
Why Do We Still Commute? - tzury
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/11/why-do-we-still-commute/544733/
======
codingdave
I worked from home for five years, and just this week started back into a job
where I commute to an office. I don't love the commute, but I also don't agree
that working from home is a universally better answer for me on a personal
level.

Everyone knows the benefits of working from home, but there are downsides as
well. Fixable downsides, but they exist nonetheless -- it is easy to become a
hermit. Easy to over-work. Hard to draw the line between your work time and
your personal time. Easy to get siloed into your current job, while not
keeping up with the rest of the company and enabling career growth. Easy to
let poor communication habits turn into real problems. And when your entire
company works from home, as mine did, you develop a culture of acting like
there is no better choice, and the benefits of your personal flexibility at
home outweigh any problems at work... causing people to not fight very hard to
fix problems, and to stay in those jobs longer than they should because of how
comfortable the working situation is.

Now, all of those things can be handled if you have personal discipline, good
co-workers, and great leadership. But not all teams can truly claim those
qualities. So I feel both working environments have their good and bad sides,
and the choice of which situation to pursue is a question that needs to be
answered with some solid contextual information about the team, the culture,
and your personality to know which one is truly best for any specific
individual at any specific job.

~~~
vog
_> it is easy to become a hermit. Easy to over-work. Hard to draw the line
between your work time and your personal time_

Not just that, but there's also the other side: Easy to procrastinate, easy to
give false reports which then leads to regular overwork in the days just
before a hard deadline.

I know these issues from remote workers I worked with, but also know this
personally while working on my Diploma theses.

While we are at it: Working on Diploma/Master thesis is in many ways very
similar to remote work: One works mostly from home, maybe in the library but
even there mostly alone, i.e. not in an office, meeting one's mentor at most
once per week. I met with other students which were in the same situation -
just to get into a group feeling. That worked quite well, even though we had
no overlaps in our topics and hence not much to talk about.

The situation is a bit different if you write your PhD thesis, as that usually
means you have a job at the university during that time, and at least have an
office and collegues.

~~~
wambotron
> Easy to procrastinate, easy to give false reports which then leads to
> regular overwork in the days just before a hard deadline.

This isn't a remote problem. I see this _all_ the time with people at work now
and I don't work remotely.

This is more of a personal issue -- some people do it consistently, others
don't. I never had that problem working remotely, and I don't pretend to be
somewhere else in my regular reports in the office either.

~~~
stronglikedan
Just my personal anecdote, but I have much more discipline in the office than
I do at home. I get distracted by _everything_ at home, and I procrastinate by
doing things I couldn't do at work, like housework, watching tv, etc. I know
myself enough to know that I cannot trust myself to work at home on a regular
basis, and I'm more content with myself regarding my productivity at the
office.

------
twoquestions
We commute because businesses can push off the cost of commuting to their
employees. I'd personally be in favor of a "congestion tax" or somesuch for
companies that force their employees to come in rather than work remotely.
Commuting takes up energy and resources, and the congestion incurs costs on
third parties (car accidents, higher gas prices, and the like).

While it's debatable whether remote works for businesses that can work
remotely, it imposes costs on the rest of us, especially those who can't do
their jobs over an Internet connection, and those costs should be paid by
those who willingly incur them, not whoever they can push them off to.

~~~
imgabe
I've thought about this in the past. What if companies had to pay for the time
you spend commuting? They'd have an incentive to hire people as close as
possible, and support local policies that make it easier to live closer to
work.

On the other hand, employees would have an incentive to try to stretch out
their commute as much as possible, to get extra pay for time "not working". I
don't know how rampant that would be. I like to think most people hate
commuting enough that it wouldn't be worth it to make an extra $20 sitting in
traffic when you could just be home faster, but who knows.

~~~
maxsilver
> What if companies had to pay for the time you spend commuting? They'd have
> an incentive to hire people as close as possible, and support local policies
> that make it easier to live closer to work.

I don't know. I worry that would immediately become a major form of
discrimination -- it would inherently put anyone who was poor/middle-class or
anyone with any sort of family/children at a huge employment disadvantage.
Large companies would only ever hire already-hyper-wealthy individuals for
their main positions (since they are the only people who are ever allowed to
live in dense urban places). I'm imagining employers in Seattle saying "We
like this guy, but he doesn't live in Pioneer Square where our office is, so
that will be a pain, we should pass on him"

Many people already have to deal with that discrimination somewhat in terms of
employers only being in major cities. Having that hyper-charged down to just
major cities _wealthiest neighborhoods_ seems like an even worse situation.

~~~
asteli
I don't think we should take it for granted that it's prohibitively expensive
to live in cities. That may be the state of metro areas in North America right
now (SF, NYC, Vancouver) but historically this isn't a constant.

Obviously enough economic incentive exists to convince people to spend the
time and effort to commute, but if city centers were more affordable to live
in, many fewer would choose to live so far away from work. Myself included.

~~~
maxsilver
> if city centers were more affordable to live in, many fewer would choose to
> live so far away from work. Myself included.

I agree, and would personally do the same too if possible. But I've watched us
artificially inflate property values for literally my entire life. Even in my
tiny US Midwest city in the middle of nowhere, city center prices have never
been remotely affordable.

We _should_ take it for granted that it's too expensive to live in
US/CA/AUS/NZ cities -- because that's the honest truth. That's been the
current state for decades, and there's very little chance that any major city
center ever becomes affordable again in our lifetimes.

Obviously, we should still try to fix this. I fully support trying. But _every
facet of our society is wholly dedicated to preventing city centers from ever
becoming affordable_. Affordable city centers just are not likely to happen.
We should not assume regular people live in a situation that doesn't exist,
and likely never will.

~~~
crdoconnor
Making city centers affordable would just require once again turning occupying
/ owning land into a tax liability rather than a rentier asset that grants you
an effective right to tax others.

~~~
chrisdbaldwin
Rent certainly makes it more affordable to live somewhere until you suddenly
never own your home and the rent was higher than the potential mortgage the
whole time. I understand home ownership has a lot of hidden costs, but I think
the rent situation is a festering cancer preventing the growth of a middle
class especially in cities.

------
BjoernKW
I think that the 'importance of face-to-face interaction' argument is a
helplessly contrived one, an attempt to avoid the elephant in the room.

There are plenty of examples that show that working remotely without daily
face-to-face interaction can work very well.

What's markedly different about environments that successfully adopted remote
work are aspects like:

\- a lack of cargo cult work organisation and office politics

\- an atmosphere of trust rather than petty control freaks who need to
constantly keep an eye on their subordinates in order to know they're still
'working'

\- adapting to different forms of communication

When people say that they can't communicate as well with someone who isn't in
the same room that doesn't necessarily mean that a remote setup doesn't work.
It could simply mean they're just lazy and not willing to adjust to a
different kind of work environment.

Working remotely requires the participants to be much more communicative
because in such a setting communication for the most part doesn't just happen
serendipitously, you have to work to make it happen.

~~~
ransom1538
"Working remotely requires the participants to be much more communicative
because in such a setting communication for the most part doesn't just happen
serendipitously, you have to work to make it happen. "

Yes. Having managed remote teams and being a remote dev, it's all about
_response time_. If someone slacks you, the response should be as quick as if
it were verbal in the office. If it takes 2 hours to get a response out of
someone - then they are not participating correctly on a remote team. The team
should work in a way they can all be online at the same time so communication
can flow freely. If someone is interrupting you and you need concentration
just _explain it to them_ \- like you would in the office.

Immediate responses is a remote team. Day long responses is contract work.
Week long responses is open source projects and government work.

~~~
dasmoth
I'm going to disagree here. It's _entirely_ possible to work effectively with
others via mostly-asynchronous communication. Open source projects, as you
point out, can be a pretty good example of this. I'd further argue that for
some (I suspect many...) people work much better when they can have long
stints of focus without fear of interruptions.

Two-minute responses on Slack absolutely _is_ a model that can work, and
perhaps it's the easiest transition for people who've been working in a
"teamy"/open-plan on-site setup. But I'm also convinced that it's not the only
viable setup.

~~~
bluGill
Open source projects work that way because we have to, not because we want to.
Large projects have semi-regular meetups/sprints where they can all get
together face to face. Small one muddle through and try to prevent the
problems not meeting face to face causes.

~~~
wolco
Large open source projects may meet other members at conferences but rarely do
you find a situation where everyone can be in the same location/country at the
same time.

------
dagw
Because 'we' prefer it? I like going into the office. The morning walk to the
office with its clear demarcation between work and not work, the ritual of
grabbing a coffee in the morning with some colleagues and catching up on
what's happening in their projects even if they're not directly related to
anything I'm working on, having a dedicated space and a dedicated computer
that's just for work, all those little things and more makes working at the
office far more productive for me.

~~~
blunte
I don't believe your "commute" constitutes a commute in the sense of what this
article is about. Your commute is just a walk.

People traveling for 30-90 (or more!) minutes to and from work, particularly
the ones driving in traffic, are the commuters. And the ones I know that fall
into that category hate it.

Good for you that you have such a nice situation, though!

~~~
tossaway1
I commute 60 minutes each way (give or take depending on traffic). I wish the
commute was shorter but I personally wouldn't work from home regularly even
though I technically could.

Between a chatty wife, active kids, and unfinished projects around the house,
I don't have the willpower or ability to avoid distractions at home. I'm more
productive going into work even if you factor in the time spent driving.

Plus, my drive gives me some down time to listen to audiobooks or podcasts. I
do look forward to self-driving cars though (adaptive cruise control helps a
lot in the meantime...)

~~~
blunte
Ah that is a point I forgot to mention on my other post of CONs with remote
work - when friends/family in close proximity don't respect your need for
space and quiet. But really, it's not much different from co-workers who do
the same (except that with your children it's expected behavior, but with
colleagues you would think they could learn after a while!)

Commutes are not all bad. But the bad ones can be miserable. Self driving cars
(for all drivers!) would make it so much better...

------
bartedinburgh
I think it's connected with the rise of bullshit jobs.

If your job is well defined, e.g. make an app or a website design, you can do
it anywhere in the world. The app/design is your deliverable that anyone can
see and judge.

If your job is a poorly defined "management" or "product ownership", with no
real deliverable, how can your work be judged? Your job turns into convincing
other people that your job is useful. Work long hours, seem busy, attend
meetings, leave the office late. An epitome of the corporate environment.

~~~
jpttsn
I think it's kind of a leap to assume the value is low just because it's hard
to measure.

This is in general a common, elusive mistake: "We can't measure it, so it must
be zero." Better to be ridiculous and say it's worth between $100 and $10,000.

~~~
loup-vaillant
It's subtler than that. Because it is hard to measure, one has to make
explicit effort to demonstrate value. This wastes time and energy that could
have been used to increase the very value that needs to be demonstrated.

Value is lower because of the consequences of being hard to measure.

Then there are _actual_ bullshit jobs, whose value is difficult to measure
because they have no value to begin with.

~~~
duckmysick
> This wastes time and energy that could have been used to increase the very
> value that needs to be demonstrated.

How do we know the value has been increased at all?

~~~
loup-vaillant
We don't.

------
cupofjoakim
I think working from home works perfectly if you know exactly what to fill
your workday with or if you're in a position where you can make decisions
smoothly. If you're not sure what's expected of you or your team has poor
communication, remote work seems to lead to some issues, such as being unsure
if you're doing enough, feeling more guilty about slacking (even if a break is
needed) and an increased amount of blockers if you can't get a hold of someone
you need to talk to since you're not at the office.

~~~
briandear
Those issues exist even in a physical office.

~~~
rpazyaquian
I agree. Uncertainty and lack of prioritization and focus is independent of
location.

------
philjohn
I work from home 1 or 2 days a week, and the rest of the time commute 55 miles
each way (~1h10m).

True, I probably get more done on the days I work from home as I don't have a
commute, and there are fewer distractions, however, I find I can collaborate
far more effectively when I'm in the office - instant messenger, email and
video calls just don't cut it.

Plus I have an amazing commute, mostly along British A roads through the
countryside.

~~~
cjcmd11
This is what some of the comments are missing. Telecommuting doesn't have to
be an all-or-nothing proposition. There are obvious advantages to being in the
office; but I'd wager those advantages aren't quite as severe by cutting
office time by 1-2 days a week. Plus, it allows workers to feel refreshed from
dealing less with of the negative stresses of commuting.

------
gedrap
Working from home is often touted as a solution to all problems but it's just
not that simple, and many people who do actually work remotely will tell you
that.

Allowing remote work is not enough. It requires effort from both parties. The
company needs to provide money for home office setup, and the employee needs
to spend time and though setting one up, which might be tricky in places with
insane real estate prices. Working from sofa is not really sustainable for
long.

Although work from home eliminates distractions such as constant movement of
people (although this is not unique to working from home and same could be
done with private offices), it opens a plethora of new distractions, be it
running errands, playing with pets, or just goofing off instead of TV while
keeping an eye on instant messenger.

And the list goes on. But that's not the point. Sure, working from home has a
lot of advantages and at the end of the day I am very glad that I made the
switch. It's just not as simple as some might make it appear as.

------
mathgeek
I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I wouldn't give up the extra time
that I get to spend with my young kids for all the productivity boosts in the
world. No commute and being home for lunch is time that would be stolen by any
company that doesn't allow remote work.

------
pmontra
At least two forces:

1) Control from above in the hierarchy (the general wants to see the army)

2) Control from below especially in competitive setups (the troop wants to
know what's going to happen)

Then there is little like seeing people face to face to remind them you
exists. This is good for business. I'm a freelancer now (about half of my
career) and work mostly from home but I go meet customers in person almost
every week or every month, depending on how much we work together (directly
proportional.)

Furthemore, face to face collaboration is very effective when in hurry.

------
fwsgonzo
I work from home as much as I can, but nothing trumps seeing your colleagues
face to face. Text can also cause misunderstandings, and apparently no one
likes video, at least in my company. I don't like video much either, though.

~~~
gerardflo
You can have misunderstandings face to face. This is a matter of communication
skills. Having entire conversation in text form also means you can easily make
references and go back to it even weeks later, whereas with face to face
conversation you don't have that luxury.

~~~
tetromino_
Face to face means seeing the other person's face. You have instantaneous
feedback when their face shows signs of confusion, excitement, boredom, maybe
unhappiness at your words. Misunderstandings can be cleared up immediately.

Searchable conversation history is certainly extremely useful. But today,
that's at the cost of needing to regularly go back and redo text discussions
from 5 or 15 minutes ago because it becomes clear that we initially hadn't
understood each other at all.

So I dream of a Black Mirror style future with an indexed video archive of
what my eyes had seen.

~~~
CaptSpify
> Face to face means seeing the other person's face. You have instantaneous
> feedback when their face shows signs of confusion, excitement, boredom,
> maybe unhappiness at your words. Misunderstandings can be cleared up
> immediately.

In theory. But when you are dealing with a lot of "anti-social" people who
have a hard time communicating verbally, or integrating socially, it usually
has the opposite affect, ime.

------
k__
I work remote almost 100% and it'a pretty awesome.

A Dev I work with has to commute through 50% of Germany every week. He only
sees his kids on the weekend.

~~~
rejschaap
You make it sound like he doesn't have a choice in the matter, which is
extremely unlikely and also very sad.

~~~
Swinx43
One needs to remember that there are many more factors at play. Sometimes the
only place you can afford a decent size family home will be in an area with
lower wages. Hence it can make economical sense to have to take a higher
paying job that requires travel in order to afford to provide for your family.

There are many factors at play in such decisions. "Having a choice" is
something you do not always have depending on personal circumstances.

~~~
briandear
Agreed! .. perhaps they need to remain close to an elderly relative. Perhaps
the schools in the work location are terrible. Perhaps you have a house that
you aren't able to easily sell. Perhaps .... and on and on.

We would be well served by demonstrating compassion for others -- it's not
like a majority of people can simply jump on their fixie with their Manhattan
Portage bag and just enjoy a 5 minute ride to a DUMBO loft office.

------
Melchizedek
Because needy extroverts want to socialize instead of working. Also, it's
easier to leech off the people who are actually productive when you're in an
office.

And managers are afraid they'll appear superfluous when they can't walk around
disturbing people all day.

------
throwaway7645
Blown away by how many people on here can walk to work. If you live in the
South, most of our cities just aren't built that way. Most people have a 1/2
hour commute morning and night. Living downtown usually means ancient houses
in an area I wouldn't consider very safe. Suburbs are terrible in other ways
though.

~~~
Symbiote
The article was posted during the middle of the European working day.

~~~
throwaway7645
Good point, thank you!

------
ck425
Articles about home working often ignore the social aspects too. I enjoy
working in the office for many reasons but top amongst them is the social
interactions.

Like many many engineers I was attracted to the role because I would work with
other people like me, geeks and nerds (I realise there's a potential side
critique about cultural homogeneity here). Being in the office is fun because
I can make relatively obscure Cosmere or boardgame references and folk get
them (not everyone but in normal society no one does). In that way it's
relaxing, even if it's still a workplace.

~~~
lordCarbonFiber
I notice many of the biggest proponents of remote work are people with
partners and/or a healthy social life. I won't begrudge them that, but, as
someone with social anxiety, the structured routine of coming into the office
offers a lot of benefits.

~~~
ck425
Hmm that's an interesting observation. I wonder if the average age at remote
companies is higher and if a growing number of remote companies could counter
act ageism in tech?

~~~
wolco
Remote is ideal for senior developers but more difficult for the novice who
needs help.

------
sethammons
> Studies have shown that teams who work together face-to-face, as opposed to
> via email, are more productive when doing complex tasks. Being physically
> close helps us bond, show emotions, problem solve, and spontaneously come up
> with ideas.

I tend to work two days a week from home and commute a bit under two hours one
way the other days. I agree with the above quote from the article. Usually,
the complexity of my team's tasks are at a level where some face to face early
in the week and some remote screen share + video call later in the week are
sufficient. We are currently working through a complex bug and I have came
into the office on the days I'd normally be remote. It helped. The
connectivity of interpersonal relationships is easier to build in person, and
so I subscribe to the notion that a minimal amount of time in the office is a
good thing if you need a team that works great together. I feel that time
varies on how well the team is bonded. With my last team, a day or two a week
face to face would be good. With my brand new team where we are still forming
and norming, more days all together makes sense.

------
mbrock
Seems to me that this has a pretty intimate relation to the question of the
"nature of the firm."

Why do we work in firms rather than as independent contractors making
contracts with each other?

Why do we gather in rooms every day instead of working independently and
emailing each other with low frequency asynchronous requests?

I don't really understand firms, to be honest...

I suspect it has way more to do with instinctual tribalism than any other
rationalization.

~~~
glifchits
That's a great point, and the nature of the firm is something worth thinking
about especially in this context.

However, the "firm" structure creates lots of efficiencies. Individual
contracts are costly to enforce and having one type of contract (the employee
contract) allows hiring to scale a lot better. Employees (and usually not
contractors) are exclusive to an employer which is also desirable for
employers. Employees also get benefits, which a lot of people like.

There's also efficiencies gained by people working in the same room. Any type
of creative work for example can benefit greatly from a quick in-person chat,
or just bouncing a quick idea off of your colleagues. This is even true for
some developers (myself included). Some types of work truly rely on
communication between colleagues, and that would be really hindered by latency
issues due to low frequency async communication. Coordination is also very
important and much harder to do with async communication.

Tribalism is an interesting lens, and maybe it started out that way, but the
firm is certainly valuable.

~~~
mbrock
My intuition is that people like to start firms because they enjoy the feeling
of being tribal leaders, and people like to participate in firms because of
ordinary tribal hierarchical belonging...

And the subtle near-mystical benefits to being in the same room, the "high
bandwidth communication" of "body language" and all those things, all seem to
me to have a great deal to do with the ancient structure of the primate
dominance hierarchy!

You notice when you bring up the topic of remote work in an organization that
isn't fully remote already (i.e., isn't operated by introverted shamanic
nomads) that it's totally not a decision about rational economic benefits. It
seems to be much more about family, tribe, smelling each other's sweat, etc.

Benefit calculations are tricky because you could find just as many benefits
to working separately, although it might lead to you to think of work in a
different way, a less tribal way.

You don't argue that professors, poets, and carpenters need to huddle up in a
boiler room to get their work done, because we know that some modes of working
more require privacy, relaxation, autonomy, etc.

I think tribalism is really powerful and like a core force in our evolutionary
heritage. As it happens, I personally tend to inhabit the fringes of the
tribe, and I do better work in a solitary or remote situation.

------
have_faith
Has anyone studied if people outside of cushy tech jobs want to commute?
particularly people with lower wages and things at home they would rather
escape for 9 hours a day. Most people can't afford a home office too.

~~~
Tade0
A few of my friends(working in non-IT fields) have coworkers who do everything
to stay as long as they can in the office because their home life is hell.

Aside from them most of the people I asked about this would either want to
have a very short(20 minutes max.) commute, or work from home, since it's
usually the most comfortable environment for them.

Nearly everybody I know who spends at least two hours daily in traffic would
love to change that in any way possible - including switching to remote work.

~~~
gerardflo
> to stay as long as they can in the office because their home life is hell.

This is pathetic. They have hell at home and instead of fixing it, they bring
it to the office. My home life is awesome and I'd rather spend more time at
home than in office full of miserable people. Sadly they are the loudest one
and their moans are music to the ears of managers who are control freaks.
Thankfully I decided never again work for a company that doesn't allow remote.

------
duckmysick
I have a practical question about organizing remote jobs. How do you deal with
the security aspects of working remotely - especially if the work deals with
sensitive data or code? In a regular office setting everyone is connected to a
same network that sits behind a firewall (or in extreme cases it's just an
intranet with no outside access) with tightly controlled permissions. How can
it be translated to a remote environment? What about creating new accounts and
credentials? Do I just email a password and tell them to change it after? Do I
attach ssh keys in some other email? What to do if someone breaks in someone's
remote work space in their home? How do I handle repairs?

I'm sure plenty of people already figured out the answer to the above
questions. It's just not something that I've seen discussed often.

~~~
PeterStuer
Many people have a VPN with 2-Factor authentication, in some cases even then
all work is done over remote desktop.

------
t0mislav
At the moment, I work 60% from home and 40% from the office, and this
perfectly suits for me. However, more and more I hate 9 to 5 working hours,
but that is another topic.

------
EGreg
Commuting contributes to the greenhouse gas problem, and USED to contribute to
the CFC problem until an international agreement helped solve that.

Hundreds of years ago, Mozart was said to have traveled more than the vast
majority of his contemporaries. Today, the average person travels more miles
than Mozart every day! To sit in a chair.

Think of the waste in terms of energy. Not only has there been an explosion in
population, but each person is expending more energy than ever on these
things. And why?

Because economics. For one, suburban sprawl happens because commercial areas
get gentrified so people choose to live farther from their job. UBI would fix
a lot of this, allowing local workers to live and work near their job.

------
mattbeckman
Only thing I wanted to comment on (as a remote worker now for 6 years or so)
is that it's very hard for me to work more hours when, actually, I want to do
so.

In my dynamic (with young kids), any attempts to work later than 20 min past
the predetermined closing time are often met with baby/kids being "let loose"
on Dad.

For the family, it's a plus. But sometimes ... holy shit I have stuff I need
to finish.

Finally, it is SO convenient for spouses when their partner works from home.
SO convenient. E.g. child care/babysitters fall through guess who gets to not
get work done.

Overall, the ROI is pretty positive ... but I've been doing this a long time,
and I do miss the office.

~~~
swendoog
You've been WFH for a long time so I'm sure you've already done this, but...

Early on in my WFH career I had to make it VERY clear to my family (and
friends) that when I'm working they need to consider it as being NO DIFFERENT
from me being 30 minutes away in an office.

I refuse to structure any part of our life around the belief that I am more
available or more flexible.

In practice, yes, I am more available and more flexible. So occasionally, I
can do things like run an errand in the middle of the day. But my close group
of family/friends understands that this is an exception to the rule. In
general, they should consider my work as being no different from theirs.

------
synicalx
This makes me wonder about how viable it would be to offer some sort of
hireable desk-space in remote locations. I'm thinking just a simple office
with sit/stand desks, comfy chairs, a kitchen, a bog, and 24/7 access. Takes
not much to set up, you could run one out of just about any building, and you
could offer it as a service to businesses for their remote and/or travelling
staff.

So say you're based in NYC, but you find a great hire who's 2 hours drive
away. You could just add that person to your "subscription", flick them over
an access card, and they can swipe themselves into the 'Desk as a Service'
office just next door to their local Walmart. You know they've got a desk that
meets all the zany OHS requirements, insurance is taken care of,
internet/power are business grade, and if they fancy moving then that's no
problem either.

Personally, I hate the idea of working from home. I don't want anything work
related in my house, and I like having face-to-face interactions with people
rather than just being by myself 24/7\. Working in a shared office addresses
all that + makes the potential compliance/OHS/insurance issues of having
someone work from home very easy to tick off.

------
thisisit
Because people have kids and working while your >1 to 2 years kid is playing
is unbearable? /jk

All jokes aside, as someone who loves remote and work from home to avoid
Bangalore traffic, sometimes, not always it is good to meet some face to face.

Sure this can be taken to an extreme too. My last job we had a manager who
insisted on doing everything face to face which meant we were stuck in office
beyond 8 hours. Then people started adjusting their schedule to accommodate
those meetings, then there was barely 3 hours of actual work, 2 hours of prep
and 3 hours of "face to face" meetings.

------
PeterStuer
It's the employer's call, and short term there are no obvious downsides there
as all the effects are longer term (burnout, depression, quitting) and
business is mostly blind to anything beyond 4 quarters. The 'productivity'
thing is intangible as long as the business doesn't switch to a performance
based model as opposed to a sociopolitical hierarchy. And their lies the rub,
because a performance based system doesn't mesh very well with middle-
management, which is the 'backbone' of our archetypal company model.

------
gbugniot
As a reminder, everyone doesn't work in front of a computer all day.

------
danans
I think of the modern open plan office as a place optimized for collaboration,
like a forum, rather than a place optimized for heads-down tasks. You can make
it work a bit better for the latter (noise canceling headphones), but it isn't
optimized for it. People still need to gather for a lot of collaborative work,
even if it isn't every day. It helps us keep calibrated to our work
environment, and we need better mass transit tech and systems to facilitate
that.

Working alone (possibly remotely) is probably more optimal for accomplishing
things that can be done without casual information sharing, like implementing
a solution to a well defined problem in a well understood domain. You can
create a forum-like experience through communication technologies, but it is
often suboptimal for the kind of interactions required vs in person
communication.

I don't know of many professional or technical jobs that don't involve both
modes of operation, and we should be investing in systems and technologies
that support both.

However, even if communication tech improves enough to nullify the difference
in value with meeting in person, people will want to work in person with
others, because they are people.

And even if transit tech nullifies the inconvenience of an office commute,
people will still need solitary work space and time, because they are people.

------
DeathRabbit
Anecdotal evidence: I'm a software architect/developer. The last three
companies I've been with do not support remote work on a large scale because
the IT Leadership did not want to fight against the managers of the
departments who logistically _couldn't_ work from home.

Anecdotal, but I doubt I'm the only one where this is true, the mentality of
"if we all can't do it no one can".

------
bitwize
Because it's part of your job.

There is much, much more to your job than what's in the job description. For
starters, you have to make your manager happy, so he can feel justified in
continuing to pay you. Showing up at the office on time -- early in the
morning -- is a form of virtue signalling. It's used as a proxy for self-
discipline and reliability -- traits valued in an employee.

Yeah, yeah, I know. "My deliverables should be the only proxy I need; as long
as I'm getting my work done I should be able to work from anywhere." It's one
of those subtle psychological things. It takes a long history -- longer than
the average Hackernews's career at any one place -- of deliverables shipped on
time and under budget before the manager will feel confident you're reliable
enough to deliver guaranteed value when called upon to do so. Showing up on
time increases their confidence in you and decreases the chance that they will
wake up one morning and decide you no longer merit that generous tech-bubble
paycheck.

So cowboy up, set your alarm for 6 AM, and get to work early.

------
baud147258
A few possible reasons:

Because some can't work remotely (I'm one of those people).

Because you work in a regulated industry and no content can transit through
internet.

Because the company think that it's easier to have cooperation when your
colleagues are within walking distances

Because the offices are in area with efficient public transportation and
available housing

Because it is harder to express yourself well in writing, compared to face-to-
face

------
pasbesoin
Why don't we build high-speed transport for commuting, as opposed to long
distance travel which, in the U.S., doesn't sell or even often fit well?

In Chicago, electric train service used to run a lot faster. Not just within
the city, but also within the greater Chicagoland area. Way back when, the
service that's been supplanted by the Metra diesel trains used to be able to
punch well above 60 MPH. And with smaller trains, it could get to that more
rapidly and provide more frequent service.

And the Green Line used to _move_. Lack of maintenance had it down to a fast
crawl, in places, I understand, although some much-belated renovation may have
improved that somewhat -- I'm not up-to-date.

Bay Area housing prices are simply ridiculous. If the region is going to keep
growing (so far, no stopping it), then put housing further out while providing
fast access to the core(s).

That would move a lot more people, and solve a lot more problems, than an LA -
Frisco Hyperloop.

But, we don't have real urban, metropolitan planning, here. And, "taxes are
bad".

So, we sit in our cars, and pay half our earnings to the ponzi scheme and
rentiers.

P.S. Once a robot can do everything currently requiring physical presence,
your tele-presence, where still needed, is going to become a fungible
commodity; no job security, there.

P.P.S. Another major approach is a denser core. But NIMBY. A NYMBY I'm not
entirely unsympathetic towards. If you don't solve noise and pollution, among
other things, forgetaboutit. In my case, I would have been happy closer in in
an apartment/condo, but the prospect of dealing with ever-noisier neighbors
ruled that out. And wiping black "dust" (vehicle emissions soot, mostly) from
my window sills. After years of allergies and whatnot, that stuff will kill
you; more articles on this, every year.

------
peterwwillis
Things that happen when you're in the office:

\- _spins around in chair, interrupts and asks coworker a question, workshops
ideas for 15 minutes, comes up with solution, makes a meeting_

\- _boss comes over and tells workers there 's some issue going on he's going
to go deal with and he'll be available via cell only_

\- _when SCRUM ends, conversation continues in person, things get decided_

\- _walk into boss 's office and make tentative strategy plans_

\- _discuss current issues, decide to rework something, meet with another
team, make plans, start working on it_

Sometimes you can just walk around, bug people, and get shit done. It's very
efficient.

But all of these things also involve communication which isn't relayed to
remote workers. People either forget you, or including you in the conversation
is a hassle, so they don't. You feel like the unwanted stepchild, constantly
pinging people to get some kind of feedback and never seeming to reach them
until much later. It's really inefficent.

~~~
briandear
Oh my gosh. That's pretty much my definition of hell.

> spins around in chair, interrupts and asks coworker a question, workshops
> ideas for 15 minutes, comes up with solution, makes a meeting

Slack please. Don't interrupt me.

> boss comes over and tells workers there's some issue going on he's going to
> go deal with and he'll be available via cell only

I don't care. If I need the boss, I'll text/Slack/email him/her. I'm not a
child -- I know what I need to do. If it's an emergency, obviously I'll know
how to reach him/her.

> when SCRUM ends, conversation continues in person, things get decided

What conversation needs continuing? What actually needs deciding? Is there no
leadership?

> walk into boss's office and make tentative strategy plans

holy crap. Does anything actually get DONE in this office? A whole lot of
deciding and planing and interruptions and workshopping.

> discuss current issues, decide to rework something, meet with another team,
> make plans, start working on it

Sounds like your company lacks vision and leadership. It seems like a
disorganized mess where there's no clear product vision, no clear leadership
and horrible communication that requires a series of interrupting, impromptu
meetings.

You described a day where code probably gets written for all of one hour --
the rest of the time is spent just feeling good about how much stuff you've
gotten done. Meanwhile -- what have you actually shipped?

My comment isn't about remote vs. non-remote -- it's just pointing out that
this "getting shit done" depiction is pretty much describes the sixth circle
of hell.

~~~
peterwwillis
Sounds like you work in Perfect Land. Where everything is planned perfectly,
everything is executed perfectly, nothing unexpected ever comes up, and
everyone does their job perfect. Boy, wouldn't we all like to work there.

When you work with 20 teams and product lines all intermingle and you don't
have an unlimited amount of time, money, or "vision", shit needs to be re-
evaluated from time to time, and waiting two weeks for the scrum to end is too
slow.

I'm sure you're very happy to remain undisturbed, Mr. Important, but the rest
of us have blockers we need addressing, so jump on a hangout for five minutes
so we can get some shit done.

------
swendoog
One aspect of remote work that I feel is often missing from this discussion is
the impact on mental health.

Some have alluded to it in posts here but unless you've worked from home for
an extended period of time you can't really understand how strong of an impact
isolation from your peers really can have.

I believe that everyone's individual need for human interaction varies but we
all require it on some level. We take for granted just how much of our social
requirements are met by being in an office. Face-to-Face interactions aren't
important because they're a better mechanism for developing product... They're
important for the individual, because without them your "social brain" will
effectively atrophy. Interacting with people on a daily basis is the only way
to stay sharp when it comes to social interaction. Slack can't replace that,
unfortunately.

------
jwl
While working from home can be nice and more productive if you have some well
defined task that needs to be done, I still feel I need the daily social
interaction with my coworkers. Slack and Skype is just not enough. I would get
depressed if I worked alone from home every day.

~~~
PeterStuer
Or maybe if people didn't have to spend all that time in the commute and being
depressed because of it they would actually have time and energy for a life
outside of work and get your social fix their

------
jackschultz
I've been half torn on whether in office or work from wherever is better for
me. Everyone has opinions and they all seem to differ. I like how the article
had back to back paragraphs linking papers that claim one is better than the
other.

It'll be interesting for me coming up when I start a new job in a little over
a week where I'm remote in a different city for three of the days, and then
taking the hour and a half Amtrak down to where the company is based. When
talking to the head of the group, the first thing I said is that I wouldn't be
moving to where their office is. He was totally fine with that.

I like working on things from random places, but I'm also more than familiar
working in an office with others. We'll see how this goes.

------
shams93
Some tips from a software engineering work from home vet to successfully work
remote. Work the same hours as your onsite counter parts, just having tools
like slack and jira won't help if you're working outside the same time window
during your day. You have to be transparent and give detailed information on
your tickets. Always track your hours on tickets, and you need to be very
careful about making sure your tickets are do-able within 1-2 days and you're
closing tickets with equal or greater velocity than your onsite counterparts.

------
ilaksh
Answer: because the boss doesn't trust the employees to work unless he can see
them working (or not) and they know he can see them.

I think remote work will increase just because society will realize how much
energy it wastes commuting. A 15 mile commute both ways uses the equivalent of
the energy used by a house in day.

If we get fusion then things will change, but for now it seems like this is
one of the best untapped was to conserve energy.

I anticipate that ways for the boss to watch remote workers like always on
video conferencing or collaborative workspaces will also become more popular.

------
return0
There is some value to commuting for work. I attribute it to hippocampal
remaps when moving to the workplace, which helps you get into "work mode",
associate your workplace with actually working and also give your "home" cells
a rest. The solution to this would be "work centers" in every neighborhood
where you can go to feel like working.

I think some psychologists should do some research on the subject , remote
work is only bound to become more common.

~~~
PeterStuer
There has been [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/commuting-
takes-i...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/commuting-takes-its-
toll/) [https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-mentally-strong-
pe...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-mentally-strong-people-dont-
do/201506/your-commute-could-be-killing-your-happiness)
[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/urban-
survival/201501/c...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/urban-
survival/201501/commuting-the-stress-doesnt-pay)
[https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-1992/commuter-
stress/](https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-1992/commuter-stress/)

------
jokoon
Because both companies and citizens choose better place to work and have a
house, at the cost of having to drive every day. The money you don't pay in
rent, you pay in gas.

Also because the state and government doesn't plan for such things, so the
result is large cities with many offices and spread out houses.

I guess gas money could be saved on a very large scale if the government would
try to encourage citizens to switch houses... maybe with some sort of tax
break or something...

------
blunte
I am on my 10th year of working from home, and I still love it. Here's my
personal list of pros and cons:

PRO

Work from anywhere with internet: In the last 45 days, I have worked from the
Caribbean, from Spain, and from Ireland. Granted, these travel experiences
aren't full vacations (and in fact sometimes were stressful when internet
quality was not tops), but they sure beat my previous "open office" bullpen.

Work when inspiration strikes: Sometimes my brain won't shut up the useless
stuff, and other times it wants to really drive a useful project. When it's a
good time, I usually can choose to work uninterrupted and make great progress.
When it's not a good time, I can just go do chores around the house or go
enjoy the weather.

Answer fewer tech questions for other employees: If you're within earshot,
less technical people will ask for help the instant they think they need it.
But if it takes more effort for them to reach you, they will work a little
harder to solve their own problem. Most of the time, they solve the problem
(or realize there was no problem -- just a moment of confusion). This saves me
SO much time and occasional frustration.

Not commute: This one is kind of obvious, but not having to commute saves 1-2
hours a day. That's time for gym, coffee, reading news, etc. It's also so much
less stress. When I drove in traffic to and from work, I would often arrive
very frustrated. When I moved to Europe and had the luxury of riding a
train(s) to work, life was better... except when trains would break or a surge
of travelers would result in no seats available.

CON

Communication can be more difficult: I have found voice calls to be essential,
at least compared to just txt and email. Text messages were the worst and most
likely to result in annoyance or confusion. Emails are a bit better, but
reply-hell is real. You definitely have to work a bit to find the right tools
and methods for each of the people you need to work with; but once found, it
works almost as good as face to face.

Work is _always_ there: This has been the hardest for me. I always have more
work to do than I can do, and now I can work any minute that someone else
(partner) doesn't need me. This can get out of control if you're not careful.
Some people are strict and disciplined about home working, but I like to stay
flexible. Still, one must set some limits or reminders of reasonable
behavior/expectations.

Fewer jobs: Since most companies don't go for remote work, you have to decide
what's more important - freedom, or a particular job. I choose freedom, and at
this point I don't think I'll ever go back. Once you've tasted freedom, and
once you've proven to yourself that you can work (well) alone and
unsupervised, the thought of being back in a noisy office with people passing
by behind you, potentially judging you if they don't see you with a code
window open 99% of the time, is just untenable.

------
l_camacho84
We commute because of our growth dependency. This is just another example of
simple solutions that cannot be truly implemented because it does not make
money/jobs. We need to reflect what are the objectives of our acts. Right now
we are consuming way to much resources in the name of progress! But progress
to what? Soon enough we will face environmental changes that could be avoided
if we such do less things, not more.

------
jordanmoconnor
I currently commute 45 minutes, but I do work on the side from home. I find
the only time I can truly be productive at home is between 4 AM and 9 AM. When
everybody (wife / kid) is up, it's hard to avoid distractions at home.

If I worked remotely, I would do that 5 hour stint, make breakfast and play
with the kids, then do a gym / coffee shop routine for 3 or so more hours to
finish up work for the day.

------
js8
In theory, both capital (money) and labor (people) can move freely around.
Since capital is virtual, and labor real, it would make a perfect economic
sense to move capital where it's needed instead of labor where it's needed.

But in practice, it's the other way around. Capital is lazy and concentrates
in places like SV. People have to commute or even migrate to get better
working conditions.

------
jamisteven
I imagine in the future employees will be given a stipend to use at places
like WeWork etc... as the cost dynamic just wont workout for the amount of
extra work they are getting out of people by them coming into a giant downtown
office that costs millions every year to keep the lights on. Especially in
areas like programming where solitude is necessary for creativity.

------
sh87
I see most work places tend to sway ‘remote heavy’ or ‘commute heavy’. Too
much either way is clearly not working out. Like all efficient mechanisms, I
think the key is to allow a certain degree of flexibility and handing it over
to the employee to make what he/she can from it. Maybe a pilot program just to
see how it fits into the company culture ?

------
smpetrey
God I miss working remotely.

------
Yaggo
I bought a house from countryside three years ago, 75 km from the city. A
round-trip during rush hours take two hours. I'm allowed to have two remote
days per week, and I don't really want more (maybe three?), because I miss the
social interaction etc. too much. Even weirder, I also miss the lonely moment
in behind the weel.

------
dsfyu404ed
To a lot of people 2hr/day commuting is less terrible than the trade-offs
associated with living closer to the city.

~~~
gerardflo
2hr/day commute gives ~ 40hr a month of unpaid work commitment.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
It's not a work commitment. You're not working for your employer when you're
commuting (unless you commute by train/bus and choose to do so).

It's like a side gig where your compensation is you don't get bent over for
rent, get the freedom that comes with owning a home and no longer have to put
up with the downsides of living in an apartment.

------
indigo0086
We're trained since the day we go to school to stay quiet, well behaved for
the duration of X classroom. It's in our bones to arrive and stay seated. Very
few can thrive naturally in a remote environment. We really need to stop
feeding the education industry that was built on pumping out factory workers.

------
jheriko
Why do we still commute?

simple, naive answer, that ignores the context of the article:

because to a very close approximation 0% of people on this planet work in an
office at all, let alone an office where this is genuinely possible.

~~~
randomdata
To be fair, commuting to work is a fairly new concept. In history most people
would work from home as their farm was also their home.

------
nunez
Why do we still commute? Because outside of the tech bubble, most jobs still
require face to face communication and living close-by to the office in many
cities is cost-prohibitive to many.

~~~
briandear
Most jobs don't require face to face outside of physical services such as the
trades or cutting hair. And the jobs that do require face-to-face -- many of
them definitely don't require an office. (i.e. insurance claims adjusting --
that's a field job, so there isn't really a "commute.")

Selling insurance: not required. Customer service for the electrical company:
nope. Most of that is on the phone. Logistics for a trucking company: also
phone/computer based, no face to face (or rarely.) Medical claims processing
-- never face to face Coordinating cable TV installation appointments: all
phone or online based

If you think about it almost ALL jobs can be done remotely. I agree that most
jobs still require it, but that isn't because of the nature of the job, but
the lack of vision from those particular industries. Most businesses seem to
operate under 19th century ideals.

I realize not everyone wants or can work from home; but I would advocate for a
decentralized workplace -- remote working with perhaps small satellite offices
scattered around the world -- offices that can simply pop-up at WeWork/etc. As
employees in the area need/want.

Obviously a hardware company like Apple actually needs a physical space for
people to build things. Same for Boeing, Tesla, etc.

But Facebook? Farmers Insurance? They don't sell anything physical.

~~~
pixl97
Almost all these jobs you've listed are on the list of things in the near
future that won't require people (or at least as many). I called my electrical
company with an outage, an automated system answered and I gave my customer
number. They told me my meter could not be contacted. It then said other local
meters could be contacted and it was likely a issue that just affected me, so
they would send a truck. 20 minutes later the lineman/repair person gave me a
call from their cell and asked a quick question about what my was going on. 10
minutes later they were there replacing the meter.

 _If your job can be done remotely, your job can be done by a computer in 90%
of the cases_. Good luck fighting for those jobs in the future (especially
when they get sent overseas for 1/5th the cost).

------
nfriedly
I've been either remote or bicycling distance for most of the past 10 years,
and I really don't think I could ever go back to a daily car commute. It just
isn't worth it.

------
JulianMorrison
Managers. People working from home scare them. They might be slacking. They
might be leaking. Heaven's sake, man, they might even be organizing a union!

~~~
PeterStuer
Closer tot he truth: they are scared that the 'managing' is actually not realy
needed and contributing all that much.

~~~
Torkgin
This makes me wonder, is it truly so? Every organization starts without
managers and they are added later once the organization grows but if they are
not really needed, why is every organization adding them?

~~~
PeterStuer
That is a realy good question. I don't know whether there is a clear answer.
How come efficient passionate startups eventually end up as rent-seeking
slothful bureaucratic mega-corporations. When does that 'start' to happen?

It is not just 'cargo-cult' or 'enterprise-envy'. I think it goes deeper. My
current feeling is that middle management is something that is naturally
lurking in the wings, and expresses itself the moment the overhead can be
carried. Caricatured: Bottom up there's people looking for a way to escape
'working at the coalface', and start the innate pecking order/ hierarchy
battles. Top down there is the desire of the owner to create some distance,
and in many cases also the latent idea that if some proficiencies could be
isolated into a single specialist, the remaining 'resources' could be sourced
cheaper. It self reinforces since as 'overhead' the middle management layer
crates make-work to assert its existence. Furthermore, it asserts the 'company
as a value funnel', since it is a model that disemancipates each individual
making sure they can't easily venture out on their own.

So the middle management pattern could be an expression waiting to happen as a
result of natural forces, not as a result of direct 'needs' or 'efficiency' in
value creation in its own right, but just for the sake of 'enterprise
creation' itself.

------
azmauldin
Because management likes to be able to come by and see you in front of some
IDE or whiteboard. That's the only reason that makes sense to me anymore...

------
SippinLean
Very few of the comments here suggest that the commenter read any further than
the title of this article. I can find two comments that mention VR.

------
j_s
Some (especially those responsible for [young] children) semi-jokingly refer
to returning to the office as their vacation from home life.

------
Chiba-City
Conversations around whiteboards between stakeholders creates value. Pair
programming makes for lower defects and more reliable scheduling. Software is
a design delivery operation. There was recent article on MS office space
redesign to create more value. We are never typing approximations to futures
like the proverbial monkeys. Productivity is not per-keystroke. I have been
paid extra to kill projects that never should have started. Personal
productivity is almost a misnomer.

~~~
r2dnb
While I have nothing against MBAs, this is a typical example of what people
call MBAish / corporate BS and why managerial profiles have gained a bad
reputation here. It looks smart on the surface but scrutiny exposes non-sense.

>Conversations around whiteboards between stakeholders creates value.

Why ? Are whiteboards magic ?

>Pair programming makes for lower defects and more reliable scheduling

Putting aside the fact that the benefits of pair programming as less
consensual than what you seem to suggest, it can be done much more
conveniently in a remote setup with a screenshare and a headset than by
sharing a desk.

>Software is a design delivery operation.

So ?

>There was recent article on MS office space redesign to create more value.

Here we have the business case reference, always good to include one. The
substantial remark is that once again this doesn't prove anything, the first
reason being that "value" is extremely vague.

>Productivity is not per-keystroke

The art of looking like you are siding with the people you want to control
while it is actually the opposite. If we go the bottom of the reasoning :
value is not per keystroke, we therefore need to put employees in a room
because their true value must be monitored to be appreciated. "Please
understand, I really want to be able to appreciate your true value". Sounds a
bit hypocrite to me.

>Personal productivity is almost a misnomer

One more slogan.

>I have been paid extra to kill projects that never should have started.

While I am the first to advocate careful planning and writing code last, as an
entrepreneur, I consider it a crime to sabotage projects, because anyone who
has ever created something, or started a project or a venture understands that
creativity is almost Holy. Beyond the technical deliverables, projects trigger
group (and market) dynamics and institutional learning that may be hard to
reproduce later in time. For this reason, doers do not sabotage or kill
projects, they rectify them. Sure there can be pure follies that need to be
stopped ASAP to stop diverting valuable resources of the company, but my
overall impression is that you have a more liberal approach to assessing what
must be killed.

I respect arguments from both sides, but this comment is really representative
of the crap filling most companies.

~~~
pixl97
>Why ? Are whiteboards magic ?

Anecdotally, for the amount of problems I have seen them solve in short order.
Yes. They force an idea in the mind to become concrete and logically
digestible to other members of the party. If you can't draw it in a manner
that other people understand, you don't understand the idea well enough
yourself. It is also free flowing. Ideas can be added to and removed quickly
with an interface that almost all humans have been taught to use since a young
age. It only contains 3 parts. The pen, the board, and the eraser. No software
with far too many options to understand. No weird bugs that crash in the
middle of a presentation. Pictographs can transcend language barriers.
Software sellers will never create such a simple product, there is little
value added reason to.

So yea, if not magical, far better than its competition in portraying ideas.

~~~
r2dnb
> They force an idea in the mind to become concrete and logically digestible
> to other members of the party.

You make a very valid point, what I was highlighting is that good
communication can be achieved without whiteboards too.

I understand your underlying argument that whiteboards may constitute the best
technology, but I also think there is a tacit convention at play here. People
tacitly agree to communicate in a way that make whiteboards work. For there
are many effective and fluid ways to iterate on ideas that do not involve live
drawings or complex tech.

I know it for a fact as drawing my thoughts on a whiteboard has always been
counter-natural to me. I can do it but I wouldn't say that it is necessary for
good communication. It is just a communication choice that people make.

Everything that can be drawn clearly can also be written clearly (analogies,
bullet point lists for flows, etc...). Not to say that diagrams are never
helpful, but it may be a stretch to assume that drawings and whiteboards have
an almost essential role.

------
mruniverse
We have open offices because we need to be close. We have remote workers
because we don't need them close.

~~~
blunte
Nope. Nope. We have open offices because some genius did the simple math and
realized that you can cram more people into a smaller space if you remove the
walls.

Then somewhere along the way, some marketing guy came up with the spin, "It
fosters communication!". Open office does indeed make people close in
proximity, but it's not a necessity.

~~~
mruniverse
I think the open office started with Chiat/Day (ad/design firm). It was back
when laptops were first introduced and it was seen as a cool way to work.
People would get to be mobile, sit anywhere they want, etc.

Found this:
[https://www.wired.com/1999/02/chiat-3](https://www.wired.com/1999/02/chiat-3)

------
dintech
Because where you live with your family is a better environment for them than
a industrial estate car park.

------
Mankhool
I've always tried to live close to where I work, or to find a job close to
where I want to live.

------
mstaoru
I bike 45 min to Wework as a free exercise. Then there is free craft beer to
flush the exercise down.

------
cooervo
Offtopic: what an inproper font used for the title of the article, difficult
to read.

------
egl2019
Because we're Abel.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abelian_group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abelian_group)

------
rco8786
Human contact is important, eos.

------
bartq
Because technology shouldn't surpass real human interaction. Wanna world from
Matrix movie?

~~~
blunte
Who's to say that we aren't living in such a world? :)

And as with anything else in life, we must weigh the options. Face to face can
indeed be better than remote. It can also be worse, because some people just
irritate others by their presence and little behaviors. But more
significantly, some of us do work which requires a good amount of thought -
uninterrupted, quiet thought. Shared offices make this more difficult
(compared to a quiet home office).

