Re:Ask HN: Why don't I see gold at the end of the remote wor...
by saghm on Wednesday October 19, 2022 @01:32PM
(#33265341)
> Personally, I haven't seen many good arguments that WFH produces superior work outcomes. Companies are collaborative human endeavors. Most WFH arguments I hear are related to personal fulfillment: more time with kids, less time commuting, more time for hobbies, etc. Those are all great things, but have little to do with productivity.
> Personally, I haven't seen many good arguments that WFH produces superior work outcomes. Companies are collaborative human endeavors. Most WFH arguments I hear are related to personal fulfillment: more time with kids, less time commuting, more time for hobbies, etc. Those are all great things, but have little to do with productivity.
I don't see any rigorous argument that WFO is more productive in your analysis either though, just that you suspect it's the case. It seems a bit of a stretch to me to assume that WFO is more likely to be productive merely because it's claimed on that side of the debate; if anything, making that claim without hard data makes it more dubious to me compared to the side not making any claims that require data without providing it. We don't even know for sure if either WFO or WFH even is more productive in a significant way, let alone which one it is!
Tangentially, there's also an implicit sentiment here that the needs of the company trump the needs of the employee when they're at odds, and I don't think that's universally the case. The reason minimum wage and workplace safety regulations are a good idea is orthogonal to productivity; they're good ideas because they are important enough for workers that we're willing to deal with the consequences they might have on productivity. Even if I accepted the premise that WFH is a net negative for companies (which I don't accept as a premise, although I don't have my mind 100% made up one way or another), I still think the question of whether it's important enough for workers despite this is unsettled.
> Personally, I haven't seen many good arguments that WFH produces superior work outcomes. Companies are collaborative human endeavors. Most WFH arguments I hear are related to personal fulfillment: more time with kids, less time commuting, more time for hobbies, etc. Those are all great things, but have little to do with productivity.
I don't see any rigorous argument that WFO is more productive in your analysis either though, just that you suspect it's the case. It seems a bit of a stretch to me to assume that WFO is more likely to be productive merely because it's claimed on that side of the debate; if anything, making that claim without hard data makes it more dubious to me compared to the side not making any claims that require data without providing it. We don't even know for sure if either WFO or WFH even is more productive in a significant way, let alone which one it is!
Tangentially, there's also an implicit sentiment here that the needs of the company trump the needs of the employee when they're at odds, and I don't think that's universally the case. The reason minimum wage and workplace safety regulations are a good idea is orthogonal to productivity; they're good ideas because they are important enough for workers that we're willing to deal with the consequences they might have on productivity. Even if I accepted the premise that WFH is a net negative for companies (which I don't accept as a premise, although I don't have my mind 100% made up one way or another), I still think the question of whether it's important enough for workers despite this is unsettled.