He’s famous for buying distressed commercial properties and for gaslighting, it just makes sense and the whole moral argument was a great way to get people talking about it.
Remote work => less demand for transportation.
Commercial properties are some of the most valuable assets a company owns, of course the guy wants to keep CRE values up. Just because he owns some transportation companies doesn’t mean he’s allergic to CRE, that’s kinda naive.
That’s like arguing guys at his level don’t donate to both political parties when they clearly do. Because by doing that, you get to own the whole system, not just a piece.
Commercial real estate is foundational in corporate finance. I guess I just don’t this argument that these huge companies aren’t somehow exposed. I guarantee you that if the CRE market tanks, Berkshire is gonna feel it too.
If I were to refuse to pay my rent. My landlord would post an eviction notice and if I refused to comply, I would likely be arrested or forcibly removed.
Why can’t the landlord “evict” twitter? Does the process look significantly different for commercial real estate? Does twitter provide value to the landlord in some form other than rent? Maybe they’re afraid of bad PR?
The reason this wouldn’t apply to you is that residential real estate vacancies are usually easy to fill, especially nowadays.
That remains to be established. People often have no idea what renter protections are like. If he's in California, he might find that he can't be evicted without the landlord going through a multi-year process.
We should assume any public statements on morality from powerful people out of the blue are motivated by a secondary factor.
This is an excellent way to put it and a great observation. I was never able to put my finger on it even though the BS meter was off the charts. Here it is. Thanks.
Without "morally" it's dismissable nonsense (ie. bullshit). With "morally" it requires pulling at strands that make up our world-view.
It's not necessarily a bad thing to question one's world-view on occasion, but causing that level of fundamental questioning, for a comment that would otherwise be easily dismissable, is gaslighting.
(by my opinion of the definition)
If I make a statement that killing is not justifiable even in self defense, and that causes you, who believes that killing is justified as a measure of self defense, to question your worldview, I'm not gaslighting you into believing me, I'm simply sharing a viewpoint.
I actually think it's dangerous to throw gaslighting as a term around so casually. Gaslighting, very specifically, means to repeatedly question someone's worldview, while ignoring their anecdotal experience, in order to emotionally abuse them into submission or indoctrination. It's pretty serious and ugly. I know it's fun on HN to throw the term around, but Elon (regardless of how much you dislike him, and how many people follow him) arguing that WFH is morally wrong, is not an instance of Musk gaslighting the public at large.
For example, repeatedly arguing that you think the idea of unchecked ownership of assault weapons is a stretch too liberal of an interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and that it's crazy to think it's okay for anybody to own one without training, and that you think it'd be a good idea to limit gun ownership and require mental health checks and registered firearms lists of trained individuals, and even that you think it's immoral to allow such easy access to acquire devices that make killing trivial, because it puts too much responsibility in the hands of civilian organizations to protect people from maniacs, which they clearly can't do at scale, and even to go so far as to argue they're insane to think otherwise, is not an instance of gaslighting gun owners or rights advocates into thinking their worldview is broken and in need of an update. But by the casual interpretation, it is, since you're arguing to oppress the liberty of some group of people on practical and/or moral (designation doesn't matter, anything that causes them to question their worldview) grounds.
The morality argument is just him rationalizing what he already believes. This isn't the "first principles" thinking that he demands from others.
Tech company profits are declining. Management (especially Boomer management) needs to be seen as "doing something" or they're the ones on the chopping block. So they force everybody back into the office so they can be seen to be managing.
God forbid the cause of declining profits be things like national monetary policy or years of short-term decision-making that propped profits up to unsustainable highs.
No. It must be that Andy works from home. Better bring everybody in to keep an eye on them (to read their faces and find out for sure just how much shit they'll take from you before they quit).
I suspect there are managers panicking about losing relevance in a post-office world, but those will be middle-managers, not CEOs. Much of the panic is from owners of commercial real estate and their flying monkeys in the media who are seeing empty office blocks and declining property values and rents.
As for Musk, who knows. He's in his own very weird bubble of long-terminism or cosmism or whatever it is he believes in. Maybe he thinks if everyone works from home it will lead to a drop in birth rates or decline in Western society or something.
But I also refer to the boards and investors. We'd love to think it's all a young person's VC game, but behind all that money is still, more often than not, someone who panics in Boomer.
Maybe it's just me, but I feel like the use of "boomer" as a derogative to be reductionist and ageist, not to mention most of the time incorrect, as I've seen it applied all the way to Millennials.
To be fair, I criticize them for the shit they did when they were my age too, so I'm criticizing them as a cohort, not because of their current age.
Are you sure that the people doing the criticizing are the same people giving out the trophies?
> so I definitely mean it in a derogatory way against people their age
The way you had used it, as commentary on middle managers, seem to include people from Baby Boomers all the way to Millennials.
> I'm criticizing them as a cohort, not because of their current age
In which case it sounds like using the age identifier would be incorrect.
I criticize them as a generational cohort for being the most entitled, wasteful, short-sighted generation that has ever lived, and has done more to screw up the entire world they are handing on to their children than anyone in history.
They have done this at every stage of their lives, but especially once they were old enough to be having children.
I don't mean as a cohort, I mean as individuals. I have my doubts that the exact same person who has given out participation trophies is the one who criticized. I think you are mixing two separate groups into one, by using their birth years as a commonality.
Also, I suspect that participation trophies is a Western creation, perhaps even an American phenomenon, and the Boomers who are not part of those cultures did not participate in those actitivities.
To quote the Princess Bride, "you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means".
Those are filled with people who are clinging to their roles well past their usefulness, because even though they're ruining social supports like Medicare and Social Security by pulling out multiples more funds than they ever contributed, they also failed to save anything of their own or are otherwise refusing to retire and leave the workforce (even though they've already started receiving "retirement" benefits).
FYI, people don't get to "pull out" funds from social security. You get paid what the government computes you'll get.
> they also failed to save anything of their own or are otherwise refusing to retire and leave the workforce
So which is it? They failed to save therefore they can't retire, or they could retire but are "refusing to"?
The man sells cars. He's invested in people commuting.
https://www.dailyo.in/technology/elon-musk-fired-a-twitter-e...
In his case, it could be solar lighting or else he is not about renewables as he claim to be :)
Not to mention, his main consumer would be exactly that white collar worker who'd rather not drive to the office.
It's a sort of sick inversion of Henry Ford's
> "I want my employees to be able to buy my car"
to...
> "I want all employees to be forced to own one"
This is not quite the Marxist definition of communism, but it is a lot closer than I would expect to find on HN. I am surprised.
Also the idea of a ruthless capitalistic multibillionaire invoking morality as a defense is just kafkaesque.
What happens to us doesn't matter, remember? We're all just NPCs.
But I expect that may not be a popular opinion here on HN, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
full text: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsd...
That used to be standard reading in my high school. Elon is full of deepity. And high school reading.
Remote work affords me that opportunity and I work as hard as anyone. It's fun to wear the blue and white collar at the same time to be honest. I have survivalist friends, guys who work on cars, tech folks where wee discuss AI, etc.
I think Musk is wrong here, but do agree people need to roll up their sleeves and do legit work. You should always be contributing to your community, family, etc.
As an example, every day my basic schedule: 6-8am with family, 8am-12pm [farm] work, 12pm-4pm [collaborative] work, 4-7pm chores & family, 7-9pm [emails / focus work] work, 9-10pm family, 10-12pm [focus] work.
Then the day before, I will break out individual events. There are times, for instance, I have to take a kid to the doctor so I'll block that out, put in all my meetings and adjust the 4-7pm family time to say 5-7pm (take an hr from work & family time).
It's all about being disciplined and trying to ensure you are organized and maximize time for me. Gotta keep focused
I find it mostly interesting how different successful people can be with wildly varied takes on what works for them lifestyle-wise as well as what they value in life. Not to mention how we prioritize (and focus) our limited time on earth.
Kudos to you for making your life work well. We’re wired differently, and that’s okay.
what about hobbies? alone time? being lazy & purposefully wasting time? culture & entertainment? sports? etc. where exactly is your "me" fitting in here?
my european free spirited mind boggles
I agree with them. To me it isn't about the color of one's collar or the location they work from. It is about being productive. Productive workers should have flexibility, where possible. Unproductive ones shouldn't.
Why should people work so hard all the time? In the US, we are already insanely productive compared to almost every other worker in every other country and even compared to ourselves a few decades ago.
We work hard to bring value to our employer who wouldn't waste a minute for sympathy when they lay us off to increase their margins for a quarter, but you feel that we have to be productive all the time or else, what? We are immoral?
I contend that the worker owes nothing but fulfilling their job description. If you don't have work to do, then why find it?
There is no need to 'be productive' every working hour of every day if you don't have to be. To do so is insanity in my opinion. Go be with your family. Kids grow up way too fast and you are missing it.
Edit: I also want to be clear that I don't really think about productivity as an instantaneous measure, but more of an average over time. Someone (at home or at work) who is "coasting" in my opinion is someone who is rarely, if ever, productive. Someone who is productive is someone who gets good work done every week or month or whatever unit of time is relevant to the job at hand. What you do with this 5 minutes or that hour isn't really as important, IMO.
I don't like this kind of Calvinist attitude toward work. Increasing productivity via technological advancement should free us all up to do more of what we want.
1. Every job has different requirements, and you can't arbitrarily apply the same standards to every one. It's no different from saying that "Cooks have to de-grease the grill, so desk workers have to de-grease their desks at the end of the day as well." You'd think that someone so ruthlessly focused on productivity and efficiency would acknowledge this.
2. He speaks as if the current hierarchical capitalist structure with all its particular corporate idiosyncrasies is a fundamental aspect of reality rather than a very specific and arbitrary social construct. We should be fighting to move away from it rather than submit to it further.
3. He does not apply these standards to himself, flying around in his corporate jet and rarely "in the office" himself. So apparently he does believe some roles are not bound by the same rules and requirements, which is inconsistent.
Realistically he likely understands all this, but just can't say the truth directly because it's not so palatable.
Even in a hybrid work environment, the vast majority of the miles I put on my car are commuting to and from the office. And if a household as 2 adults who need to commute, they're more likely to want 2 fuel-efficient vehicles.
Work from Home - Throughout the ages of man, I would tend to believe that more work has been done at home than at any notion of modern workplace. Farming, milling, iron working, etc. have all historically been performed by small tradesmen working out of their homes. "Go to Joe's house if you want your horses shoed."
Home School - Again, I would argue that far more children throughout history are being school at home than in a western notion of traditional school. I would wager that even today, more kids are currently "at home" schooling across the globe than in a modern school.
Interest Rates - Maybe this one is a reasonable notion of "unnatural". But again, throughout all time, bartering has dominated merchant exchanges and simple currency exchanges (through precious metals). There has probably always been a notion of interest rates in all this, but what you're describing is more about the federal reserve's interest rates and fractional banking, which is quite a modern invention.
In all, I don't think anything about work from home, home schooling or making transactions with neighbors is unnatural. If anything, it's the most natural way that society has worked and existed throughout history.
All of this has significant IRL contact with the wider world. Modern knowledge worker WFH does not.
In what way is WFH 'unnatural'?
I would avoid extrapolating your own WFH experience to others.
That's true for a decent number of people...but definitely not all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/19/opinion/elon-musk-remote-...
And another thing -- the "morally wrong" is remarkably selective. Musk is clearly saying that it's "morally wrong" for white collar workers to be remote while insisting that blue collar workers be fully present.
In a CNBC interview this week, speaking about service and manufacturing workers, Musk said “it's messed up to assume that, yes, they have to go to work, but you don't. It's not just a productivity thing, I think it's morally wrong,” suggesting “the laptop class is living in la-la land.”
What if the headline was "CEO phones in 20 hours/week from Hawaii while threatening to fire workers who clock < 60 hours/week"?
That’s unusual, though. Usually getting to/from work takes at minimum of an hour (30m both ways), either due to traffic or from being pushed out way from where the office is located in order to be able to afford the rent/mortgage. You’re also usually stuck with an open office where maintaining focus for any period of time is impossible, as opposed to cubicles or private offices.
1. Fewer people commuting would make commuting faster / more bearable
2. Employee's who's work requires physical presence at a specific place could / should demand higher pay because of the new convenience differential
(#2 is fraught with assumptions and state / country based situational sensitivities)
If that is his justification then it's just as silly. Does Musk think it's morally wrong that white collar workers live in bigger homes than blue collar workers? That they send more of their kids to private school? Has Musk gone full communist?
Also Elon Musk accusing anyone of being in "La La Land" is hilarious.
Are you? Have you tried seriously considering his position instead of watching 1 second sound bites OBVIOUSLY taken out of context?
> I was on a bicycle ride listening to this interview when he said it and I literally pulled my bike over and sat for a half hour or so thinking about what I think about the idea
Oh? This musk interview was the first time you learned about unfairness in the world? I'm glad he "got you thinking". Heh.
It is not some extreme, radical position that shutting down your company by staging a strike because you _deserve_ to work from the comfort of your own home is morally tenuous. You can disagree, but acting like musk is a raving lunatic for sympathizing with minimum wage workers who bus to work is nothing short of supreme stupidity.
Honestly the anti musk sentiment around here is so braindead and reactionary its beginning to feel like an astroturfed psyop.
Why? This is just a negotiation. Striking is one bargaining chip that labor has that they can play. Striking isn't morally tenuous.
> You can disagree, but acting like musk is a raving lunatic for sympathizing with minimum wage workers who bus to work is nothing short of supreme stupidity.
How is Musk sympathizing with minimum wage workers? Did the minimum wage workers ask for the "laptop class" to comeback to the office? Do they even care? What about people in other lines of work where remote isn't an option? Do they care? It seems more likely that Musk is just using this false comparison as a way to pit labor classes against each other.
> Honestly the anti musk sentiment around here is so braindead and reactionary its beginning to feel like an astroturfed psyop.
Come on...
Capital class tries to pit working class against itself, part N
It’s called concern trolling
0: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/elon-musk-says-he-is-sleepin...
1: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/03/musk-tesla-was-about-a-month...
Is it moral to fly around the US and the world while the guy that's hiring the chef that cooks your food stays grounded?
> "It's like, really, you’re going to work from home and you're going to make everyone else who made your car come work in the factory? You're going to make the people who make your food… that they can't work from home? The people that fix your house — they can't work from home? But, you can? Does that seem morally right?" the billionaire asked. "That's messed up."
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/elon-musk-working-from...
He exploited tax incentives intended to reduce carbon emissions, sure, but that's not the same thing as focussing on reducing carbon emissions
By being a selfish individual and wanting to work remotely you are devaluing a wealthy investor's commercial real estate all because you didn't want to waste a tenth of your day pointlessly commuting to the office to do something that could have been done at home
The isolation of being at home is countered by how many people are at home
That number has little to do with WHF. WHF might have increased it but it certainly isn't the root cause or even a major driver of the rise.
e.g.https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrobinson/2022/02/04/3-new-...
Wealth doesn't automatically give credence to valuable perspective. Further, I tend to just disregard Elon for what he is.
Meta comment, but seriously? A comment from Elon made you pause your commute for 30 minutes? I can't imagine ever being this affected by a podcast.
Half the fun of this life is exploring and questioning new ideas and podcasts are a great way to do that.
I don't think I pulled over, I've definitely spent some time sitting and thinking once I get to my destination
He owns a car company and a space ship company - both of which have assembly lines with tons of workers. A majority of his employees will need to be working in a factory or with physical equipment/prototypes. Therefore they must be at the office or at the plant.
In that environment - allowing a small percentage of people to have the flexibility to work from home all the time, actually can seem amoral as that will create two classes of workers - the in-office class and the laptop WFH class within the same company.
Friction could be generated if for instance. the laptop class is making decisions from the comfort of their PJs which impacts the production line class. Its much easier to just make that 8% laptop class of the company RTO and experience the impact of their decisions.
Similar issues would be apparent at Amazon (distribution center workers versus AWS staff) and possibly Apple (i.e. HW Apple engineers have to be in office, but iCloud workers can WFH).
I think it'd be hard/impossible that a small cloud first company or small remote only startup like GitLabs would be amoral for being WFH.
Twitter could probably be WFH, but in order to make statement that would not possibly be construed as hypocritical he unfortunately can't make such a distinction.
This is kind of absurd, though, since they are already two classes of workers. Information workers and factory workers are different.
But also, the deciding factor on whether you can work from home should be: can you do your job from home? Look at nurses. They have to be in a hospital, walking into rooms and tending to patients, right? Not phone nurses and poison control center nurses. They work from home nowadays.
I tthink the way you overcome it is by paying a premium to in office staff. In your scenario - onsite nurses likely get paid a very significant premium to the salary of a remote, phone nurse.
But in the "Elon" case its going to hard to show how your are paying a premium for onsite factory techs when the design engineers are making $$$ plus RSUs.
From an emotional standpoint, sure, but not from a moral standpoint, which is what your previous post was saying. There is no moral case for punishing an advantaged class if that punishment does nothing to help the other class.
That said I could for see cases where the laptop class could be isolated from pain when a separate class has to do the physical work. Imagine a scenario where the laptop class engineer does some sloppy work in order to pick up the kids for soccer. The goof up requires 100 production line people to redo step 8 of 30 steps for 3 additional hours.
That goof up will be less visible there than at a company that has outsourced production line work. At the outsourced production company the goof up will show up as the additional change order which will have a directly mappable line item on the quarterly accounting that the responsible engineer will need to answer for.
Should they be, in terms of work-life balance?
I’ve never met a factory worker who resents the existence of cushy WFH jobs. On the contrary, many aspire to have such a job.
Park rangers get to perform their jobs out amongst the majestic beauty of nature. Should we make it "fair" by forcing them to go sit in a cubicle under fluorescent lights too?
100% remote work was a thing before the pandemic and it will continue to be a thing in the future. Companies that don't learn how to adapt to this will be at a disadvantage on this point. This cuts both ways, of course. If I can do my job "anywhere" and I live in an expensive place like Seattle, I should worry that I have to compete with people in very low CoL places, and that likely pushes my own market value down. That's life. But pretending we need information worker's butts in seats downtown to operate servers thousands of miles away from them is not going to fix the problem.
Probably impressions matter on the factory floor and when you scale up operations. You don't want a situation where the people on the factory floor just refer to the design team as "corporate" (i.e. "corporate" wants us to do this, guys we have to redo X over again because "dude in corporate" thinks its not going to work otherwise).
Some workers have shifts, some have to work outside in the rain.
It's only fair that everyone works outside in the rain in shifts?
The challenge for Elon (and Amazon) is that his two of his companies rely on physical labor and can't outsource the physical part but still need tech talent that could WFH.
I don't envy him...
They want Tesla to maintain that original "Elon sleeping under desks", all hands on deck, Tesla hunger of yore. To them - they probably were concerned about the design teams getting to soft from WFH and getting uppity.
A star worker for them is someone who works 16 hours a day, adds 10K lines of code and sleeps under their desk. Not someone who goes for a long walk in the park while thinking deeply about the problem, and then spends half an hour at the keyboard refactoring to remove 1000 lines of code and clear a major performance bottleneck.
Elon may be performing for his shareholders, but if he was actually smart he'd be informing them. It's notable how many of the actually-smart rockstar CEO's didn't seem to care what their shareholders thought.
"People are getting annoyed by these implicit class differences in our organisation, what do we do?"
"Let's encode them explicitly in the contracts. Then we can blame it on the contracts and pretend it's out of our control!"
No, you've now created an even "lower" class within the company.
There are people whose jobs involve abseiling from the side of a building.
Therefore it's only fair that we should all be doing our jobs while abseiling from the side of a building.
If you think it's "unfair" that some people have to commute into work then pay them accordingly.
This could be true for Tesla, there’s no morality to this. The fact Musk brings morality in suggests he’s talking out his arse.
Twitter is a different company. If he doesn’t bring morality into it, he doesn’t have to be a hypocrite. He could easily say “working on site is necessary for Tesla, not for Twitter.” Being dogmatic is not good business.
According to the dictionary, morality is simply “ principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.”
> they’re productivity issues
Some would say that choosing being unproductive when you could be productive IS immoral. Not only does Benjamin Franklin jump to mind, but the entire Protestant-informed culture of “the West”. Japan’s culture is also infused with a productivity mindset.
Right/wrong in this case are meant in the sense of "it's wrong to murder people" as opposed to "saying 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong." The former is a statement of morality, the latter is a statement of correctness. This does not link productivity / morality.
> Some would say that choosing being unproductive when you could be productive IS immoral.
Therefore it's not an axiom. Most people would only consider it immoral if you chose to be unproductive for the sake of being unproductive. For example, refusing to do your job while expecting to be paid is something many people would consider immoral.
This is different from choosing a path you prefer, that happens to be less productive. For example, doing something more slowly but more safely may be less productive but also something many would not consider immoral.
In the context of one's life, I agree fully. However, once you choose to work in a collective, choosing to be less productive without a positive tradeoff to the system, harms the ones around you.
I think you may have missed the issues they intended to bring up. The moral issues I see could be that you might have one class of worker ("knowledge worker") who is able to work from home and another class of worker who is unable to work from home. It's along the lines of the difference between paid catering for the executive suite but not the rest of the office.
Paid catering isn’t an intrinsic part of the work, so it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
Here's just some of the benefits to on-site workers in role XYZ of other workers being able to WFH:
* Quicker commutes (less congestion from people needlessly traveling) and thus more free time.
* If a partner is WFH, they haven't wasted time commuting and thus have more time and energy to assist with the household.
* Higher salaries as the jobs requiring a commute become less desirable vs. WFH jobs.
* Higher salaries as the business wastes less money on having unnecessary office facilities and (theoretically at least) workers could demand these savings be reflected in their salaries.
* Improved health from reduction in pollution caused by commuting.
* Reduced cost of living from less wasted land used for offices that are only used 30% of a week.
* Lower taxes or improved government services as less money needs to be wasted on infrastructure that is overwhelmingly built to cater for the 12% per week that it is used to needlessly shuffle everyone around.
* Increased productivity from reduction in illnesses transferred on public transport and within office facilities.
* Improved happiness and productivity resulting from workers being able to setup a workspace/home office that is most productive for their needs. Fresh air, lighting, seating, etc are all controllable by the worker at home.
* Households could switch to having a single car.
If one were to debate against WFH, more sensible arguments would be things like:
* Greater heating / cooling efficiency to cram more people in a single cramped building than to have those same people heat / cool their homes individually. Passive houses largely solve this.
* More efficient access to some services such as getting a haircut, buying goods from a specialist retailer, etc if they're all centralised in a CBD as opposed to requiring individuals to travel all across a city. Increased deliveries to home negates this.
* Forced exercise (on average) due to workers needing to walk between transport options and an office building, whereas at home they don't have to walk anywhere unless they are motivated to do so.
* Larger population to recruit from, because distance to office does not matter.
* More diverse workforce, because people with some physical and/or mental disabilities, will be able to work remote.
If you watch his interview you see him say WFH is morally wrong for almost everyone in the "laptop class" and not just his companies.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-work-from-home-morall... "You're going to make people who make your food that gets delivered [that] can't work from home; the people that come fix your house, they cant work from home, but you can?"
"Does that seem morally right? That's messed up," Musk said.
Harm the victim in some way, when victim complains about it, turn it around so as to frame it as the victim doing the wrong thing all along, and the victim should feel like a bad person.
He, unlike others, can afford to be extremely close to the office. There's all benefits and no detriments for his statements.
I used to think he was eccentric but did some cool stuff too.
I now have a very negative opinion of him as a person.
Everyone is different, and flexibility should be a recognition of that.
If anything the arbitrary denial of flexibility is much more of a moral argument.
It's obviously not. The fundamental differentiator is what is the nature of the job? What are the needs to accomplish the work being performed? If it's typing on a computer and talking to people, it can be done from home. It's not morally wrong to do it that way.
As someone who generally likes what Musk has to say, this one threw me for a loop. He's smarter than that and I don't think for one second he truly believes that. I think it's a public position he is taking on the subject, moralizing to dismiss criticism, he has other motivations. I don't think they're "his ego" but I don't think he genuinely believes it's morally wrong to sit down while typing.
Would that make having a desktop job morally wrong?
I get Elon's point that manufacturing often requires some people to report to site, particularly in a company like Tesla.
But generalizing and saying that all positions require to report to office because of moral and ethical reasons is ridiculous.
How about incentives for commuting to work? Not flashy offices with free snacks and meditation rooms, how about money?
Companies usually reallocate to remote suburban areas to pay less taxes, and they expect people to spent over 40 hours per month, a full week of additional work, for free, to commute to the office.
That's morally wrong from all angles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5OHFt8QyiU
I was on a bicycle ride listening to this interview when he said it and I literally pulled my bike over and sat for a half hour or so thinking about what I think about the idea, I'm still not sure what I think. (Intellectual dishonesty or a valid view point?)
At least he got me thinking I suppose, heh.