Comment by kwanbix

Comment by kwanbix 3 days ago

168 replies

I know this might be an "unpopular opinion," but after working fully remote for three years, I found myself feeling really down. I felt like a prisoner in my own home. So, three months ago, I started a new job with an office that’s 45 minutes away, and I’ve been going in every day—and I couldn't be happier! I do have the option to work from home all days if I want, but honestly, I prefer going to the office. Now, I get to see people, move around more, and when I’m at home, it truly feels different from being at work. It’s been a game-changer for me.

marricks 3 days ago

I went remote a few years before Covid and I felt a bit isolated, but then I realized I had too much of my social life tied up in my job. Having hobbies and interests outside of work is so much better for my mental health and I wouldn’t swap it for anything, especially a 40 min commute.

I also wouldn’t force anyone to go back to office so I could see the humm of their work. If you need that there’s co working spaces for that reason, or places which have in office options.

Large companies mandating everyone work in office is purely a flex for control and probably to save their property investments.

  • marcosdumay 3 days ago

    > Large companies mandating everyone work in office is purely a flex for control and probably to save their property investments.

    It's a hidden layoff.

    • deweller 3 days ago

      As a layoff strategy, I would expect it to be counterproductive. The people most likely to quit skew toward high-performing individuals who feel confident in their ability to get a remote job elsewhere. And vice versa.

      • roguecoder 3 days ago

        A lot of companies aren't trying to hire the "best" programmers. Places like Amazon won't let engineers use highly-skilled techniques anyway.

        The high-profile RTO places tend to hire in bulk for programmers that will do as product tells them. Weeding out people who value quality over conformity is a goal.

      • marcosdumay 3 days ago

        Layoffs in profitable companies are always counterproductive.

        At best, it signals the company is done with growth and is going for a high-profit, low investment (including low innovation) policy.

      • nickpp 3 days ago

        Sample of one, but around me best engineers came back to work soon after Covid ended, show up every day, communicate and collaborate.

        The less productive are the ones dragging their feet, coming up with excuses to stay home and hide as much as possible from peer scrutiny.

        Almost like best engineers enjoy coming and working with the team, while the worst dread it.

  • Malidir 2 days ago

    > but then I realized I had too much of my social life tied up in my job.

    Yup! Remote workers need to realise this, and build up a local social life.

netsharc 3 days ago

Sheesh, why should it be unpopular. It's called having a preference/choice. Companies telling everyone to be in the office 5 days a week 9-5 (or whatever) is removing that choice. Some like you may not mind, but for others it might be hell...

  • consteval 3 days ago

    It's unpopular because the positions aren't on equal footing. In order to achieve the in-office scenario you HAVE to force people into the office. Because the office itself has no value - it's a building. The value is the people there.

    That's not the case with WFH setups. WFH scenarios do not care where people are. They could be in the office, in a stairwell, or on the beach.

    So one position is inherently one of control, and the other is one of freedom. Maybe that's controversial to say, but to me it's plainly true.

    • ssl-3 3 days ago

      I parsed that as:

      "If anyone has an office in a building, then everyone must have an office in that building and must be forced to work there."

      And I just don't follow that. Why must it be this way? So that the office is full?

      If so, then: If having the office full every day is an important metric and WfH interferes with that metric, then the problem is not that the people make choices.

      Instead, it is that the office is larger than it should be.

      • saghm 3 days ago

        > Instead, it is that the office is larger than it should be.

        Yep, but rather than admit that having too big an office is a mistake, they double down on it and try to force employees back into the offices. For a certain type of personality, pushing the negative ramifications down to subordinates is easier than admitting that they need to solve the actual problem.

        • philwelch 3 days ago

          The problem is literal vested interests in commercial real estate. Not just in the sense that the company itself owns their offices, but many of the local businesses around those offices are popular investments for upper management. (Amazon in particular isn’t a free-lunch workplace, so at least when I was there, there were tons of lunch spots scattered amidst the Amazon campus.) If people don’t RTO, a lot of money stands to be lost, especially since Amazon was investing heavily in both their expanded Seattle campus in the Denny Triangle and HQ2 when COVID hit.

      • consteval 3 days ago

        I would agree, but I have to ask: where's the cutoff?

        If you let people "choose" and 99% choose to always work from home, do you think that's gonna fly? I don't. I think the in-officers would be very upset about that because that's not enough people to make their in-office experience how they like it.

        No matter how you slice it, such a position is one born of control. You have to force some people's hand in where they work.

    • nostrademons 3 days ago

      You don't necessarily. Optional WFH or coworking arrangements let you come into the office if you prefer to, but let people who would rather WFH do so if they prefer to. They were pretty common even during the pandemic, eg. in my time in the startup scene probably 70-80% of founders worked out of a coworking office instead of their home.

      • marcosdumay 3 days ago

        Optional WFH is the one thing called "WFH" on the vast majority of cases. The few places that mandate you not to go to the office all make sure to make that position clear.

        • eric-hu 3 days ago

          I’m currently job searching and I tend to just see (remote) or (hybrid). It usually requires me digging into the description to see if a company has an office I can go to.

          Some that are hybrid optional list themselves as (remote), but do so fully remote companies.

  • treis 3 days ago

    Because it's really hard for a company to do both. Even if it's a remote first and the office is just a place to do zoom calls. Human nature will divide it into two camps with social bonds being stronger within the remote/on office groups than across.

    Speaking as someone who would have to be dragged back to an office, it's obvious that the in office group would win out. Bonds are weaker in the remote group and your type A ladder climbers will be overrepresented in the in office group.

    So hybrid office is probably going to lead to all in office. Especially in these difficult economic times as workforces stagnate or shrink in these companies.

    • ghaff 3 days ago

      Teams that are relatively co-located geographically can coordinate to come into a location regularly on the same days. That really didn't happen where I worked and, as far as I know, the company continues to shed real estate. I'm not sure the execs especially liked the shift but, starting from the base of a fairly remote-friendly company, COVID just largely shredded whatever in-office culture there was for better or worse.

      So, yeah, I think there was some pre-COVID middle ground but you probably have a fairly large percent of people mostly coming into an office and a fairly small percent doing so--which of course tends to reinforce both behaviors. (And it grew a lot in a distributed manner as well which probably made getting everyone together physically all the time less relevant.)

      • treis 3 days ago

        Think this is like a lot of things that work in theory but don't work in practice. You think you'll get the best of both worlds but really you get the worst of both.

        • ghaff 3 days ago

          Simultaneously, when I was there, the other thing that was going on was that the company was basically not paying for off-sites any longer. So, latterly, I had immediate team Zooms but was pretty much disconnected more broadly.

          There was this intersection of COVID and don't spend money that isn't NECESSARY. And the result was basically everything on Zoom. I actually spent a lot of my own money to attend some conferences to maintain some contact with people.

    • cryptonector 3 days ago

      Some coordinated office presence + some WFH is a good mix that reduces commute times, increases WFH productivity (because in-office interactions lead to pressure to deliver), and maintains face-to-face access.

  • ljm 3 days ago

    totally depends on the job, team, and culture as well I think.

    I thought I'd enjoy going back to the office, until 5 days a week was enforced and I was frequently getting interrupted.

    As another commenter said, nurturing a social life is more difficult when working from home, you have to be deliberate about it. I felt the office just made it more convenient to hang out, but it never really happened because I was too burned out by the work.

    • mezzie2 3 days ago

      I find nurturing a social life much easier when I'm WFH because I don't end each day dead on my feet from being overstimulated all day, being in uncomfortable clothes, etc. It also means I don't have to choose between chores and going out after work/on weekends. (A lot of my job is being available for issues and/or requires waiting on SMEs so I have downtime). And it means my social battery isn't drained by the 40 conversations about coworkers' kids that I don't care about (I participate to create a good social environment, but it's just not an enjoyable conversation topic for me) so I can spend my social energy on people and topics that actually fill my cup.

      • scottyah 3 days ago

        I used to get drained by uncomfortable clothes without noticing it until I got on the Vuori train. There are plenty of other brands now but the Meta pants and Strato Tech Tee are my go-to's. Sizing up helps too.

        Not sponsored, I encourage you and anyone else who suffers from clothing-drain to try different brands too. Stretchy, breathable, and clean/crisp looking work best for me.

      • freejazz 3 days ago

        Have you considered purchasing clothes that fit?

        • mezzie2 2 days ago

          No, that idea has completely eluded me for the two decades I've spent in the workforce.

          My bra size isn't even manufactured/sold in my country, and at one point in my life I was a size that was so rare one company in the world made it.

          And this is without getting into non bra issues like my shoulders being much smaller than my bust by size and while some alterations are possible, changing the shoulders requires essentially redoing the entire garment if that can be done on a garment at all. Truly fitting professional clothing would essentially require bespoke or made to measure clothes and I'm not rolling in money. (And even if I was, I'd prefer to spend it on weird tinkering hobbies like the rest of you.)

          The clothes that fit me best off the rack involve substantial amounts of stretch and are too casual for the workplace. (Mostly tops; skirts are very easily altered).

    • Insanity 3 days ago

      The office makes it convenient to hang out with people who aren’t friends and unlikely to become so.

      In my 10+ years working in offices, I made exactly one friend (someone who I see outside of work).

      I would rather not commute and spend that time with actual friends, more quality social interaction over quantity.

      (YMMV of course)

      • ljm 3 days ago

        I’d just find it easier to make plans when I’m already in the city, rather than wrapping up and travelling into the city and arriving a bit later as a result.

        One of those things where I’m happy to hang out with a friend for an hour so if I’m already out, but travelling there only to return after an hour is less attractive.

      • pokerface_86 3 days ago

        that’s generally what happens when you / the people you work with are socially awkward autismos. i hang out with several colleagues outside of work multiple times a week, and consider them friends

    • vladvasiliu 3 days ago

      > As another commenter said, nurturing a social life is more difficult when working from home

      If you're happy with token interactions, sure. Your colleagues are right there (even talking to you while you try to work!). But IME, and from what I hear others say on HN and elsewhere, those aren't really "friends". The relationships are very superficial. How many of these people would help you move? With how many do you keep in contact when one of you changes jobs? I know exceptions exist, but those seem to be rather rare.

      So, if you actually want a deeper relationship, you still have to look for it deliberately. Only now, you have even less time to do it, since you're stuck in the office for 8 hours a day and possibly a few more depending on your commute. Whereas if you're at home, if it's not practical to go have lunch with a buddy or something, at least you can deal with some of your chores that can be time-consuming, while not requiring you to interact with them continuously, like laundry, waiting for a delivery, slow cooking something, etc.

      • devjab 3 days ago

        I think it’s a little condescending to call them token interactions. They can be, but they also don’t have to be. I’ve worked in teams which were like little families while they lasted. I’ve had co-workers become real friends whom I still see many years after we stopped being co-workers. I’ve also had co-workers who were token interactions at best. I think it completely depends on who you are as a person, and also who you work with. Even if you don’t become life long friends you can easily have valuable social interactions with co-workers. Just like you can grow apart from friends. It’s all depending on the situation, and most often on you. At least in my experience.

        5 days on office places are silly in my book. They’ll lose anyone talented enough to get another job. I’m an in office person for the most part, but if you take away my flexibility I’m frankly just going to work for someone who gives it back to me. Why wouldn’t I want the ability to work from home when I need to pick up the kids early or similar? In my experience the best of both worlds is when you let people work where they want but try to staff your teams with half of each preference or with people in between and then label certain days as preferred in-office days. Notice how I said preferred and not enforced. I my teams it has usually developed sort of naturally, often depending on what is for lunch.

        • saghm 3 days ago

          Agreed! At the end of the day, humans at work are still humans, and can form any level of human connection with their coworkers. Long-lasting friendships that persevere past being coworkers isn't super common, but that's because making those friendships isn't super common in general. I think the very real human connections we can make with coworkers is a large part of why it can be easy to confuse mutual loyalty between coworkers with loyalty to a company (which is effectively never mutual because companies don't operate in a way that incentivizes caring about the feelings of individuals).

          That doesn't make it reasonable to _force_ people back into offices though. Companies requiring in-office work so that the workers can experience social interaction that they don't have time for outside work sounds pretty dystopian, and arguing for that for one's own personal benefit at the cost of others feels pretty selfish to me. To be clear, I think it's totally reasonable for a company to hire someone with the understanding that they'll be in-office, but the issue with what's going on now for me is that plenty of people who were hired with the understanding that they _wouldn't_ ever have to be in an office are now being told that they need to. I'd argue that forcing someone originally hired remotely to pick between coming into the office or resigning is effectively equivalent to firing without cause, and it's disappointing that it isn't viewed that way legally.

      • boredtofears 3 days ago

        You've never had lasting relationships with co-workers?

        A significant percentage of my social circle is former coworkers. I still meet up with some that I haven't worked with for over a decade. Or even several decades if you count pre-career jobs.

        It'd be pretty weird for me to assume those interactions have to be token interactions.

        • vladvasiliu 2 days ago

          I did, maybe one or two over some 12 years.

          I've been friendly with most of my co-workers, but aside from the two above, I wouldn't consider any of them "friends". As in we'd never randomly hang out outside of after-work drinks.

  • jfranche 3 days ago

    Even more unpopular, you have a choice to work. To work at Amazon.

    We haven't really hit a true recession yet, esp for the laptop class. I think you will see more of this.

    • saghm 3 days ago

      > Even more unpopular, you have a choice to work. To work at Amazon.

      I had coworkers at Amazon who never lived near any office and were hired with the understanding that they'd always be remote. After several years, they were told to "return" to an office that they never worked in before hundreds or thousands miles away or to resign (without severance of course, since it's "voluntary", and of course refusing to quit or move would lead to firing "for cause"). Are you saying that this is okay because it's Amazon, and their employees don't need to be treated as fairly as anywhere else, or are you arguing that this should be allowed anywhere? I can't imagine why this would be reasonable at any company, but I can't tell if this is an anti-Amazon sentiment or just a consistent opinion that seems crazy to me.

      • rescbr 2 days ago

        Ex-Amazonian here, but outside the US. How come refusing to quit would lead to firing “for cause”?

        Wouldn’t that be some constructive dismissal, or am I misunderstanding the US labor law?

        When I was laid off through the PIP’s way just before the 2022 official layoffs, the first thing I questioned was if they were firing me for no cause, and I collected both Amazon’s severance and the government mandated severance for non-cause dismissals.

    • sandworm101 3 days ago

      Correct. Every job that can be done remotely can equally be done very remotely. At home tech workers compete in a global marketplace. My job requires me to be in the office, not by anyone's choice. It's a legal requirement. That offers me protection should cuts ever come.

      • Fanmade 2 days ago

        Hah. One of my clients is in German insurance tech. They thought the same as you and started recruiting from around the world. They said that German employees are just too expensive. For comparison, a PHP software developer in Germany usually has a salary between 50k and 70k (between 31 and 42k after taxes), which is far from what's being paid in the US. But of course, you can still get cheaper ones from other countries.

        Well, it turns out that these specific German business cases, which are hard enough for the average German developer to understand, are even harder to explain to someone if there's an additional language barrier between them. Most people using that software don't speak English, so there's always a proxy between the developers and the stakeholders.

        I could write a lot about this (I actually deleted two very long versions of this comment here already), but I really would not recommend that any company recruit too many people from outside of its own country, apart from a few exceptions where that fits the business model. Having some diversity in your team structure can help, but as with most things, too much is not good. But many companies will have to learn that for themselves. I have already seen some that did not survive that lesson.

      • mleo 3 days ago

        Yes and no. Everyone on the team tries to be cognizant of time zones and coworkers availability. Trying to schedule meetings across multiple time zones quickly limits available working hours.

        • [removed] 3 days ago
          [deleted]
      • pdntspa 3 days ago

        This isn't necessarily true -- language, cultural, and timezone barriers do exist and will come up, which makes it still advantageous to keep WFH employees domestic

      • dartos 3 days ago

        We love legally backed job protections.

      • shanusmagnus 3 days ago

        Maybe not _equally_ but yeah, this is a key point. There's not a good way to place this bet, but I bet the day comes when the full-remote advocates will rue that advocacy, or at least, many of the Americans will.

    • shanusmagnus 3 days ago

      At the risk of caricature, it seems like there are two camps:

      1. WFH is amazing and just as good for productivity and back-to-office is just a flex by evil managers.

      2. WFH is bad for global productivity and so we need back-to-office.

      Seems pretty straightforward that if #1 is right, then full-remote companies will have a massive competitive advantage, and the issue should be adjudicated decisively once more companies implement b-t-o.

      • orochimaaru 3 days ago

        The game is rigged. There is always more behind the RTO. Examples include - political pressure to prop up downtown businesses (and real estate), easy ways to lay-off without having to announce it, hiring cheaper younger workforce as opposed to expensive senior workers, etc.

        You’re assuming a fair world. It isn’t. As an employee the game is rigged against you.

      • saghm 3 days ago

        What about "whether WFH is more or less productive is irrelevant because people hired with the understanding they would work remotely shouldn't be forced to 'return' to an office they never worked in?" Sure, maybe it's more profitable for the company to have all of their employees in the office, but plenty of other things are more profitable that we also have decided as a society aren't reasonable, like paying below minimum wage or flouting safety regulations. If a company didn't think it could make a profit while employing remotely, they shouldn't have hired remote workers in the first place.

  • dspillett 3 days ago

    > Sheesh, why should it be unpopular.

    It shouldn't be, but it is for many.

    Most times I mention online preferring to not work remote I get people calling me some sort of corporate shill, or worse.

    (Or the posts just get downvoted to oblivion by people who can't articulate their objection more meaningfully than that!)

    > Companies telling everyone to be in the office 5 days a week 9-5 (or whatever) is removing that choice.

    The problem is that it is genuinely hard for a company to support both (and/or flexible mixes) well, and if you ask for a little of the old way it becomes a tribal binary us-vs-them thing. I work in the office most of the time because I prefer to keep work and home separate, and I find I work better that way, but I'm still working on a remote team because practically everyone else is remote. We have a day-per-week policy (well, more of a string suggestion) but most people ignore that.

    > It's called having a preference/choice.

    Unfortunately while people are usually all for being flexible when being flexible means doing things the way they prefer, being flexible in both directions is rarer than it should be. For instance: I dislike phone calls and video calls, to the point of significant anxiety, but trying to get people to just send me an email or IM instead has been an uphill struggle with some. Of course I'll clench my arse and take part in a call when it is the best way to deal with a situation (as it sometimes really is) or because there is no choice (perhaps it is dictated by a client, or those up high), or the dailies and other regulars (calls that are habit/routine are less of a problem) but otherwise I much prefer to communicate in person (“in person” in person, not virtual in person) or by text mediums.

    If I leave this tech job, or lose it for any reason, I think I'll have to retrain for a different industry, even if that means taking a hefty pay cut, heck even if that means mind-numbing minimum wage work. Working on a remote team is not great for my mental health, and it very much seems to have become the norm. Luckily in current DayJob we have found some sort of balance that works well enough, and I've been here long enough (and I'm sufficiently good at what I do) to be inconvenient to dispose of, and the people who wouldn't take the hint about not wanting to take a call for a chit-chat are no longer here, but at some point that might all change.

mrsilencedogood 3 days ago

The whole "us vs them" being manufactured in "remote vs onsite" is really suspicious to me. I have never actually heard from a single person who wanted to force remote people in, or a remote person who wanted to force onsite people out of the office. It feels like the owner class is trying to build a fox-and-the-grapes narratives around the people they've forcibly RTO'd to try to get some kind of grassroots-shaped support for their forced RTO policies.

It's all about choice. I have 3 young kids. The youngest will be in school next year. At that point, I may find myself actually going to a coworking space from time to time (and if my company had an office near me, I'd go into that sometimes). I certainly don't mind the amenities and the company of my coworkers (all 2 of them that are actually physically located within a 4-hour-drive radius of me).

But for right now, being able to be full-time remote with a fully flexibly work schedule is ridiculously important and useful to me. My wife has a dentist appointment? I can sit here in the basement and pull up the kid's camera while he naps and she can just go. I can eat lunch with my kid. I can do morning drop-off when my wife needs a break from the morning kid-prep grind. It's absolutely vital and our lives would've been a mess the last 4 years without it.

Plus, besides the work-lifestyle thing, there's a question of equality of opportunity. As you can probably guess based on my above remarks, I live in BFE (five generations of my family live here, so I can't leave) and there's literally nothing that San Francisco-type SWE's would recognize as a "tech job" until you get up to Lake Michigan. My options, were I to work locally, would be to work in a place that specializes in government/enterprise contracting and "staff augmentation". If your nose is wrinkling and your brow furrowing upon reading that phrase, yes that's the correct facial expression to be making. And yes it pays what you'd expect.

But thanks to remote work, I'm working for a startup and actually getting to program an actual software product and engage with its product development and all that.

  • Phrodo_00 3 days ago

    > I have never actually heard from a single person who wanted to force remote people in

    I have. lots of people get a lot of their social interaction from work.

    • youngNed 3 days ago

      An englishman, a scotsman and an irishman are marooned on a desert island. Afer a long year one of them finds a lamp, and when cleaning it up a genie appears.

      The genie offers them one wish each

      The Irishman says 'sure i'd give anything to be back in galway, stuck in a snug, with a pint of porter' and <poof> he's gone.

      The scotsman is amazed and roars 'take me back tae glasgae!' and in a similar puff of smoke is gone.

      The englishman, looks around and says 'I say, its going to be awfully lonely around here without those chaps around, can you bring them back please?'

    • indoordin0saur 3 days ago

      Yeah, I'm not sure what the OP is talking about. There's definitely a sense of irritation at my office when you've got 4/5 people in office for a meeting and we have to dial in to talk to the 5th who is remote, especially when they could have come in.

  • KoolKat23 3 days ago

    You underestimate just how many nosey/bossy busybodies there are.

mrweasel 3 days ago

> I know this might be an "unpopular opinion,"

It should not be. I work from home 100% now, but feeling alone is a very real issue for many of us. I have friends I talk to during the day via IRC or one the phone, regular chats and video calls with colleagues and managers, family is right around the corner and I try to get out every day and talk to people.

For some the isolation is wonderful. For others, like me, it's amazing for doing focused work, but I also need people in my life. For some problem arises when their sole social circle is people they work with. If you struggle to talk to people you don't know then coworkers quickly be an "outlet" for socializing.

  • fhd2 3 days ago

    I've been working primarily from home for 12 years now, and I can absolutely understand these feelings.

    I don't think I'd enjoy it at all if I didn't have so much family and loved ones around, just sitting in an apartment all day by myself. What interaction you have with co workers with so much fewer social cues can hurt more than it helps, really.

    I'll bet you many managers in favour of RTO feel exactly like this when they work from home, and base their decisions on the way they feel.

  • seadan83 3 days ago

    In office is a mixed bag. Sometimes there are genuine people there who could become true friends. On the other hand, there are those that talk through their smiles. The two are sometimes indistinguishable and it can be hard to determine whether those office relationships were hollow or not. In a best case, they are not hollow. In a worst case, you think you have a support network and friends and don't spend as much effort to find genuine community connection. Then when it comes time to leave, or change team - the relationship evaporates leaving you worse off than before (still isolated, but now also older and missed opportunity). It is a spectrum, true friends I believe are somewhat rare in the workplace.

    Another dimension to that spectrum is a development of a working cohort. Essentially a half dozen people or more that hire each other at new jobs and move together from company to company. A true best case there us to meet a potential co-founder.

    Though, I have had a remote colleague whome we spent days on video calls together working on a problem. I am not sure remote is in-office is actually mutually exclusive. The people willing to spend 5 hours on a call peer coding with you might be the same that you actually become friends with in office

longnt80 3 days ago

> get to see people > move around more > feels different from being at work

I'm not sure why one couldn't do this working remotely? Maybe these people can only socialise through work? Being passive about getting out of the house? Unable to create boundaries between work and personal life?

Working "remote" doesn't mean one has to stay at home all the time. We all have laptops and can go any where to work.

  • dlisboa 3 days ago

    While I prefer remote it’s undeniable the vast majority of an adult’s socializing is done at work. Can you do it outside of it? Maybe, but probably not. Most of your friends will also work or they’ll have families and not be able to come out often.

    Unless you have dozens of friends already the likelihood is you’ll often be alone after work.

    Thankfully I’ve made my friends and have a family but if I was just starting out I don’t think I’d even have met the people that are close to me. My friends are mostly from work or work friends of my college friends.

    People often say to that “just get hobbies”. Well, hobbies are often done with friends or are introduced to by friends.

    • consteval 3 days ago

      People are right, you should just get hobbies.

      I think this WFH epidemic was an opportunity to enlighten a lot of people. There are many, many people (myself included), who were husks of human beings. Alive, technically, but not living.

      We work, we eat, we sleep. We had money, but at the end of the day we were losers. I knew this to be the case when I realized what I looked forward to what dinner. Eating a meal was the highlight of my day, and the highlight of every day. And then the weekends I stayed in, exhausted from work.

      When people lost the office, it was an opportunity for them to realize they had absolutely no life. No friends, no socialization, no passions, no desires. Some realized that and took control of their life, and others took offense to that realization and demanded the office back.

      It was very much a matrix red pill versus blue pill situation. Live in lalaland on autopilot? It's tempting.

    • mrguyorama 3 days ago

      >People often say to that “just get hobbies”. Well, hobbies are often done with friends or are introduced to by friends.

      Not even close. Hobbies are done in groups, which can be stood up in your local area. This shit was figured out in the 1700s FFS, with no internet, with no online message boards to coordinate preferences, with no real choice in WHO they interacted with.

      We invented "third places" like coffee shops, where average people could show up, buy a coffee, and chat with literal strangers, where you would often get into discussions about philosophy, politics, this newfangled "science" stuff, and all sorts of topics, usually involving people guessing about things they didn't even have a right answer to. But that didn't matter because the point was to interact with strangers.

      The scientific method was literally a bunch of wealthy people exploring a brand new hobby by finding each other in "journals" (basically hobby magazines), sending each other snail mail, and chatting about their different experiments.

      Companies have decided they can just stop supporting an open environment, and charge you for the right to exist, and now we don't have a third place in the US, because nobody has the time or money or energy to socialize after work, because work takes so goddamned much out of us.

      So no, please do not force me, who has a perfectly functional social life and several great friend groups for life, just because you don't know any other way to meet people. That's not my problem and forcing me into the office so you can take advantage of the requirement that I am there to socialize with me is not an okay solution.

      Work doesn't pay me to be your friend.

  • Attrecomet 3 days ago

    > We all have laptops and can go any where to work.

    Well, anywhere I can be sure no external person can see what I'm doing on screen. So a cafe will work if I can sit in a corner with my back to a wall. And even then, I'm giving up my tooling to make work easier on myself and more productive, like a nice, large monitor. Coworking spaces let me alleviate the second part, but the first problem is even more pressing there: now, everyone around me must be expected to understand what I'm doing, and thus is a bigger danger to my companies data security.

    • gmueckl 3 days ago

      I certainly understand your restrictions, but not all companies or jobs require policies that are this strict. I had jobs where that kind of over the shoulder snooping wasn't a concern at all. When you're coding something that doesn't process personal data, I don't see why anyone should care that much. A casual observer can't realistically figure out what you're working on, let alone any "secret sauce" from glancing over your shoulder occasionally. Listening in on a meeting would be far more enlightening.

      • Attrecomet 2 days ago

        That is true, and don't get me wrong, I'm happy if that works for you -- people should make use of that possibility far more often.

        It's not for possible for everyone, though, and the bar is not "is any IP loss realistic" but rather "what are the policies my employer demands", independent of if they are sensible or not. Make sure you're not getting caught breaking company policy, kids :P

  • richardlblair 3 days ago

    I had the same take when I lived in a large city where each area had a healthy community. People there were friendly, eager to engage in conversation, the city had a lot of recreational sports, clubs, and places where people congregated. It was lovely. I worked from home the last year I was there and I was just as social as I was in the office, just with different people. I even had a rule - I had to see at least one stranger a day, and it was never a problem.

    Now I live on the other side of the province, and holy shit is it hard. I've been here for over 6 years and I haven't been able to maintain a single friendship. I could try harder, for sure, but that's my point. It was effortless before, and now it feels like being social takes serious work.

    I still work from home, and I've settled into a quieter way of life. It's nice, I enjoy it. That said, I'm not surprised others don't.

tikkabhuna 3 days ago

I think its having the option and being able to choose. I like going into the office. I talk to people I wouldn't normally reach out to. But I also like being able to be home for deliveries and I know my friends with kids would struggle without it.

I also like the commute. I get in early to miss the rush. I end up walking more. I have the ability to switch from work to home on the way back. After work drinks also help.

That's all based on one 30 minute train that is extremely reliable, air conditioned, and getting a seat. I couldn't do it if I had to drive or take 3+ trains.

  • vladvasiliu 3 days ago

    I think the main point is flexibility. And that's why many people on both sides of the issue (those with a hard preference for WFH as well as those for RTO) tend to break out the pitchforks: every decision from up high seems to strongly favor either position.

    Maybe there are many companies who do allow for flexibility, in which case everybody is happy, so you don't hear about them, since they have better things to do than "not-complain" about their situation.

    I'm lucky to work for such a company, and the main issue of discussion these days is whether we like or not the new office decoration. Managers are free to decide how often their teams have to come in, and, from what I hear, their underlings did have their word to say. Some people like coming in often, others less so. But basically, it all depends on who you're working with right now, and whether it makes sense to meet in person. This seems to work great for pretty much everybody.

martinohansen 3 days ago

One does not exclude the other.

I work for a remote-only company but use a workspace almost every day. I get to chose my own “office” and the people in it, I also pick the commute I want, this one is just 5 minutes away.

Malcolmlisk 3 days ago

I have a 100% remote job. But my team have decided to go at least every tuesday to the office. We are not obligued, but almost everyone comes to the office once a week just to socialize and talk about our projects and sometimes even to take a beer or two after work.

To me, feels super refreshing to talk to people when Im at the office, and to be fair Im much much less productive in the office. But makes me appreciate when Im at home and when I dont need to be in the car for 1 to arrive my home, take everything and go to the gym.

It feels like, going from time to time to the office when almost everyone is there, gives to the remote working more sense and value. And viceversa.

  • htrp 3 days ago

    "There are wealthy gentlemen in England who drive four-horse passenger-coaches twenty or thirty miles on a daily line in the summer because the privilege costs them considerable money; but if they were offered wages for the service, that would turn it into work, and then they would resign." -- Mark Twain

    You can come in every so often (weekly) without issue (or by choice).

    When you're forced to come in every day, that becomes different.

  • Sebb767 3 days ago

    I work in a similar setup, but we only have 2 office days a month. I still like this very much; you get to meet and socialize with all your colleagues, but you have basically all the advantages of home office and traveling for two days a month is easy.

ktzar 3 days ago

I think you have touch on an interesting point here... When working remotely you really need to put an effort into keeping a healthy social life balance, otherwise you end up feeling exactly as you describe. It's easy for days to go on with no "change of landscape", and that can send anyone straight to depression.

  • flkiwi 3 days ago

    "It's easy for days to go on with no 'change of landscape', and that can send anyone straight to depression."

    Counterpoint: That's an exact description of how I felt working in an office.

  • brightball 3 days ago

    Yea, I’ve been working remote for 12 years and that was the first thing I had to solve.

    There’s a local tech Slack in my area that I keep up and I have a text group that I’ve built up over the years that sometimes grabs lunch or hits the gym. Keeps me balanced.

  • philote 3 days ago

    I think employers with remote employees can also do a better job in many cases with getting people to socialize. It's definitely easier to socialize when in the office, but several remote jobs I've had didn't really do much for this even though everyone was remote. I feel managers of remote employees need to do more online social events, have a water cooler chat, etc. in order to get team members to talk to each other. I'm currently on a team that doesn't do this well, and it's very isolating to barely know and talk to your teammates.

RHSeeger 3 days ago

> I know this might be an "unpopular opinion,"

That's the thing, though; it's important to remember that it very much _is_ an opinion/preference. For some people, working from the office is better, for others, it's working from home, and for others it's a combination of both. There are positives and negatives to each, for both the employee and the employer.

That being said, a company limiting itself to _only_ people willing to work in the office is doing just that; limiting itself. I expect the reverse is also true; but the pool of workers to choose from for "everyone remote" is a _LOT_ bigger than the pool of workers for "everyone in the office".

sqren a day ago

@kwanbix: do you have kids? I feel that's one of the primary deciding factors for working from home. People without kids are much more flexible with their time, whereas people with (small) kids are severely more limited. Freeing up commute time and being able to do small chores like starting the washing machine creates significant happiness, which totally offsets the downsides of not seeing your co-workers (that) often.

Before kids I would also become depressed if I worked remotely full time. But today my "alone time" is already pretty much gone outside work hours so I don't mind being by myself during the day.

wkat4242 3 days ago

It's not a matter of popularity. Some people need the interaction. Others like me hate it.

This is why making it flexible is so great. You could be in the office with other people who enjoy it, while people like me don't have to.

Even before the pandemic I would often hang at the office until 10pm because I could only get work done after the others left. I would get so stressed from all the distractions around me.

  • lazide 3 days ago

    The issue is that folks like newbies on the team end up left out, and when everyone is off doing their own thing there is often no actual team - which shows up in a lot of non-obvious ways.

    • cebert 3 days ago

      Nothing prevents them from making meetings to connect with / meet their peers. When you work remotely, you need to change your habits a bit. You have the same type of interactions, it just takes some initiative.

      • lazide 2 days ago

        Sure, but sitting next to someone and being able to ask them questions is easy, quick, and natural. And often helps build relationships.

        As is sitting in an area and seeing who everyone goes to ask questions, and even overhearing the discussions.

        So someone can learn how to phrase questions, what are useful types of questions to ask, what types of questions get someone told to ‘do their own research’ vs gets in-depth help, etc.

        For a junior, that is very valuable because they often literally don’t even know where to start.

        For someone with more experience, they often either already know all these things, or know how to find them out pretty quickly even without the help of watching what is happening, yeah?

    • SamoyedFurFluff 3 days ago

      That’s a fault of the existing teammates. I always prioritize 1:1 with new members in my team or my sister teams and make myself available for any onboarding or technical questions.

    • wkat4242 3 days ago

      Yeah I'm just totally not a team player anyway. I would avoid such interactions in the office too, by picking another floor. I'm not a mother hen. Other people are and they like to be that, so it's much better that they do it. They also do this over Teams by the way.

      I always maneuver myself into such a place that I have something to work on for myself.

yoyohello13 3 days ago

90 min commute time is insane to me. That is a massive amount of time to give to your company for free. If companies want people to come back to the office, they should pay for commute time.

jhbadger 3 days ago

Before the pandemic it used to be commonly believed that even remote work shouldn't be done at home and you used to see coffee shops filled with people on laptops (and frustrating people who just wanted a table to drink their coffee and eat a pastry). Obviously during the pandemic we got used to working from home but as you say a big downside is that it removes all distinction between your work and home environment.

w0m 3 days ago

It's legit. Fully Remote can be seriously isolating/depressing.

Hybrid is probably the ideal; but even so I live 15m from the office and when I go in it's empty 90% of the time anyway. I don't know if I'd take a 45m commute until the kids can get themselves home from school (daily pickup/dropoff) - but I do miss 2h beer lunches on a Tuesday after closing a ticket to blow off stress.

Meganet 3 days ago

I also enjoy the office when i'm there.

My problem is that i really hate flex desks and now you don't get your own office anymore.

But my problem is more with my home: I'm now buying a farm and i don't think it will feel the same way as it does at my flat. Its surprisingly hard to 'get out' to not feel annoyed by my flat. But i don't have a good outdoor view only a small window and i do not have a extra office space.

collyw 2 days ago

Same. I can't stand working in my home office at this stage. Somethings are easier when you don't have the distraction of a busy office, but many things are a lot easier / more efficient. On-boarding new staff is so much better in person.

Similarly, in the old days when I had jobs where I was expected to wear a shirt and dress reasonably smart to the office, I enjoyed getting changed into other clothes afterwards. It marked a real change between work and personal time. That gets very blurred with working from home.

  • dagw 2 days ago

    It marked a real change between work and personal time. That gets very blurred with working from home.

    I actually try to dress 'properly' even when working from home. I know most people find it silly, but I feel I work better when wearing 'work' clothes.

indoordin0saur 3 days ago

It really depends on your commute. For me I take a 20 minute subway ride but could also choose an hour walk or a 30 minute bike ride. I definitely prefer my situation to working from home 5 days a week. But if I were driving an hour in traffic I'm sure I'd prefer to be remote.

ekianjo 3 days ago

if you want to see people you can work in a coworking space near where you live without the commute. I dont understand people who want to commute more than one hour a day if they have the choice not to. And even more so if you consider the environmental impact and all the stress that goes with it.

  • bluedino 3 days ago

    Co-working spaces aren't everywhere, and the people there aren't your co-workers so it's really not the same relationship.

zellyn 3 days ago

I'm lucky in that my company closed the office far from me, and consolidated on an office about 15 minutes' drive / 25 minutes' bike ride from my house.

Now, when I weigh 30 minutes of commute versus being cooped up in the same room I was in for the whole pandemic and almost lost my mind, it's easy: office whenever I can.

That said, I'd be very loathe to _have_ to come in to the office. There are whole weeks where it just doesn't work out logistically, and it's nice to be able to work from home.

RIMR 3 days ago

There is a nice feeling that can come from having a new job, but if I suddenly had to be on the road 7-8 hours a week, I would find that very stressful.

ghostpepper 3 days ago

I also enjoy a certain level of in-office face to face interaction but 90 minutes by car per day would be too much for me.

jon-wood 3 days ago

I think this is completely fine. Some people like working remotely, other people don't. I fully expect to see a gradual trend of companies going on way or the other over time, because hybrid really is the worst of both worlds with nobody really being happy.

bluedino 3 days ago

At first I enjoyed going into the office a day or two a week...but nobody else goes in, and it's even weirder being in a giant office building with just a couple people on each floor than it is staying at home.

ChumpGPT 3 days ago

It's probably because you don't have much to do outside of work and that is where you get your only human interaction. People who have families and friends typically do better in a remote environment.

mihaaly 3 days ago

This is nice!

When everyone can choose what work best for them! We are not the same - and face to face meetings have their huge benefits from time to time anyway.

Except for those poor souls working for Amazon.

kalleboo 3 days ago

I also get depressed being in my home all day every day which is why I go to coworking spaces, cafes and parks. There is endless variation that still doesn’t have to chained to a certain commute.

  • ThatMedicIsASpy 3 days ago

    Reset. Start work with a 30m walk 'going to work' and end it with a 30m walk. Free one hour exercise when you sit/stand all day.

    • blindluck 3 days ago

      Grab a local dog or two and you have a side hussle or at least can help a neighbor

bmitc 3 days ago

I experience that as well. But the way I see to combat it is that working from home gives me more energy to go out on my own terms like taking classes, volunteering, etc.

rlpb 3 days ago

I understand the need for human contact and to get out of the house. But you can achieve that working "from home", too, albeit with some consideration for confidentiality requirements[1]. Usually the place you must work from isn't defined. I work "from home", but once a week I work in the same room as a bunch of locals who also work from home.

A few advantages: 1) you have a wider pool of people to choose to co-work with, since they can have other employers, too; 2) you can choose who you want to co-work with; 3) you get to (mostly) choose which and how many hours you wish to co-work; 4) no stress about being late due to a commute or childcare commitments, since co-working hours are optional.

[1] I deliberately arrange to work on things that aren't confidential on co-working days.

michaelcampbell 3 days ago

So in office is better for you. What irks so many of us is that companies point to people like you and mandate EVERYONE be like that, because the C suite, whose entire lives and career have been built around having people around them assumes or decries that everyone either is, or should be, like them.

Or worse, the middle management is given authority to give these mandates, and are in their highest level of incompetence and use it as a "power move".

nswest23 3 days ago

huh. it's almost like there isn't a one size fits all solution and people should have options that fit their lifestyle.

Wheaties466 3 days ago

you're not alone in this. I thought i would love WFH but it turns out I need some social interaction even though i dread it.

  • mrguyorama 3 days ago

    But this is not an acceptable reason to chain people like me, who have functional social lives, to your needs.

    You need social interaction, so go out and get social interaction.

    I don't. So why should employment cater to you rather than me?

torginus 3 days ago

Imagine working all your life, and your crowning achievement being:

- buying a house you never see the inside of while the sun is up

- buying a car whose purpose is making the two hours every day you spend commuting a bit less miserable

m3kw9 3 days ago

human nature in action, you have a nice thing for so long, you'd get bored of it

highcountess 3 days ago

[flagged]

  • sensanaty 3 days ago

    I find it crazy that this isn't the case in the US every time I see this topic come up. You always hear about all the benefits of working for a FAANG, but they're too cheap to even cover cost of transport?

    In the Netherlands, and probably a lot of other EU countries, transport to work has to be compensated by your employer. If you live within biking distance this means providing you a bike (usually via a service like Swapfiets these days), and otherwise you get your train/public transport costs or fuel costs if you drive a car completely covered. It's even tax-deductible I think, though I've never bothered looking into that option since I just take my own bike to work.

    • screcth 3 days ago

      FAANG pays very well, and money can be exchanged for goods and services.

      I know that having benefits like a free bike feels good, but the total compensation you are getting is much lower than that of people that work for big tech and pay for their own transportation.

      • sensanaty 3 days ago

        Well I don't have to pay for any transporation, 'cause my employer can't decide on a dime to force me into the cage 5 times a week ;) I also only live a 15 minute bike ride away, rather than a 2 hour car ride as seems to be the case for many people in the US.

        But even ignoring all that, money isn't the be-all, end-all. Having worked in the US for a stint, I'll take my "low" pay in the Netherlands any day of the week over rotting away in a soulless US megacorp headed by legitimate psychopaths, where they can decide to fuck you over at a moment's notice for any reason and you have no recourse.

        After all, what good is money that you can't spend? If you gave me a trillion dollars but it meant I had to spend 12 hours of my day dedicated to work, what use is that? I'll take my sane working culture I have at the moment despite me earning marginally less (if you ignore literally all the other benefits of living in the Netherlands, that is) all day, every day.

    • systemtest 3 days ago

      The Netherlands does not have transport cost compensation by law. Various unions have negotiated it for their members and a lot of people have it as part of their compensation package, but it's not mandated by law that a company should pay you for your travel cost.

      A company is also not mandated by law to provide you with a bicycle.

      You also do not get your cost fully covered if you drive by car. Currently it's capped at 23 cents per kilometer which is not enough for most cars.

      It's not a tax deductible, it's just (income) tax free.

      • sensanaty 3 days ago

        That's my mistake then, since I've never worked at a company here that didn't compensate you and assumed it was a given! I can no longer edit my comment unfortunately, otherwise I'd point this out there as well.

    • ptero 3 days ago

      I am pretty sure the poster you reply to talks about time not money.

      Most tech companies compensate for costs. My current employer doesn't blink paying ~$60 per day for my parking and lunch on days I come to the office, but that still means I spend 50 min each way getting there. My 2c.

    • lazide 3 days ago

      It’s all relative. FAANGs have been very high compensation (and good work environments) by US standards, and frankly in comparison to most global standards.

      But they aren’t perfect, and they’ve been good relative to other employers.

      Having transportation covered is an extremely rare benefit in the US.