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.