My social life has improved massively since WFH became the norm. I eat lunch with my neighbors most days, I work from friends places/they work at mine on the reg, and it is way easier to have the energy to go out for dinner/drinks/other activities after work. I went to Chicago for a week last month to hang out with my friend and his wife and no one had to take any vacation days to make it happen. Everyone's situation is different, but I have a tough time imagining that WFH is going to lead to a reduction in socialization on balance if people are now able to control their schedules more easily.

How do you deal with meetings? work info that's not public? etc..?

The only people who really “give me a chance” because I’m a little weird are people I work with because I’m useful I guess? So there’s time for me to grow on them.

My social life has definitely suffered since WFH. In fact the only people I see regularly are people I used to work with by inviting them to lunch.

I guess that’s how MOST people are. A lot of people just want their socializing handed to them.

Hiring a housekeeper and an exterminator were in retrospect the best decisions we’ve made in the past year. It’s super important for both mental and physical health that you keep your house clean and free of pests folks!

This was the main reason for people to go to church. The congregation gets a built-in social club, and the leaders get rich and the ability to control people's lives in various ways. Now that more and more people abandon religion, people are having to find other ways to socialize.

I go work at a coffee shop and coworking spaces and have made more friends then going into an office and seeing the same 10 people everyday.

How could you extrapolate that seeing the same office people everyday all day is good for.yiur social life.

Because it's easier to interact with someone when we are dealing with the same project / sharing the experience of being an employee for the same company?

The fact is that now people, across all aspects of society (not just referring to work from home) have much less opportunity for these kinds of serendipitous interactions: we can order tons of stuff online instead of shopping at retail stores, we can order food from a bajillion places instead of going out to eat, we can stay in and watch Netflix instead of going to a movie. And while all of these conveniences, individually, may be very nice, overall they have the effect that we just have a ton fewer in-person interactions, on average, with other people.

If you're talking about "volunteering at the PTO", my guess is that you are married with children. Most people who are married with children already have most of their social framework "set", and often times (at least in the US) so much of their free time resolves are child rearing and their childrens' activities such that most of their "neighborhood friends" revolve around the serendipitous encounters they have with other parents - the PTO as you mention, sports games, etc.

But for people at an earlier stage of their life and career, I think you'll find they often have a different outlook. They're often looking for a spouse, they have much more free time without kids so they're looking to meet people, etc.

For me personally, I'm also at a stage where my social connections are pretty set. But I got so many of my early workplace connections when I joined a job that had a "bootcamp" 2 month training program for new grads. I've gotten nearly every subsequent job over a couple decades from that first job, not to mention many close friends. I know I wouldn't have had those close connections if I had been solely WFH in my first job out of college.

Now, of course, there could be people who work at an office, say, as a security guard in an industrial facility where they never see anyone, have friends who they can't see and are depressed about it, and if they can WFH watching surveillance feeds, it makes them better off. Don't doubt that this can exist, but my gut feel is that Category 1 is bigger than Category 2.

I wrote several versions of this response including one that touched on how quickly "we are in this together" morphed back into the usual "got mine, fuck you" during start of Covid. I hesitated several times. Ran it internally against HN rules about taking stuff at face value, but I think at the end of the whole process only one real question came back to me.

Is it really my responsibility to live somebody else's life?

To me answer came back quickly. It is not.

You want to avoid sniping. It is typically frowned upon.

That said, believe it or not, we are not that far apart on that front. The issue I have with the argument presented is that senior decision makers do not set policies that broadly benefit the populace ( as evidenced by reality itself ).

Apart from that, why are senior decision makers even a consideration here? The recession in the article is that of the mind. It is spiritual in nature ( and that is assuming we are assuming posited argument ).

If you are going to throw suicides at me again, I will ask you a simple question.

Why are suicides are inherently a bad thing? People want to die. Why do you feel you have an obligation to stop them?

I think you should remember that all of our lives affect each other. We have a social responsibility to pursue a society where those effects lead to happy, healthy people.

If you think you’d rather live in a survival of the fittest jungle there are plenty of countries you can move to. In the west, we consider the progress away from such things as one of humanity’s greatest accomplishments.

That is not accurate. Just the other week I had to pay people do complete a task for me. The task in question I could not do on my own simply due to its nature and my lack of skill in that domain. I absolutely needed help. I fully accept I live in a society and there will be times, where my skills will simply not be enough to face every situation thrown at me.

<<We have a social responsibility to pursue a society where those effects lead to happy, healthy people.

Do we? Why is that thrown as an axiom of some sort? I am looking at the history of human race and the history of various societies is at odds with that statement.

<<If you think you’d rather live in a survival of the fittest jungle there are plenty of countries you can move to.

I am relatively certain I live in one of those countries now ( US ). I think most would argue it is considered part of 'the west'.

<<In the west, we consider the progress away from such things as one of humanity’s greatest accomplishments.

Who is we in this statement? There are entire groups in US devoted to the exact opposite position.

It's easy to poke holes in peoples reasons why they can't do xyz, I'm still struggling and eating shit with this as an expat after some years. It's hard, but if that's your challenge and you can convince yourself it's an option, I think it's probably an option.

Absolutely. No way we are stripping 8h of daily socialization without any adversal effect on our social lives. I can feel it myself. And no, "finding other places to talk to people" is not a solution, because work time is 50% of my waking hours, and removing that social connection is terrible by itself.

Yeah, I agree.

Those who started WFH during the pandemic may not realize, but WFH stands for work from anywhere. You may have needed to lock yourself in your bedroom during the height of the pandemic, but those days are coming to a close. Venture out into the world.

If you have no existing friend group that wants to work alongside you, head to the coffeeshop, the bar, the park, the library. You'll soon find people to socialize with.

You have made yourself clear. We are talking about during work hours. That is the very freedom that WFH allows. Again, WFH is short for work from anywhere.

> how do we create environments that allow these types working hours interactions in a WFH setting?

Why do you think they don't already exist? I have WFH for 20 years now and have never found much difficulty to find people to work with, save the pandemic period. And I am based in rural area. Imagine how much easier it would be to find people to work with in a city!

As I alluded to earlier, I think the pandemic being the introduction to WFH for a lot of people has skewed perceptions. They went WFH because they had to stay home alone. But those days are quickly moving behind us. You can work anywhere again now.

Venture out into the world. There are people out there. If the cafe isn't working, try another venue. Hell, if all else fails, get a second job that is in front of people and also do your WFH job there. I did that for a while during the pandemic so I wasn't constantly stuck at home.

This sounds like a very convoluted workaround for something which, for some people, is solved by having an office to go into.

I think what is very clear every time this WFH topic comes up is that different people have very different strong opinions on it, which is fine. I wish people would respect each other’s opinions a bit more though.

For some people, working from an office works well from them. Personally, having worked from home for three years (2 pandemic, 1 in a remote job), I’ve found I really miss that “casual” social interaction with people at work and I don’t believe I could replace that by going into a cafe - maybe it’s a personality thing and/or a location/cultural thing but it’s very rare for me to just strike up meaningful conversation in a cafe here in London. Maybe a coworking space would be better but I still think there’s a lot of value to social interactions with your actual colleagues.

Others obviously feel differently, whether that’s because they want to live somewhere outside of a major metropolitan area, or because they don’t enjoy that kind of interaction, or whatever, and that’s also fine.

I guess the challenge is how companies reconcile the two into something that works. “Hybrid” only works if you have a decent number of people actually coming in to the office otherwise yeah, you might as well just go to a coworking space. I suspect we’ll see companies starting to align more to one model or the other as time progresses, and I think that’s fine - people can choose companies whos model works for them.

Not having a defined office to go into is the apparent problem, not the solution.

> I wish people would respect each other’s opinions a bit more though.

Where does this come from? I've never seen anyone's opinion disrespected as it pertains to this conversation. In fact, the beautify of WFH is that it gives you the full freedom to form your own opinions. Want to work at home? Do it! Want to work in an office? Do it! Want to work from the middle of a field? Do it! Want to work at sea? Do it! Nobody cares. The world is your oyster.

> I guess the challenge is how companies reconcile the two into something that works.

Does matchmaking need to be a business concern? There were periods of history where transportation, housing, even shopping, was dictated by a company but we eventually move away from those in favour of personal choice. All arguably practical necessities in their time, but considered a hinderance of freedom once the landscape changed. Is matchmaking not just that again?

WFH means work from anywhere. It does not preclude working in an office. But if you are respecting of opinion, as was asserted as being important earlier, then offices will only come into being if people wish to be a part of them. That does not require a third-party middleman to be involved. Workers who want to work in offices can easily coordinate that kind of thing themselves, just as they've come to coordinate transportation, housing, and shopping.

WFH does NOT mean 'Work From Anywhere'. The first hint is that "Anywhere" does not start with an 'H'. Many, if not most corp employees are compelled to stay within state (US) and border (EU) limits due to tax code restrictions. It's literally illegal for many to just work from outside their jurisdiction. It probably gets even more complicated for employees on a VISA. But I digress, It's really ironical that you chide OP that you see no disrespect while simultaneously dismissing and disrespecting their opinion.

In case you truly don't get it. Working physically from the office while a vast number of their peers are at home does not make it work from office. The location isn't the factor here, it's the medium of interaction. Sitting on zoom calls all day in the office has no discernible difference than sitting at home. What the OP and TFA posits is that the lack of real human interaction, the social cues, the energy or more informally 'the vibe' is very different when working remotely vs working in-office with everyone else there.

Again, this isn't trying to spark yet another debate on RTO/WFH/Remote preferences, but to underline that empathizing with the opposing point of view is a virtue that earns the respect you speak of.

It's just annoying how so many 'smart' people on HN keep pedantically hammering the point that you can just totally just work from the office. Sure, you're technically correct, but just comes off of as socially clueless. I feel it tends to be the same kind of people that are surprised when the more affable, but average engineer is promoted over them, the misunderstood genius. Turns out people like to work with people they like over some opinionated rando who happens to close JIRA tickets a little bit faster than others.

Sadly, while your amusing pedantry is technically correct in a vacuum, it completely fails within the prior context given. Did you forget to the read the comments up to this point or were you aiming to give us a good laugh?

> Working physically from the office while a vast number of their peers are at home does not make it work from office.

Agreed. Hence the idea of venturing out into the world to meet with peers. If what you are struggling to say is that nobody wants to work with you, I guess that's life. Slavery is a thing of the past. You can't force people to do things they don't want to do.

> Sitting on zoom calls all day in the office has no discernible difference than sitting at home.

If you are using Zoom (or similar) all day you're not doing WFH. WFH brings very different operating semantics and doesn't just try to duplicate the office over the internet. What you describe is work from office. Location isn't the factor here.

> but to underline that empathizing with the opposing point of view

What points of view are you referring to? All we have is reality. Trying to ascribe emotions to attempts to understand the world is bad faith participation. Granted, this may be the result of not having read the prior comments as suggested above. But replying without having read the comments is also bad faith participation.

> Turns out people like to work with people they like

Seems they don't else they would work together. WFH encourages people to work together in the flesh so if it is not happening what does that tell us? That certain individuals are best avoided? I can agree with that, although I have to wonder why that was worth pointing out if that was your goal.

I think daily about this issue but working again for a national company would mean earning 50% less of my salary probably... so tough choice.

Any advice or recommendations from other contractors/freelance workers are appreciated.

As I see it, the energy of the youth is gradually being sapped away from political movements made on private terms - blaming an other to justify further division of public space - towards the idea of revitalizing the commons, an idea which has a kind of inevitability behind it coming from this low point, since it satisfies a huge diversity of needs.

Remaking the public space is, in fact, stunningly easy: close a few roads in urban centers, near destinations, to auto traffic, and put out some seating. Times Square did this; JFK Drive as well. Both are transformed places. When the cars are cleared out and you have "eyes on the street", the perceptions of cities as fundamentally anonymous places disappear, as well. This only becomes more true as alternate modes of mobility are introduced; the huge uptake of ebikes nationwide has exceeded every expectation and has created a flywheel of demand for more urban bike infrastructure, and therefore more public space.

Unless of course you treat public spaces like Americans treat buses. If it becomes a miserable experience only the destitute would use, those who can will avoid it, and those who can't will perpetuate it.

But where I live everyone uses public spaces. The wealthy don't retreat to private backyards.

But in practice, the leave-it-at-the-door delivery-or-no-touch-pickup world is not one I'd describe as higher trust and more social. Times Square? Other similar "close a few roads and have a mall" places? There's nothing there revitalizing socialization compared to the previous generation of indoor malls.

I have an axe to grind about interaction-free delivery services, but it's a different debate. Public spaces are for when you intend to see other people.

Public spaces as I've experienced them are much better than malls. For one thing they're outside. It's not easy to be outside for many city dwellers. They're also a place where you're not expected to spend money. You can bring your own food, drinks and entertainment. You can do nothing at all and not be perceived as a threat. You aren't screaming over the noise of car traffic. The silence is a revelation when you experience it for the first time.

I spent my summer in public spaces. I miss them dearly when I travel to concrete jungles and sleepy suburbias.

You’re making the point for them. Interaction with service providers shouldn’t be a primary social outlet for people (as much for the sake of the service provider as the customer); previous generations’ choices just made it one of the most important outlets since it’s one of the most convenient, especially if you’re willing to pay for it (they major driver of almost all 20th century social trends).

Even happenstance “excuse me, pardon me” type small talk to peers is worlds better than a forced corporate smile from a waiter who relies on tips to survive, because at least then, you’re forced to have some amount of empathy/introspection (since the other party isn’t being paid to be nice).

The rub of this, though, is then plenty of people only like to interact with service providers (especially as they get older) and this new world can feel isolating to them, but I don’t think that’s a measure of Gen Z or whatever’s commitment to civic socialization.

This is where we met all summer. Grilling in the park, cycling around, swimming in lakes etc.

You meet your friends and their friends too. You bring your dates there. You have hard conversations there. You play sports together there.

It's not just about socialisation. It's a place where you can be not-home. You don't have to eat or drink alcohol or pay. You can just linger there and be left alone.

Public spaces are so incredibly important, but I don't imagine the political class as people who go to parks a lot.

And cursed with a terrible housing market, especially for newcomers.

>Public spaces are so incredibly important, but I don't imagine the political class as people who go to parks a lot.

So much this on both fronts. In many countries, like Austria and others I'm sure, the political class really has neglected public spaces that aren't for tourists, as they're not the users of it. Public parks have mostly been relegated as places for the "poor" and "working class" to hang out who can't afford a house in the green suburbs with a nice big garden surrounded by forests. Which is ironic since the rich kids are always driving their cars from their suburbs to the parks downtown to hang out as that's where the best parties are. :)

That isn't exactly unique to Berlin you know. And IIRC at least the local government tried to do something about it (but was struck down in higher courts).

Contrast (any city in) Australia which is stuck in a nightmare loop of homelessness and political pressure to keep the house prices high (from homeowners) and affordable (from everyone else).

Or London, where house prices are now so high it is mostly owned by absent foreigners.

Sorry, but trying an obviously populist measure that further sinks housing availability and makes thing worse for everyone does not get you any points anywhere.

The key point that Berlin seems to realise, but Australia definitely doesn't, is that the purpose of houses is for people to live in them, not make money investing in them.

I know! I help people settle in Berlin, and I don't know what to tell incoming students anymore. I'm not sure how they can find a place to live in a reasonable time frame.

I hear that it's worse elsewhere, but it's no consolation.

Out of curiosity where is it worse? What if it's like the "grass is greener" effect but in reverse, where people use the "it's worse elsewhere" argument to comfort themselves for their bad living conditions or other discomforts in life.

If not, consider that the best minds in the 50 and 60 were considering subtle form of propaganda and manipalution by intelligent and adapted design of environment.

Outside conscious detection, the human herd in urban envIronment are manipulated, nudged, and controlled the same way cattle are milked in modern factories.

Those parks you seems to worship are just existing in your environment cause someone decided that you should worship those parks in your environment.

The remaining question is: for what ?

I would guess, happy and voluntary self alienation.

Nobody question the paradoxal stupidity of feeling lonely in the most dense areas existing on the surface of earth.

How can you feel lonely when you have more than a thousand peoples surrounding you in a range smaller than 100m away from you.

Parks are there so you can have a breather. There's no propaganda written on the trees, in the grass or in the sky.

You know, happy healthy people are good for the economy. That's all.

If a conspiracy is so nebulous that you can't define it's motives, perhaps you're grasping at straws.

And the cities that kept growing are places that are not urbanist at all: Phoenix, Fort Worth, etc.

I think solving even this problem could take more than four years, and it is only a fraction of the puzzle for equivalency to in-person interactions.

I've never noticed anyone doing that when on calls with friends. I have in meetings at work, but there people hide on mute because they don't really want to be there in the first place and are probably off aimlessly browsing the web or trying to catch up on actual work. In the scant few work meetings that are purposeful and engaging, however, I've found plenty of laughter.

I suppose the first answer most people would give is “stop listening to Reddit,” but that still leaves me with the question of, well, then what?

To illustrate that last point, I am hetero male. I've had gay guys tell me they thought I was cute, I told them politely I wasn't interested, but appreciated the compliment. I believe this generalizes.

As an example of the first point, I tend to like fit girls, so I go train Olympic weightlifting and do acroyoga. I also like artsy girls, so I go party at places where they tend to congregate (certain 'alternative/queer' or 'techno/EDM' nightlife venues, generally).

Also, I've gotten laid off random outfit compliments - e.g. "I like your blouse" when the girl was wearing a nice blouse and I walked by her on the street.

Your lense is only working for job in office like environment.

You have to create most of the time the opportunities to really meet new people. Hoping to get that randomly at your job Is not the best way I think.

In work you have no friends, you have colleagues. Maybe 1% of them really care about you. Even those who seems like they care about you, are so used to see you by default every day, that you never develop a way to communicate otherwise - so when you will change jobs, they will disappear.

These fake relationship in the workplace are the main reason you'll find yourself alone in your 30s.

But WFH allow me to cultivate REAL friendships with people that choose to communicate with me without being forced by "being in the same office". Long term, this is the only way not to end up alone.