These conversations often boil down into dichotomies when if you've ever been part of a team you'll know there's tonnes of compromise and negotiation going on in professional settings.

People make comments on either side because they feel they would enjoy X or Y, but they're not meaning to imply that we all hoover up the cool-aid and sacrifice all we have for it. Zdragnar doesn't come to the retreats because they would rather spend time with their family, most places would understand that or at least accept that it's your choice. If your boss doesn't get it, then maybe they'll do you the favour of firing you and you can find a team that does get it.

Having a family is a lot of work. A job that takes all that time away from your other responsibilities isn’t feasible for most people with kids.

Of course, so the best you can do is try and find a job or negotiate some terms that work best for you. But what I see is this false dichotomy that just don't represent the real world and kind of stifle useful conversation.

It's not a matter of "Good for family" or "Bad for family", it's a diverse world out there. Some people work away from home for a full 14 days and then have a full week at home of no work, for some people that's a great compromise. Some people have nothing else, so they like the interaction they get from work, for another example.

That doesn't mean such jobs shouldn't exist. Also, some of these jobs pay enough to hire a nanny, at least for those two weeks.

What if the nanny wants to work from home because it's taking all her time away from her family?

I do know people who have run daycares in their homes.

That's why we have the nanny's nanny, also known as Daddy Longlegs.

Kids were raised just fine for the thousands of years before remote work existed.

Work-from-home was pretty much the standard up until 1900 or so, at least for the vast majority of people. It's only since trains and motor vehicles we've been able to commute.

this is highly dependant on location.

a factory worker in a european city in 1900 would not be working from home. (his home would probably be close to the factory yes, but not at home).

Also, raising children and making them spend time in education is only a relatively recent invention. Prior to ww1, child labour was common, especially as a farmer.

The standard varied widely from place to place. In coastal areas it was common for men to go away to sea for months at a time. In fact that still happens today in some countries.

For what kind of work?

Mostly agricultural, plus artisan crafts that made up most manufacturing up until the Industrial Revolution.

Then what do you mean by work from home? For agricultural, I guess you mean work at the farm, which can also be the home? And for craft, the workshop and the home are together?

For those thousands of years, women didnt work without their kids nearby.

The pure mendacity of this statement strikes me as appalling and frankly entitled and classist.

Thousands of workers don't have the enormous privilege of seeing their family every night. All those travel workers, remote health workers, and oil field workers manage to make it work.

I wouldn't really have an excuse. I just don't want to spend two weeks at a retreat with colleagues. It's a job.

This is of course completely valid, but to provide a countering anecdote, looking for companies that do this kind of recurring retreat is a strong positive signal in my current search for a remote dev job.

Understandable, 15 years ago, I would have said the same thing.

Now, life is less flexible and I can't just run off for weeks at a time- some families can make it work, some cannot.

Why are you acting like you're going to be told on Thursday that you have to get on a flight across the country Sunday night?

I've known several people who work for companies like this. It's always been scheduled months in advance such that by the time you go on one the next one is typically already locked in. And even the long ones have been 4-5 days, not "weeks." It just seems like you're intentionally making this into a strawman when "travel for work 4-5 days at a time, 1-3 times a year" is a perfectly reasonable job requirement. And even with all that being said, there's nothing wrong with just not wanting to do that.

Here is the quote I replied to:

> The idea of taking the team out to an airbnb (or some other communal living arrangement) in the woods or by the beach for a week or two to launch a new major initiative 1-4 times a year

Note that "week or two" and "1-4 times a year". It isn't a strawman, it is literally the topic.

As for > Why are you acting like you're going to be told on Thursday that you have to get on a flight across the country Sunday night?

I don't believe I ever expressed that the trips are surprises. It isn't a matter of planning, it is a matter of the duration being a burden.

And that's fine. This working strategy is likely to work for some more than others. Flexibility in travel is a hard requirement for other fields.

Surely there are different roles that would allow for both states to exist and thrive?

I have a large family, and while I wouldn’t spend two full consecutive weeks away ever, I could probably do 4-6 weeks a year, fly out Sunday, fly back Friday evening. Except this last year cuz my wife was homeschooling the kids and she would’ve gone insane, but they’ll be back in school this year so I could imagine it happening. Even two weeks straight is fine if I was flown back on the weekend.

My work let me bring family on our retreat several years ago. It was a lot of fun.

Did they pay for that, or was that expense on you?

That depends on the company. Some do, most dont. But they will not really give you much grief over it. I know several people who did it. Usually after 2nd or 3rd time they would not do it. Because the spouse usually figured out pretty quick 'oh I am sitting here by myself when I could be at home doing the same thing...'

Work paid.

Yup that’s the play here, or just make it optional

If 90% of the team attends and significant work is done at the retreat (and that work excludes the person who couldn't come), it's "optional" not optional.

I totally understand, there's a reason I used the word "fascinating" and not "exciting"

I would personally be open to trying it once, but I have no idea if it would fit in my life as a regular occurrence or if it would be miserable and make me want to quit.

I did have a job previously that required 2-3 days of travel 4 times a year, and was able to make it work.

In fact, a 2 week trip to a cabin to focus on work and team building sounds fantastic... for me. My spouse, on the other hand, would not be having a great time. It certainly has a whiff of unintentional ageism.

What makes you think it's unintentional? The goal is absolutely to filter out people whose families are more important to them than whatever shitty webapp they're making.

For many people, it isn't much work at all. Maybe they dont have kids, or maybe their kids are old enough to not need as much supervision, or maybe they have other family or friends who can help chip in.

That isn't my case, but I am also not going to assume the worst of someone for whom it isn't an issue and is simply not considerate.

Then again, I have also avoided working for any company that failed to commit to a healthy work-life balance.

> It certainly has a whiff of unintentional ageism.

A time honored silicon valley tradition!

What if it’s bring your family along for a four day weekend.

Sure, it would work with the spouse I have now, but I would have been mortified bringing my ex with me. There are good reasons I left him, and having to watch over him at inappropriate times was part of it.

Not all families are wonderful.

This. Same with my ex wife.

I’m now looking after the kids and have a full time job so there’s no option to take a flight or even go into the office.