Comment by keyle 4 days ago
I'm in a similar situation, but no hardware involved. Just the flexibility to juggle the kids at pick up times is godsend.
I have much better no-interruption stretches of programming which yields better results overall.
Career focused younger people have also been adversely affected by wfh for the last few years in a big way. All the mentorship and networking opportunities have withered. The non career focused younger people are living it up though.
I think they’re adversely affected only if their managers or companies make no effort to find an alternative. Many have no issue. This just seems like the weak justification Andy Jassy has repeatedly pointed to.
I’ve been based at home for 14 years now.
It’s not bullshit. It’s perhaps exaggerated, and many of the “work from a desk in a specific building” people are the ones who can’t mentor them anyway, but there are benefits in
It doesn’t have to be, you can mentor people in a fully remote environment, but it’s far harder for most ok both sides - especially for young people and people on HN that think WFH means you don’t actually have to work.
What prevents them from networking remotely and scheduling coffee chats? That seems like a weak excuse.
I would never have received the career support I did online. I’m so lucky I got into software engineering before remote work was a thing.
As a senior engineer, I benefit from remote work. But it’s sad to see those informal lunches replaced with Zoom “coffee.”
The realities of how humans interact. Going for a cup of coffee and asking a colleague to join is a different act than asking a colleague to join you in a Zoom call.
It just doesn't happen, and chatting over VC isn't the same as meeting people in real life anyway. In the office, I'll randomly bump into people I've known from years back and have small chats, but I never in a million years would have specifically scheduled to do so (sometimes I don't even remember their names, just what they look like!).
Seriously? I mean to a certain extent you are correct that it's just an excuse...
But if you really think there is no difference between these two things then you are living in a fantasy world.
Proximity does a lot to encourage socialization between super senior people and super junior people.
Without proximity, it's much easier for either side to put off or brush off things that would be good mentorship opportunities. You don't have to go into work the next day and see your coworker face to face to explain why you ditched them on that pair coding session or whatever it may have been.
How do we know there would be a selection for younger people? Someone with a family is perhaps less inclined to change jobs. Someone older is more likely to have health issues or a dependent with health issues, which is an even stronger disincentive to change jobs. It is still not a great job market AFAIK, quitting at the moment is not going to guarantee a new job is available.
Perhaps something of a corollary of the saying, don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence. The Amazon senior folks making these decisions almost certainly have reasons. If people quit, maybe they just don't care who it is. I really wonder if they AB tested RTO. Given it is Amazon, I would put a small wager they have.
Further, the impact between middle managers and individual contributors is uneven in remote work. The article mentioned there was a desire to reduce management. Remote work was an interesting experiment IMO to show the (lack of) effectiveness of middle management. Perhaps the impact to ICs is negative, but the middle management can be more effective. Arguably that would give greater "focus" on the specific KPIs desired by the VP level. Again, would be super fascinating to know the data used by Amazon here, of if this is a rare decision truly made by fiat alone.
Others have mentioned Amazon's real estate holdings. I kinda think that is likely. Amazon made huge investments to stop leasing offices and to build and own their own offices. If nobody is there, the surrounding neighborhood is devalued, in turn devaluing the offices further. It would be s considerable loss on paper. ICs perhaps are about as effective in office under a whip compared to remote, and if some quit - then maybe all the better to reduce head count.
Do you know of any statistics that back this?
I could see it be the other way around, or various factors balancing each other out. From my experience the current young generation is more willing to trade money for QoL , and quit when they feel QoL is bad, than the previous one.
> Is it possible that these RTO policies are actually meant to select for younger people and force others to resign? After all older people have more responsibilities outside of work like children
How did the last 40 years of tech do it? Were the boomers that invented all this stuff resigning left and right or not have children? Did I misread history about Bill Gates sleeping in his office or did he run MS from his kitchen table?
I am in the lucky situation having worked more years in offices than open floor, last time 2018. The doors were only shut before 1995, never after that. I was typically the only one who turned his desk towards the door, so I could chat with people coming in and also show that people can come in. It was so much more productive to work as a developer compared to open space.
Nowadays I go to the office (open space) only during evening hours when at most 2 hackers are there. Working from home probably not productive when you have smaller kids. Maybe good for the kids though.
I would fully support going back to offices with doors. Unfortunately the tech companies and newer generations brought us open plan offices (because they're more social!) and made secretary an offensive word. Now I live in a world where you don't know how to properly address the lady that books your travel.
In all but my first job there was no such lady. It was my responsibility to book my own travel, mostly through some clone of Concur.
> Did I misread history about Bill Gates sleeping in his office or did he run MS from his kitchen table?
Yes, Bill Gates worked like a maniac and didn't see his family. His wife took care of the kids. I think that's a terrible example to set (I wouldn't want to do it) but each to their own.
Bill Gates lived 15 minutes from his office. That’s at rush hour. Today that drive would take a lot longer.
Same here. I can do all my family errands when I want and plan around them. The best part, at least with the company's interest, is that I work when I feel most productive. Usually 3 hours in the morning, along with a few hours in the evening, I even often work weekends like this. And guess what? During these programming periods, I'm at my most productive. Force me into an office where I'm forced to synch with the office's schedule, and met with constant noise and interruption from others, and my productivity is maybe half.
Same for me, and my mood is worse from having to reset when I'm thinking through a tricky architecture problem and Foghorn Leghorn in the next office is talking at the top of his lungs on speakerphone.
Same here, thanks to me working from home my wife has been able to return to work (she's a teacher) which has given us more income (and less costs!) and massively improved our financial position!
Is it possible that these RTO policies are actually meant to select for younger people and force others to resign? After all older people have more responsibilities outside of work like children and cannot work through Amazon’s meat grinder or do things like support brutal on call cycles. They’re also the ones with bigger commutes and other barriers to RTO, since they probably live away from city cores to buy houses and have space for a family. Meanwhile young people who live in the middle of downtowns in apartments that are near their work probably are unaffected by this kind of change.