God damn. $3,500 for a 1br apt. You must for sure live in SF lol.

That's enough to purchase a full on mansion here in Louisiana.

It's $500 more than my mortgage for a single-family-home in Chicago.

It gets even worse if you want to have your own w/d in a building that isn't 100 years old.

Which they will find, for the same price, out in the sticks when they don't need to drive in.

Which suggests we will need to build new houses to satisfy all the demand. Which is exactly the question I was asking. How will those housing needs differ from today's? Will homes need more space for offices? play areas? gardens? bathrooms? Will multi-generational housing come back in-style to support elderly?

It's a good point. Definitely the need for a separate office.

Another important discussion along those lines is the availability of fast, reliable internet.

Many people don't want to live in the sticks, they have a preference for where they already live.

Then they can enjoy their newly-lower rent.

If people have the option to work remotely, they're more likely going to move to places where land is plentiful and cheap.

That's not helpful for the majority of people that actually like where they live. I live in the middle of a city because I like living in the middle of a city, for reasons that have nothing to do with where I work. Most people are not harboring a secret desire to suddenly move to a completely different type of neighborhood for the cheap land if they no longer have to commute.

Being forced to purchase a larger living space because a company decides to go remote is transferring a business cost to the employee. The same goes for being forced to move to a different neighborhood with land that is "plentiful and cheap" because you can't afford to buy a bigger place in your current neighborhood.

You make some good points.

I don't know that your desire matches with the majority of people living in a big city. I mean, I'm sure there are lots of people who do like living there, but there are also lots of people who have moved from elsewhere to big cities specifically for job opportunities. Being in a big city has its advantages (jobs, access to more specialized businesses and ammenities) but also its costs (crime, lack of natural beauty, etc.).

I think you may find that, after everyone who wanted to leave the city can, the costs for those who want to remain might settle down.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you first need to establish that there is, in fact, a large group of people living in cities because they “have to” for work. I don’t think this can be treated as a fact without some evidence. The power of cities isn’t some US-only phenomenon, it has been the dominant economic engine for centuries.

I'm afraid what workers want is not really important. The pandemics became a huge proof-of-concept for many C-levels execs. The vast majority of them were absolutely sure that if the employees start working from home their companies would fall apart immediately. To their big surprise, that actually didn't happen when quarantine and WFH was enforced by governments. Now they can't stop thinking of WFH as of a huge cost-cutting opportunity.

Nobody asked employees if they wanted open offices or not, it was simply enforced on them. The same will happen with WFH - it will be simply enforced, sometimes with a plausible, good-sounding justification.

I think it is other way round. Young people don't mind traveling to office or at least mind less. They also seek socialization more - whether on the clock or off the clock.

When you have to take kids to school and from school, you feel time wasted by going to office more.

Also, also those chit chats and socialization in the office and after work feel more like waste of time when you are older. When I was younger, it was cool, because when I stayed late to compensate no one except me was affected and I got to look like hard worker anyway. Now, it feels much more like loss.

> And this is a group of people that would be largely well suited to working from home during the pandemic (young, no kids, etc).

Seems other way round to me. They are exactly the people who would like to come office, chill in cafe, play foosball, and video games etc and their residence may be small and/ or shared with room mates. People who are older would prefer home so they can take care of family also along with work.

Likely some selection bias there, in that your company was not fully remote when people took their jobs. People tend to take a job that is suited for them: if they want to work in an office, they take an office job, if they want to work remotely, they'll take a remote job. Remote-only or remote-primary companies exist (see: WordPress, GitHub, Gitlab, ElasticSearch, Ethereum, MakerDao); many of the people who actually want to work remotely already work for one.

I do suspect your numbers are probably pretty close to right, though, given the number of jobs at such remote-only companies vs. those at traditional Silicon Valley offices.

I suspect on the (hopefully) other side of this, you're going to have some who really don't want to go back to an office full-time and others who can't wait to be back but hate that many of their co-workers no longer come in on a typical day.

Depending on the overall employment situation, a lot of people are going to find that the office situation at their employer is no longer one they want going forward.

I had mentioned this in another post. I am personally sick and tired out working from home for over 2 months and cannot wait to get back to office. This is probably driven a lot by my role (PM) where you are basically in an endless stream of zoom meetings from 9-5. I get a nasty headache at the end of the day. I also yearn for social connections, quick chats, meeting in an outdoor space etc.

I might be simplifying too much, but I would be surprised if more remote work didn't catch on. A decentralized workforce is easier to control in some aspects that are incredibly attractive to corporate leaders.

Fewer spontaneous and f2f interactions between people makes it easier to:

1) Ensure folks are focusing primarily on work instead of anything else associated with being a part of a company

2) All hierarchical decisions (promoting / not promoting) can be done without much personal interaction so turns employees more into school children where grades on certain things determine moving up or not

3) Easier to fire folks if you don’t get as close to them and if they’re not right there in front of you

Not advantageous for small/mid-size companies with strong cultures. Advantageous for small/mid-size co’s with weak cultures. Large companies obviously benefit, surprised more don’t go remote.

My company has ~600 employees with good diversity in age. Our recent survey showed strong support for work from home. The executives have always been against it, but admitted they could no longer say that it wouldn't work. One executive also said he's grown to like it. They've even started talking about allowing work from home on Fridays once we go back. A lot of folks commute from nearby suburbs, so this would be a game changer for many.

I see it from the opposite side. This won't be employee-pulled, but company-pushed.

Many organizations are going to be significantly cash-strapped at the end of this recession. One of the juiciest targets will be cutting the high fixed cost of office leases. Especially in expensive areas like Silicon Valley. If a company can push the average employee to work from home 3 days a week, they can convert to floating desks and cut their real estate costs by 50% or more.

I run a small tech company in the Bay Area, and while rents are not cheap, they end up being a very small percentage of costs - particularly compared to salaries.

I think you'll find some companies that your suggestion as workable but I don't see a lot of companies embracing it wholesale from a financial perspective.

Also most leases are fairly locked it's not an easy way to address short-term cash flow issues, especially compared to reducing headcount.

Floating desks sounds really unenjoyable. Plus I'd have health concerns about that before a vaccine is developed.

I have to agree. It brings to mind the Friends episode with Rachel being excluded for not-smoking; same dynamic will come to play with the in-office vs. remote.

What I would really want is work full time from the office, but not be judged if once in a while ad-hoc I wish to work from home.

>There is just too much detrimental effect one one's career from not being seen at the office. For a company that's not fully remote (i.e. gitlab), people who are fully remote are going to fall behind in promotions, etc.

I thought the model in SV/SF is often you need to change jobs to get substantial pay bumps/title increases.

I don't think I've seen anyone getting great referrals to pay bumps through changing jobs without building in-person relationships

> And this is a group of people that would be largely well suited to working from home during the pandemic (young, no kids, etc). I just don't think that this will change much.

I'm not sure that follows. It seems to me that people with spouses and especially children would be more interested in working from home, not less.

Mid 30's, married with kids, 100% for working remotely, primarily from home, at least 85% of the time.

In the company I currently work for the people who build and manage things prefer remote, and the people who interrupt them and make them less productive prefer the office.

Makes sense.

While working from home, kids can often be a major distraction. Not insurmountable, but especially given that most people have been forced into some variety of home-schooling at the same time they were pushed into working from home, I could understand many people with kids choosing to go to an office.

People with kids often have different priorities. Having a slam dunk, distraction free, high productivity work day tends to be lower on the priority list. Spending time with your partner, taking care of the kids, cooking and eating dinner with the family; these all tend to be higher on the priority list.

There are exceptions. Some people don’t respond well to the stresses of family life and want to escape to the office. Hopefully these people decide not to have children in the first place.

Yes. I'm thinking of the old saying about no one ever arriving at his deathbed wishing he'd spent less time with his kids.

Wow. Someone is feeling guilty, I reckon.

Some partners and some children are bad with boundaries.

The fact that people were forced to stay at home may influence their view. If people willingly choose to try working from home, I would guess that the result would be much different. Not only that but the fact the you are stuck at home all day long would make you eventually leaning towards getting out.

> And this is a group of people that would be largely well suited to working from home during the pandemic (young, no kids, etc)

That seems to be the group of people best suited for working from the office, since they can relocate to live close to work and don't have families to spend time with.

>suited to working from home during the pandemic (young, no kids, etc)

Well that's your problem. Young people are the ones who like going into offices. People with families and kids are the ones who like remote (they have something to stay home for).

I've worked remote for a long time and agree with what you said. The company culture really needs to be focused on remote work for it to succeed. Remote first is far better than remote allowed.

I have the same concerns. Personally I liked coming into my office. My workspace was decent, I liked being able to have lunch with my coworkers, and the free food was good. Plus my commute was basically non-existent.

I also have long term concerns about my career. Most of employees were working in the office, and the few employees who were remote, regularly came in for a few days. I was happy with my rent, and I wouldn't want to move that far away. So I wouldn't see much savings in time or money from moving.

> My workspace was decent, I liked being able to have lunch with my coworkers, and the free food was good. Plus my commute was basically non-existent.

If i could say all that, of course! I'd like the office too. I can't

In reality - being older with kids is better for working from home than younger with no kids - assuming you have a proper workspace. I really enjoy being able to step out and have lunch with my family, to be home while my wife runs errands, etc. I also live with 5 other people and never really feel alone like a younger single person might. Also as I get older I end up on more conference calls (in management) and its a pain to take them in an open office like everyone has.

The optics of being in the office will never change. Humans are very shallow and highly visual. I see - therefore you are.

That said, there is a middle ground. You have to be in the office twice a week in order to achieve the full benefit of face-to-face interaction. I, for one, would welcome having to get out of the house twice a week and go talk to actual humans, go to lunch, or to a bar.

Surveys are fine and all but in some industries/companies, workers are not going to have much say in this. When it comes down to cost savings from increased productivity and reduced/eliminated office space, the decision is very easy for some. Not to say it's the right decision but it's a decision some are going to make with some limited data at hand.

We had a similar survey. 1000+ people commercial FM radio company (so more media than tech). About 20% want to go back to the office.

Remote whiteboarding is challenging.

In the office, we can just make a breakout session and grab a whiteboard and jam something out. We're all present, nobody randomly sounds like a cyborg about to wreck the city, and we can actually get something done rather than have another follow up after someone puts all this into "notes".

Google Jamboard with company issued iPads solves the whiteboarding.

In these times of severe economic anxiety, I'm shocked that 30% of your org were willing to put their necks out like that.

Perhaps you have an excellent company culture. I'm part of an all-remote company, but at prior engagements, I might have cynically read such a survey as a roundabout loyalty pledge.

I asked this casually with /polly in slack the other day and was surprised that our engineering department was split 50/50. 50% thinking we should go fully remote and 50% being very adamant that they needed an office to work in the majority of the time.

One factor that might bias these results are the type of setup that one has in the office compared to the home, primarily available space (i.e. spare bedrom) and office equipment (i.e. ergonomic chairs home/office & large/multiple computer monitors).

That actually isn't bad is it? Cut back 50% on office space for savings (or leave some extra for growth), and have both groups accommodated.

The follow-on repercussion is that the pendulum swings even further to open-seating hot desk arrangements.

While I think that's true, I work for a company that even normally has a lot of remote and mostly WFH employees. In general, people who come in more then X% of the time can still get an assigned spot. But--at least if space is tight--you'll need to hot desk if you just come in a day or two per week or less.

From the other responses, it looks like the biggest factor is commute. I am very fortunate to have my workplace 5 mins from home by walk, and I don't see anyone in my situation preferring work-from-home.

Employees that optimize for promotions and comp are far more likely to churn anyway, as 20% increases are available every 18 months by job hopping.

Loyalty of remote workers is probably a metric more orgs should be considering.

This survey result not surprising to me at all. Even if it was 10x more efficient to work from home in every circumstance, if the office didn't exist, we would need to invent it. There is a human social nature, and remote work goes against it.

The office makes most of us feel important and useful. Managing others who only appear on a screen doesn't have the same ego jolt as having your employees there in person. And many people want to be managed and feel lost and disconnected without an actual in-person person to guide them. And that peer camaraderie doesn't feel as nice when your peers are not psychically with you.

We have to all realize that it takes a very specific type of personality and set of life goals to thrive in a fully remote workplace.

> And this is a group of people that would be largely well suited to working from home during the pandemic (young, no kids, etc).

This is the group of people that largely prefers working from the office, IMO.

Young single people are also likely to couple their job & coworkers with their identity & society. So I could see them wishing they could be in the office.

Was it anonymous? Who would want to notify their employer their intent to go remote? Especially a survey that could be to see whos against it.

Agreed. There is a ton of “things will never be the same” sentiment. That just cannot be true.

Maybe employees should just decide for themselves how they work best.

> It's a damn shame, really, the slavish devotion to one's car and spending hours a day sitting in traffic apparently is apparently preferred over actually getting time back in your everyday life. It's like people have adapted to having no life outside of work, and now they're just so bored they'd rather lose that time than just find a new hobby or learn something. I don't think I've ever thought about anything more depressing than a group of people who want less free time in their day.

I'm pretty sure no real person has argued that they want to work from the office because they have a slavish devotion to their hours-long commute and they don't want to develop a life outside of work.

It would probably help the discussion if you didn't straw-man the people who don't share your preferences, and dismiss them out of hand.

This - I've lived both, intensely, and don't wish the mental effects of the Valhalla people seem to think remote work is on anyone.

If you've got a family, home, and you've hit the upper limits of your desired career development, I get it. But, you gotta think about how it would affect the career for someone coming into your workplace as a college grad.

>It would probably help the discussion if you didn't straw-man the people who don't want to work from home and dismiss their perspectives out of hand.

Wasn't doing that at all. People who want to go to the office and don't have an hourslong commute in traffic aren't the people I'm referring to. I'm referring to the people who have hourslong commutes sitting in traffic. People who are close to their jobs and want to go in, great, it's the fact that a huge percentage of the country drives to work. If you don't commute far to get to work, or perhaps don't even own a car, then I'm not talking about you.

The people you are talking about also probably don't like their commutes, but are willing to make that tradeoff. Your intentional use of inflammatory language makes it clear you are not looking for meaningful discussion. Your description of them is inaccurate and completely undercuts any point you were otherwise trying to make.

I suggest rewriting it as less a critique of other people's values, and more an expression of your opinion for how you see the situation -- without attack others. When you criticize other people's decisions without being empathetic, people aren't going to engage with you. And what is the point in posting in a forum with other people, if not to hear their perspectives and maybe learn something?

> I don't think I've ever thought about anything more depressing than a group of people who want less free time in their day.

I think you're the only one who is thinking that way. I'm a software developer who prefers to work in a office, not because I get less free time, but because me and my colleagues are more productive when we share the same physical space while working. On the other hand, I completely get that some people are more productive working remotely, and I'm perfectly fine with that. Neither ways are 100% perfect for everyone, nor will they never be.

When considering others perspective, try to do it favorably, otherwise you're never gonna understand the other side.

They probably live really close to the office and the commute isn’t an issue.

I’d also suspect that young people with no kids is not the dominant work from home demographic - I’d guess that would be middle aged people with kids.

> They probably live really close to the office and the commute isn’t an issue.

I spend about 1 hour going to work every day, and I do that because I want to work with those people, in that office. I could work remote, but we're (in the team) all more productive and have more fun when we share the same physical space, so we meet up in the office everyday to work together.

> It's a damn shame ...

Let people do whatever they want! Adjust the system so people can actually choose how they would like to spend their days. This doesn't have to be a binary option - remote vs office! We have actually an opportunity to adjust the established system and build one that will be more versatile for people with families and folks in the middle class.

I'm really curious to know what is your position that you feel so damn empowered to judge people and group them into buckets of idiots? I'm really tired of people like you who feel so smart about the situation that they must push their points of view in every god damn post about remote work.

>Let people do whatever they want

Agreed. See, the funny thing here is you're pissed because I'm "pushing my views on every god damn post about remote work", when I see the exact opposite. Every post, everyone is against remote work. Those people do the exact same damn thing as you think I'm doing, which is "we should all be in the office 100%!"

First, I never said that everyone should be remote. Never said it once. I think we need flexibility, ie. the option to work from home. But the people who really don't like remote work, seem to despise the people who do. It's never been more apparent than this thread - either people are with me 100%, or want me dead.

The conclusion here is that everyone is totally insane, that's my takeaway.

People aren't arguing with you because they despise people who want to work remotely or even because they don't understand it. They're arguing because you're deliberately misinterpreting why people want to work from the office. You think they're crazy because the reasons you made up for them are crazy. (Enjoying traffic? Bored of having fun hobbies? I mean, come on.)

Even before the current situation, both "sides" (and I realize many/most are not really firmly on a side) tended to feel a need to argue their case.

People who like remote work don't want execs to hear the "teams are more productive in an office" theme so many times they pull people back into the office. Which has happened in a number of cases.

On the flip side, people who really want their team all together in an office either because they think it's more productive or because they just like having their team physically with them, don't like the idea of a new normal in which many of their teammates only come in a day or so per week.

My commute is also my morning and evening cardio routine as a bike 5 miles each way. I've been really missing the every day bike rides this year.

See, now this sounds awesome. Everyone's getting offended for sport but what I'm referring to is the fact that we have a huge portion of the US who sits in a car all day and night, clogging up highways and polluting the air.

You bike to and from work? That's fantastic, if I could do that I'd be in the office a few days a week too, as I also road bike. But so many people don't do that.

What's really broken is car culture and the way that we have banned any sort of walkable/bikeable/transit lifestyle except in very tiny areas of the country. These parts that are walkable/bikeable/have good transit are massively overpriced because we have legislated away this option for far too many people.

I walk to work, and a lot of my work involves close collaboration in ways that teleconferencing makes really hard (math or other collaborative diagramming over Zoom? Hah!). And the lag makes a lot of communication extremely difficult. Perhaps we will learn to deal with our inadequate technology, or maybe the tech will get better, but my frustration level has gone through the roof with working from home.

So though I despise the hours-in-a-car-per-day requirement that our city planning has forced on people, I also had a bad reaction to your initial comment :)

Why not take the ride anyway? Just turn halfway and go back home.

Annoyingly I have to drive into work now because after the ride is the metro trip for the rest of the distance, but the metro is shut down till Labor Day so it's straight out. All that time I had blocked out in my day is spent driving instead. :(

I live in Boston and commute on the subway. I specifically live in a major city because I like the city atmosphere, events, night life, restaurants, etc. I have co-workers that live in the suburbs and do the car thing (although many take the commuter train), but I don't. So I have no problem commuting to work. I like the subway.

+1.

There's a bias on HN to compare working-from-home with the commuter experience _in the Bay Area_, and conclude working from home is better. For many of us in places like New York, living in the city and going to the office is much more preferable lifestyle than working from home in a random place.

I live in New York, have a reasonable commute (20-30 mins each way), and vastly prefer working from home. The commute is only one factor in my preference and I can't really decide whether saving time outweighs what used to be a dedicated time slot for reading non-work stuff.

I’d have no problem with a subway commute. You can read or otherwise stay productive like would be otherwise impossible in a car.

Unfortunately, the US seems unlikely to get high-speed rail projects functional...ever.

And it's not even just high-speed rail. I'd happily ride the local subway if I could be reasonably confident that someone won't come into the car and start screaming.

For me it has reinforced my opposition to remote work. I feel like without a dedicated space for work, it is hard for me to mentally unplug from work. I'm already burned out from 2 months of this. I feel like I never know what day it is.

Pre-pandemic, I set my life up so that I was walking distance to everything I needed. My apartment is super small, but that's fine when things are open. I'm actually considering buying a car and moving out to the suburbs because I see my inner-city neighborhood rapidly descending into squalor. I think most city-dwellers with financial means are at least considering the same.

Squalor because of the virus?

Squalor because every store is boarded up and the area has been inundated with homeless people who piss/shit everywhere.