HN Explorer

10 comments

[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 42.2 ms ] thread
chiefalchemist
I'd like to see these articles reframed:

"Making Your Employees Return To Office is Costing Them $51 P/D"

Or better

"You've Made Your Employees Return, the Not-So-Obvious Costs Coming Out of Your Pocket"

Telling people who already realize they've been screwed isn't going to help. Instead, these articles need to speak truth to power.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
SargeDebian
If you spend $30 on food maybe your employer is not to blame for the majority of that $51.
janosdebugs
If you could cook the same or better food at home for 10-15$ (which was my experience) them yes, employers are the reason for the extra spend.
baggy_trough
You have the choice to bring lunch to work, so no, employers aren't the reason.
janosdebugs
As far as quality if life is concerned, microwaved food doesn't quite have the same appeal for many.
SargeDebian
Sandwiches exist. Of course, everyone is free to choose what they eat but the notion that there's no alternative to spending over $30 on food every working day sounds absurd to me.
janosdebugs
There's always an alternative. One can also live under the bridge as a measure of saving rent (obviously exaggerating), but it's not a choice most people would make. The reason why we work is so we can support the lifestyle we want, not the bare minimum to survive.
Ancalagon
You're missing the point - the time spent commuting is the real time-value lost here.
bradknowles
So, there's the Lyft ride to and from work, at about $25 each. If not Lyft, then you have to buy a car or otherwise get transportation somehow.

Then there's the much higher cost of buying food and drink at work, as opposed to the lower prices of food you can buy in larger quantities at home.

Then there's the time lost while doing the transport to/from work, and how much does that cost you per hour, in terms of opportunity lost?

I'd say the additional burden here is way over $51 per day.