It would be great if we could simply flag an article with the tag "useless statistics".
What does it even mean to measure a 4% increase in output per minute? Does that include the time spent fiddling with the microphone at the start of a Zoom call?
Also, the title on HN does not match the title of the article.
> What does it even mean to measure a 4% increase in output per minute?
Based on the context, I read this to mean that the overall 13% increase in productivity isn't just explained by remote workers working 9% more minutes.
You mean the desk IT job (programming, qa, systems, etc) that also has a "must be able to lift 50 lbs" was there solely to keep out handicapped people with an arbitrary requirement?
Accommodating disabilities is cost center and and failing to do so is a liability. Businesses use loopholes to “opt out” so they don’t have to deal with those things.
It's also pretty common IME for managers of retail and similar public-facing brick-and-mortar positions to have a bugbear about employees "looking lazy", which includes things like sitting, leaning, walking slowly or aimlessly, etc..
The only joke is the laughable enforcement of the ADA, including shallow-as-hell obvious ploys to exclude disabled people without saying "we don't want to work with cripples". And pregnant people. Again, to business fucks, these people are liabilities - we can't use their body up since it's already used up.
This also goes directly along side that retail workers are NOT permitted to have chairs at a register, because of the similar reason (standing constantly excludes disabled and pregnant folk). And somehow sitting=lazy unless it's white collar work. We're allowed to be 'lazy'.
How would this work? I’m pragmatic about the division of public/private responsibilities, so I’m not opposed to the idea, but accommodations are highly specific to the impairment and how it affects the person.
I’m not sure how the government would manage that in a fair manner; if SSDI is any indication, not very well. The SSA has a lot of outdated bias in its guidelines for providing aid.
Reimbursement from government for expenses related to accessibility, or the government hiring personal assistants for handicapped people. If the government cannot handle it, then I do not see why millions of businesses with varying levels of liability would handle it.
At its root, anytime I see the government mandate something but foist the costs on the private sector, it is to pay lip service without actually ponying up the funds. Which is not only the politicians’ fault, because voters will vote for low taxes every time, even though the high level of services is not deliverable with such low taxes.
Whoever editorialized the title didn't have much in the article that actually said that...
I'd assume that people why are handicapped in some way may be better able to manage without a commute while working from the comfort of their home environment that the have control over.
Yes, a programming job may only require sitting at a computer... but also commuting to the office. WFH means you don't need to deal with the commute.
In a lot of places in America, yes. My ISP technician job has me doing anything from CLI management over SSH to hauling servers to a colo and racking them myself. Especially in smaller companies where one person tends to do a little bit of everything.
For a very strange definition of "vogue". The CEOs push for it, the employers push back, people are looking for new jobs etc. In my particular niche, 70% of jobs are fully remote, and I'm very happy it is this way.
De-clickbaiting the title is IMO a good thing, it's similar to what the YouTube extension DeArrow does, crowdsourcing more accurate and non-clickbait titles and thumbnails. It's made by the people who made SponsorBlock and it's great.
Oh wow, I've never seen a paid browser plugin before. It's interesting how the idea of paying what to me is a negligible amount of money still changes the way I think about it.
The problem here is that the HN title is incorrect for this article. I'd say a clickbait title matching the submisison is much better than an incorrect title.
Ignoring the unnecessarily editorialized title, this article is an example of "lie with statistics". The are basically arguing "look at the data", but every single example I've seen about arguing a data-driven approach to WFH is cherry picking things to fit their desired outcome, and that's on both sides of the argument.
Yes, it's fairly straightforward to look at productivity for rote, repeatable tasks. "How many calls did a CSR handle?" or "How many insurance claims did this person process?" are easily measurable. But that ignores the fears that business leaders have that, over time, the kind of innovation, motivation and culture that in-person interactions help foster will fade, leading to a sort of slow, long term decline. And the past 25 years have shown that companies that can foster and harness innovation well do much better than companies that simply focus on "repeatable process improvement".
I'm certainly not arguing either side is "right", but I would say anyone arguing "look at the data" on this topic is just using data to match their desired outcome, as there is simply not enough time to assess the long term "innovation" impact of WFH.
I genuinely don’t understand why this perspective is so compelling. CRE is a big deal, but I don’t think companies are so incentivized to optimize CRE value. They’re trying to succeed in their business.
Your average productive firm is not incentivized to optimize CRE value. However, they are often renting commercial real-estate on a fixed-term lease and need to get what value from the remainder of their lease that they can.
That's the sunk cost fallacy. They're gonna pay it regardless, it doesn't matter if people show up or not. It's still cheaper to not have folks show up because then you don't have to pay for all the ongoing incidental charges.
I've been hearing this a lot, and I actually think you have the company's logic backward. (For what it's worth, I'm pro-WFH, and I think a lot of circles don't square with the rhetoric from my company regarding RTO, but hear me out.)
The lease is locked in. From the company's perspective, the building is now free, except for marginal costs per employee that shows up. So the only remaining math for the company to consider is, are the benefits that the company gains from an onsite employee greater than the $2/day it costs to provide coffee and toilet paper? Remember, the company is happy to outsource the cost of commuting to employees, and only cares about the value of the building if they own it. And they have great institutional difficulty in weighing intangible employee satisfaction against other perceived gains for the company.
Under this logic, I think it's easy to see why management, acting in the company's best interest, is pushing RTO so hard. If it costs employees $10/day but makes the company $3, that's free money.
So as soon as the lease is up and needs to be renewed, you're proposing exec management is going to be like "Yeah, you know how we had this major brouhaha forcing everyone to RTO that sometimes it felt like the majority of our internal comms were on this topic? We changed our mind, we're all going to WFH from now on."
The mental gymnastics folks go through to support one side or the other in this debate is just mind boggling to me, especially since their are much simpler and more likely pros/cons for both WFH and RTO.
They don't directly care about CRE. But their wealthy friends (and most likely most F500 CEOs) own or are invested in CRE. By convincing all their CEO friends to force RTO, they can boost the CRE. Also some of biggest companies are effectively invested in CRE because they built huge campuses and while those are technically owned by others, they are in super long term leases which require them to have a certain number of people there every day, as well as local tax breaks that they get for having a certain attendance.
Can you link to an example of a lease that requires a certain number of people be there every day? I used to have a business that needed office space, and of the several buildings we used over the course of about 10 years, not a single lease ever cared about how many people would show up every day. The closest thing to that would be related to max occupancy and parking spaces. The leases would always have to specify how many people could be in the building at most for fire code compliance, and that number determined the number of accessible and normal parking spaces.
Regarding tax breaks, I never saw any, but that was pre-pandemic. That makes more sense to me, but leases requiring minimum attendance counts seems like it could be an oft-repeated myth.
it's not all about the CRE value, it's also about the businesses that would not survive without the daily influx of commuters. Parking garages, lunch shops, drycleaners, etc.
The free market argument only works when it’s just poor people being impacted. If the rich are losing money then the free market people are suspiciously silent.
What does this mean? This is such a low quality meme. Most businesses don't own their buildings. So what's the rationale?
1. Company leases expensive office
2. Realizes that no one has to work from the office anymore so they're wasting money on this office
3. Inconveniences everyone by making everyone return to the office
4. Profit?
The lease is a sunk cost. They can try to sublease it out or pay some penalty to get out of it. Even if they owned it, why would they force people to come into the office and not just sell it? If it's worthless to them, then again what they paid for it is a sunk cost and they may as well just sell it. And why wouldn't they try to greatly expand their application pool to non-local workers if WFH is just as good. It's insane.
I've never heard a reasonable explanation as to why managers are so invested in commercial real estate prices that they'll collectively organize and forsake their interests to keep up the mirage.
The more reasonable explanation is that a lot of people work bullshit jobs or can skate by doing very little. These people are harder to control and less visibility by WFH makes it very obvious and managers don't feel good about it.
I believe the idea is that the same investors that invest in VC firms that in turn invest in companies, also invest in commercial real-estate, and that these investors can apply pressure to "their" VC-firm executives, to ensure that "their" commercial real-estate is getting used.
Come on, let's get real. Sure, perhaps this can happen in limited individual instances, but the idea that a major rationale for execs pushing RTO is that they're feeling pressure from investors in their VC firms to spend more money to keep the commercial real estate market afloat is just plain silly. Even if I believed it all, it's not a conspiracy theory that even makes sense because the incentives it proposes are just dumb - business execs may care about a lot of things and may have to do a lot of juggling, but worrying about the other investments of their VC's investors is not exactly high on the list. It's like my favorite meme of "Anyone who believes in conspiracy theories has never been a project manager."
The RTO/WFH debate can be so infuriating because there is so much dishonesty on both sides. Yes, WFH has huge benefits in terms of flexibility, reduced commuting, better supporting those with disabilities, etc., but it also has downsides in terms of less in-person motivation/support, loss of in-person mentorship for younger/newer employees, worries about building knowledge networks, loss of serendipitous interactions, and more difficulty managing performance for remote workers. Simultaneously, while I can understand the corporate desire for RTO, the reality of the work world has changed, so I see these stories of these execs pushing for RTO, then everyone gets to the office and is on Zoom 80% of the time because their colleagues are spread all over the place.
Just wish there could be more of an honest debate about the pros/cons of BOTH WFH and RTO, and to see how some/either/combo may work better for different employees/companies, without resorting to silliness like "business execs are feeling a ton of pressure to save the corp real estate market".
Cities give tax breaks to corporations and compete over who gets to host their campuses for a reason. If wealthy tech workers abandon the city, it kills the businesses that they patronize. It also lowers the demand for real estate in the city.
its shocking that so many online job apps ask you for your race, gender, sexuality (?!?) and health/disability status. and with a straight face ALSO say they Promise-Pinky-Swear to not use the answers to discriminate against you
uh huh
1. you cant know whether they will or not. you're pointing a gun at your head, pulling a trigger and hoping a bullet doesnt come out
2. even if they dont, you've just shared that data with strangers. and data lives forever and can leak out to anywhere else, replicating endlessly. ultimately ending up in Enemy Hands (defined here as folks who dont mean you well & plan to act on it), and thus, used to hurt you
3. if you give a false answer on a job app they can later cite it as cause for firing you. ie. it givea the biz HR/legal dept yet another gun they can point at your head, financially and legally
its a de facto Scam right out in the open. relying on enough people to fall for it, and believe their Spin. nobody should play along with it
ps. and yes I know its "required" by "law" in some cases. it doesnt change the point and the tangible impacts of it. it doesnt make it NOT creepy, dangerous and immoral. evil is evil
>if you give a false answer on a job app they can later cite it as cause for firing you.
Lying about being disabled on a job applications is not considered legal cause for firing somebody in many jurisdictions. It's still rather career-limiting to start an employment relationship with somebody by LYING to them though, and employers can simply not follow the law and fire you anyways and it will hardly be worth suing them for damages, so this is cold comfort.
I have counselled many extremely naive disabled teenager and 20 somethings about disability discrimination and how to get past it and get a job, generally talking to those who have some ability to hide it but would be much more productive and live a higher quality of life with accomidiation:
- If you're going to reveal being disabled do it through a recruiter who will match you with employers who are looking to fill a quota or whatever. Or do it if you know the people hiring you and know they will respond well.
- If you can hide being disabled, don't ask for any accommodation, and hide being disabled for at least long enough to get through a probationary period at which point people will be hesitant to retaliate against you because of the sunk costs and everybody involved in hiring you wanting to save face. This is usually what I usually end up recommending.
- Where you are disabled, can live without accommodations indefinitely, and want to climb the ladder - never say that you're disabled or ask for accomidations. You will be discriminated against for being disabled and then discriminated against again over the perception that you must be a diversity hire.
I've became disabled two years ago. My supervisor and I filled out the Reasonable Accommodation paperwork for our EEO and HR offices. At the time, I thought we were filling it out prematurely, since I was not sure what accommodations I'd need. (And two weeks after losing my leg to Necrotizing Fasciitis and Sepsis, work was not the first thing on my mind.) We did not ask about working from home; but, that was the accommodation they came back with.
I had to catch up a lot once I got home from the hospital and rehab; but, since then, I haven't missed a beat. It became a major part of my recovery. If I couldn't work from home, I'd be basket case.
60 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 170 ms ] threadWhat does it even mean to measure a 4% increase in output per minute? Does that include the time spent fiddling with the microphone at the start of a Zoom call?
Also, the title on HN does not match the title of the article.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Rest assured that it is only the article, the statistics presented, and the title under which it was submitted, that I do not like.
Based on the context, I read this to mean that the overall 13% increase in productivity isn't just explained by remote workers working 9% more minutes.
Color me shocked /sarcasm
Wouldn’t that increase in workforce lower wages which is what companies want anyway ?
How does the company benefit from this ?
Take a look over here to see a bunch of anecdotes about this very US based 'policy' https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/15dvtwa/why_do_so...
This also goes directly along side that retail workers are NOT permitted to have chairs at a register, because of the similar reason (standing constantly excludes disabled and pregnant folk). And somehow sitting=lazy unless it's white collar work. We're allowed to be 'lazy'.
I’m not sure how the government would manage that in a fair manner; if SSDI is any indication, not very well. The SSA has a lot of outdated bias in its guidelines for providing aid.
At its root, anytime I see the government mandate something but foist the costs on the private sector, it is to pay lip service without actually ponying up the funds. Which is not only the politicians’ fault, because voters will vote for low taxes every time, even though the high level of services is not deliverable with such low taxes.
I'd assume that people why are handicapped in some way may be better able to manage without a commute while working from the comfort of their home environment that the have control over.
Yes, a programming job may only require sitting at a computer... but also commuting to the office. WFH means you don't need to deal with the commute.
The editorialization came from the original author.
Is that a real thing?
I know that the return to office is vogue now, but I really hope we don’t forget that many of us are only able to work because we have WFH.
For a very strange definition of "vogue". The CEOs push for it, the employers push back, people are looking for new jobs etc. In my particular niche, 70% of jobs are fully remote, and I'm very happy it is this way.
Article title: Does working from home damage productivity? Just look at the data.
HN title: WFH significantly increased workforce participation from those with disabilities
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37736879
The data that you may be looking for is here: https://twitter.com/I_Am_NickBloom/status/170814596350283380...
Yes, it's fairly straightforward to look at productivity for rote, repeatable tasks. "How many calls did a CSR handle?" or "How many insurance claims did this person process?" are easily measurable. But that ignores the fears that business leaders have that, over time, the kind of innovation, motivation and culture that in-person interactions help foster will fade, leading to a sort of slow, long term decline. And the past 25 years have shown that companies that can foster and harness innovation well do much better than companies that simply focus on "repeatable process improvement".
I'm certainly not arguing either side is "right", but I would say anyone arguing "look at the data" on this topic is just using data to match their desired outcome, as there is simply not enough time to assess the long term "innovation" impact of WFH.
The data that you may be looking for is here: https://twitter.com/I_Am_NickBloom/status/170814596350283380...
The lease is locked in. From the company's perspective, the building is now free, except for marginal costs per employee that shows up. So the only remaining math for the company to consider is, are the benefits that the company gains from an onsite employee greater than the $2/day it costs to provide coffee and toilet paper? Remember, the company is happy to outsource the cost of commuting to employees, and only cares about the value of the building if they own it. And they have great institutional difficulty in weighing intangible employee satisfaction against other perceived gains for the company.
Under this logic, I think it's easy to see why management, acting in the company's best interest, is pushing RTO so hard. If it costs employees $10/day but makes the company $3, that's free money.
The mental gymnastics folks go through to support one side or the other in this debate is just mind boggling to me, especially since their are much simpler and more likely pros/cons for both WFH and RTO.
Regarding tax breaks, I never saw any, but that was pre-pandemic. That makes more sense to me, but leases requiring minimum attendance counts seems like it could be an oft-repeated myth.
1. Company leases expensive office
2. Realizes that no one has to work from the office anymore so they're wasting money on this office
3. Inconveniences everyone by making everyone return to the office
4. Profit?
The lease is a sunk cost. They can try to sublease it out or pay some penalty to get out of it. Even if they owned it, why would they force people to come into the office and not just sell it? If it's worthless to them, then again what they paid for it is a sunk cost and they may as well just sell it. And why wouldn't they try to greatly expand their application pool to non-local workers if WFH is just as good. It's insane.
I've never heard a reasonable explanation as to why managers are so invested in commercial real estate prices that they'll collectively organize and forsake their interests to keep up the mirage.
The more reasonable explanation is that a lot of people work bullshit jobs or can skate by doing very little. These people are harder to control and less visibility by WFH makes it very obvious and managers don't feel good about it.
The RTO/WFH debate can be so infuriating because there is so much dishonesty on both sides. Yes, WFH has huge benefits in terms of flexibility, reduced commuting, better supporting those with disabilities, etc., but it also has downsides in terms of less in-person motivation/support, loss of in-person mentorship for younger/newer employees, worries about building knowledge networks, loss of serendipitous interactions, and more difficulty managing performance for remote workers. Simultaneously, while I can understand the corporate desire for RTO, the reality of the work world has changed, so I see these stories of these execs pushing for RTO, then everyone gets to the office and is on Zoom 80% of the time because their colleagues are spread all over the place.
Just wish there could be more of an honest debate about the pros/cons of BOTH WFH and RTO, and to see how some/either/combo may work better for different employees/companies, without resorting to silliness like "business execs are feeling a ton of pressure to save the corp real estate market".
uh huh
1. you cant know whether they will or not. you're pointing a gun at your head, pulling a trigger and hoping a bullet doesnt come out
2. even if they dont, you've just shared that data with strangers. and data lives forever and can leak out to anywhere else, replicating endlessly. ultimately ending up in Enemy Hands (defined here as folks who dont mean you well & plan to act on it), and thus, used to hurt you
3. if you give a false answer on a job app they can later cite it as cause for firing you. ie. it givea the biz HR/legal dept yet another gun they can point at your head, financially and legally
its a de facto Scam right out in the open. relying on enough people to fall for it, and believe their Spin. nobody should play along with it
ps. and yes I know its "required" by "law" in some cases. it doesnt change the point and the tangible impacts of it. it doesnt make it NOT creepy, dangerous and immoral. evil is evil
Lying about being disabled on a job applications is not considered legal cause for firing somebody in many jurisdictions. It's still rather career-limiting to start an employment relationship with somebody by LYING to them though, and employers can simply not follow the law and fire you anyways and it will hardly be worth suing them for damages, so this is cold comfort.
I have counselled many extremely naive disabled teenager and 20 somethings about disability discrimination and how to get past it and get a job, generally talking to those who have some ability to hide it but would be much more productive and live a higher quality of life with accomidiation:
- If you're going to reveal being disabled do it through a recruiter who will match you with employers who are looking to fill a quota or whatever. Or do it if you know the people hiring you and know they will respond well.
- If you can hide being disabled, don't ask for any accommodation, and hide being disabled for at least long enough to get through a probationary period at which point people will be hesitant to retaliate against you because of the sunk costs and everybody involved in hiring you wanting to save face. This is usually what I usually end up recommending.
- Where you are disabled, can live without accommodations indefinitely, and want to climb the ladder - never say that you're disabled or ask for accomidations. You will be discriminated against for being disabled and then discriminated against again over the perception that you must be a diversity hire.
I had to catch up a lot once I got home from the hospital and rehab; but, since then, I haven't missed a beat. It became a major part of my recovery. If I couldn't work from home, I'd be basket case.