Comment by consteval

Comment by consteval 3 days ago

> but it’s not like it’s inherently bad

Sure it is. We can directly measure the impact of this.

Amazon has approx. 35,000 software engineers. Assuming a commute of total 1 hour a day (very generous of me), that's 35k extra hours of human labor wasted a day. Assuming an average lifespan of 613,620 hours, that's about 1 entire human lifespan lost every 17 days.

We could also measure the carbon impact, too. 1 hour of driving releases about 4 pounds of CO2 into the air. This is about 70 tons of carbon a day, or 25.5K tons of carbon a year.

Or maybe we can measure deaths? Assuming a commute daily of 30 miles, that's about 1 million miles traveled a day. The rate of traffic deaths is about 1 for every 100 million miles traveled. So, every hundred days, Amazon indirectly killed one of their employees, or about 3.5 dead employees a year.

And we can go on and on. Point being, yes bad things are bad and yes, when you make BIG decisions those have BIG consequences. This isn't like deciding what drink to get at McDonald's.

paulcole 3 days ago

OK but what if the output of the company being in the office is enough to offset that?

Like is Apple “better” for the world if they worked from home and never made the iPhone?

Or what if there are people who want to work in an office with other people who want to work in an office and are willing to trade some CO2 and small risk of death to do so?

Can’t the people who believe remote work is bad quit and get a job somewhere else? Should be simple since remote work is so obviously inherently good.

I get that this is going to be like playing tennis against a wall because HN has such a hard-on for remote work that they’ll never admit that in-office work has benefits that remote work lacks and that a company that requires in-office work isn’t inherently evil.

Reply View 6 replies

consteval 2 days ago

> OK but what if the output of the company being in the office is enough to offset that?
Ok and what if it rains gold from the sky and poverty is cured forever? Are we just saying things now? Because I have absolutely no reason to believe this is the case, and Amazon is dead-set on not giving me a reason.
> Or what if there are people who want to work in an office with other people who want to work in an office and are willing to trade some CO2 and small risk of death to do so?
In practice, not a viable position. RTO only works if you force other people to go to the office when they don't want to. Because the office, itself, is actually useless. It's just a building. The office is desired for the people in it. Meaning, such a position is one born of control. The same is not the case with WFH. Meaning, WFH does not care where you are. RTO cares a lot about where you are. One is intrinsically easier to swallow therefore, because one by its very nature orients itself towards freedom. This is undeniable.
> isn’t inherently evil.
I never said a company is inherently evil. Amazon is, for other reasons.
You said that RTO doesn't have any real downsides. Keyword "real". Well, that's not true - it has many REAL downsides. As in: lives lost, habitats harmed, climate destroyed. It's real enough we can measure it. If you don't particularly like this I don't know what to tell you, it's just the way it is. CEOs and other execs are so detached from the real world. But when you make BIG decisions those have BIG consequences.

Reply View | 5 replies
- paulcole 2 days ago
  
  > You said that RTO doesn't have any real downsides.
  I literally never said this. Obviously some people perceive it to have downsides. Some may believe these downsides are 100% objective.
  > Because the office, itself, is actually useless.
  Like I actually did say, like tennis against a wall.
  > RTO only works if you force other people to go to the office when they don't want to.
  You are correct here and I don't think this is a bad thing. People have agency and can get new jobs if they find the office so distasteful and care about the climate so much.
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
  
  consteval 2 days ago
  
  > Some may believe these downsides are 100% objective.
  I just explained to you, in clear terms, some objective outcomes. These aren't make believe - you actually have to spend time and money to get to an office. I'm sorry, there's no way around that. Teleportation has not yet been invented.
  > You are correct here and I don't think this is a bad thing.
  You could make the argument this isn't a bad thing, but one thing is undebatable: the arguments aren't on equal footing. An argument for RTO HAS TO, necessarily, articulate a pro-control argument. A WFH argument does not, and that's the difference.
  That's why one argument is easy for people to swallow and the other isn't. RTO is inherently anti-freedom, and people don't like that. Even some people who like working in an office don't like that.
  > office so distasteful and care about the climate so much
  This is a strawman, and I'm starting to feel like a broken record. Once again, I'm not referring to these more wishy-washy arguments.
  It would be in your favor if pro-WFH arguments were just based on feelings. Unfortunately, they're not - they're based on real costs. Time is a real cost. Driving is a real cost.
  These aren't small costs. By choosing to go RTO I wouldn't be surprised if each employee takes, at least, the equivalent of a 10% salary deduction. Now this is difficult to argue in favor for, which is why you don't. Unfortunately choosing to orient your position that way makes it lose credibility, which is what Amazon has faced when they refuse to bring any data to the conversation.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies