Seems like many who say work from home cannot work, are just people who lack the skills to work from home in the first place.  My old area work from home shattered the old paradigm of working with a local group and now post people are working with internation teams.  Quality of people in the field skyrocketed from everyone getting used to the idea of working remotely, as working remotely means you no longer need to limit your teams to whoever can drive to a single site.

But hey, in some people's world meeting in an office with the lowest quality worker is worth it.  But the ones who are in demand are not gonna be going to an office regularly.

Where do you work?

He works in the PW (e)mail room. Only until @admin demands a return to the office!

No longer work, this is not new knowledge. Before that for various university based groups on military backed grants, and freelanced on evaluation projects or research design planning.  Evaluation projects that would handle topics like cost-benefits analyses of things like working from home vs returning to office.

Where I worked has nothing to do with work from home as a whole. Almost no quant people go into offices anymore unless you need to work with data of the highest security levels.  

Nor does it really change the fact that many people criticizing remote work lack the skills to work remotely, and have zero knowledge of the topic.

Maybe replace " skills " with " ability to work from home "

Skills, in the sense of your argument implies some degree of increased intelligence or competency compared to the people that have to actually go into work everyday. Between Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers and Builders, and so many other people in different fields, all would outperform the basic desk jockeys (that are essentially formulating spreadsheets and corporate tick-n-flicks) as would the business leaders and economists seeking a return to the office. I know tradesmen that would make the basic tax accountants look like village idiots. Instead of spending 3 or 4 years getting a degree to sufficiently impress people like yourself c on the internet, their time, energy and intellect was focused elsewhere.

So to suggest any sense of jealousy from the people that have to attend their workplace because they lack the " skills " is almost comical.

To have the ability to work from home you need skills to work from home.

Also maybe trades are a path to millionaire in Australia and that is what everyone who wants to get rich young does for a living, but in the US the average income for trades is 66k with a cap around 70k dictated by the consumer market. Average degree holders in the US makes 55k out of college, moving up to 71k by 5 years then 86k in 10. Trades give a high front salary but without contacts or opening your own business, you have no real room for growth in the US. Degree jobs you get steady raises as your experience stacks up. And now education is free in many places, the whole college debt argument is null and void.

And business leaders and economists are still working from home. Almost no execs returned to the office, they only made their employees return. Meetings with management are done via zoom.

Think the anti-college folks be missing is most people without college degrees are easily replaced. Unless you go are running your own business, your skills generally get taught on the job, and really anyone lower than you can be trained to replace you with little loss.

If you learn a specific skill set in college, say quantitative analysis, you cannot take someone from receiving and ask them to run a time series analysis for you. Company that was scouting my cohort wanted us because we could tune forest models.
These are not things you can self-teach, and should you, it will not matter, as jobs will not take a risk with someone saying trust be bro.

These are the sort of skills I am talking about. Not being a hard worker, determined or having people skills. Every worker claims to have those skills.  I am talking skills that take years of progressive knowledge to learn that cannot be simply learned on the job.

The WFH debate isn't one of skill or industry, it's a question of integrity, self discipline and time management.

These are three qualities that most don't posess. I believe that WFH will end up a perk offered to attract and retain high performing people.
Companies are seeing a deterioration in performance from many WFH employees, I expect key loggers and trackers will become the norm soon.

I deal every day with multiple businesses and the difference in service levels in the WFH companies is as clear as it is subpar.
Our insurance broker does WFH several days per week and she is always prompt and attentive, but she is the exception.

Aug 12, 2023 23:13:40 GMT c said:

Think the anti-college folks be missing is most people without college degrees are easily replaced. Unless you go are running your own business, your skills generally get taught on the job, and really anyone lower than you can be trained to replace you with little loss.

If you learn a specific skill set in college, say quantitative analysis, you cannot take someone from receiving and ask them to run a time series analysis for you. Company that was scouting my cohort wanted us because we could tune forest models.
These are not things you can self-teach, and should you, it will not matter, as jobs will not take a risk with someone saying trust be bro.

These are the sort of skills I am talking about. Not being a hard worker, determined or having people skills. Every worker claims to have those skills.  I am talking skills that take years of progressive knowledge to learn that cannot be simply learned on the job.

What you have described is the case for any role that doesn't require highly specific knowledge and/or qualifications.
I can also tell you it's easier to replace someone degree qualified in middle management than an experienced process or maintenance worker.

Which is why most middle management in the US is no longer a thing. Most of those job cuts was flattening out middle management now management talks to employees via zoom calls.  And any good manager can make remote work, it is the shitty ones that need people in office.

Research has routinely said that places that went return to office saw decreases in productivity.  Places doing work from home have increased productivity and profits.  Seems to me which one works better.  Sure you can use other metrics to measure it, but end of the day productivity and profit are what matters most.  

Maybe things be different across the sea, but US and UK both seem to show that people not only can work remotely, but do more work there.

Aug 12, 2023 23:40:50 GMT c said:

Which is why most middle management in the US is no longer a thing. Most of those job cuts was flattening out middle management now management talks to employees via zoom calls.  And any good manager can make remote work, it is the shitty ones that need people in office.

Research has routinely said that places that went return to office saw decreases in productivity.  Places doing work from home have increased productivity and profits.  Seems to me which one works better.  Sure you can use other metrics to measure it, but end of the day productivity and profit are what matters most.  

Maybe things be different across the sea, but US and UK both seem to show that people not only can work remotely, but do more work there.

You have a very one dimensional view of what a business is, probably stemming from a short career in academia.

If you work in businesses across a variety of industries and spectrums you will get a different perspective.

It is not my opinion that wfh is more productive and profitable in positions that can work from, it is the data found in every study on the topic so far.  And yes, I have a one dimensional view of the world, I listen to evidence.

Ironically you all are the ones with a one dimensional view believing you need to be physically in a place to do a job. Not the 1970's anymore, most production is digital and with digital you can do it anywhere.

Aug 13, 2023 1:12:06 GMT c said:

It is not my opinion that wfh is more productive and profitable in positions that can work from, it is the data found in every study on the topic so far.  And yes, I have a one dimensional view of the world, I listen to evidence.

Ironically you all are the ones with a one dimensional view believing you need to be physically in a place to do a job. Not the 1970's anymore, most production is digital and with digital you can do it anywhere.

Whether people can do something anywhere, is not a reflection on whether or not they will do it without supervision and accountability.
I don't know what sources you are referring to, but pretty much all the recent studies are one way traffic about the productivity of remote work.

I am sure you will find studies to back your typically one-sided view of the world.

Fortune and Stanford’s Institute for Economic Policy and Research reporting fully remote work is associated with 10% to 20% lower productivity than fully in-person work, and worker productivity plummeting for five straight quarters, for the first time since World War II.

The Australian Financial Review reporting working from home last year made the average worker less productive and more anxious, depressed and lonely - this data comes from researchers from the Australian National University, University of Newcastle and Macquarie University.

Kieron Meagher, an economics professor at ANU, said that while some studies found working from home had increased the productivity of software engineers and other occupations that required a high degree of focused or independent work, his research found “the outcomes were much more negative” when a wider variety of white-collar occupations were studied.

Dig beyond the parade of white collar journalists justifying the trend by penning upbeat stories on the benefits of WFH, you'll see enough data to suggest otherwise.

Even your boy Zuckerberg noted in-person was better, but you probably failed to read that c with your dick in your hand pissing on Musk's name every time he sneezes.

"These findings, which are not peer reviewed, could be nothing short of a bombshell in the remote work discourse, especially among the advocates of remote work."

While trashing me did you read the article?

Not peer reviewed means no one reviewed yet in any way. Should this show it is less productive, just one with an opposing view against many that claim more gains. While you all act like I am solo creating all of these papers, and writing all of these news stories being covered on the business sites, I merely the post the links that pass the the major business news sites while you two freak out that it hurt your worldview for this to occur because surely people working from home but be lazy and do nothing.

And I prefaced everything with America. If you all are lazy working from home, that is a you thing. Studies I seen were UK and US.

If there is this host of data that suggests that work from home is awful and ruining society post it. Pre-review work papers are not acceptable evidence. In other fields these are called rough drafts.  But I am sure you are now the experts at academic publishing too now.

Having read the paper, something I presume no one else did, the study was linked to people doing data entry for a fake job. This is not related at all to the actual productivity of companies implementing work from home. This is at the single worker level. Also given the accuracy penalty used, this is not even a straight up measure of single worker productivity.

But hey maybe it is just my warped world view, but I think real companies saying they are more productive talking about earnings increasing are more valid than a fake data entry job with an effect size in the Hawthorne effect range.

As is, that is not passing peer review.  Cannot use females as a negative predictor of work efficiencies these days, even in economics.  Which they did both in and out of the office.  

Also had one interesting line most overlooked:

Those who prefer home-based work are 12% faster and more accurate at baseline.

Which does confirm that if you want quality workers you will need to recruit from the people who prefer remote work.  They did not filter this group out in their analyses either likely showing a cofounder.  

I'm sorry that none of these institutions and their credentials sufficiently impressive you. And neither do their work.

I'll let you ring the Australian National University, University of Newcastle and Macquarie University and tell them they're incorrect.

Now, ring The Australian Financial Review.

How'd that go? Did you get a word in after the giggling begun?

Fortune and Forbes have also all posted articles on the topic. Wired, via Enkata, (enterprise analytics) the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, WFH Research. Big banks, big business and big tech...

Did you ring them too?

Or are you still on hold telling all those industry insiders what a cult movie is and isn't?

Can sealion elsewhere.

Losing 20 to 30 percent of your workforce, and struggling to replace them, will decrease productivity. This is not rocket science. That is what almost every company that did return to office has seen, quit rates within 20% to 30% within 30 days, and struggles to find people who will work at the office only to replace them.  This is also the amount of people who moved following remote work becoming a thing, so these people would have to either quit or move again.

Maybe in Australia employees are not linked to production but in the US or UK, less people working tends to mean less production capacity.

Aug 13, 2023 21:21:23 GMT c said:

Can sealion elsewhere.

Losing 20 to 30 percent of your workforce, and struggling to replace them, will decrease productivity. This is not rocket science. That is what almost every company that did return to office has seen, quit rates within 20% to 30% within 30 days, and struggles to find people who will work at the office only to replace them.  This is also the amount of people who moved following remote work becoming a thing, so these people would have to either quit or move again.

Maybe in Australia employees are not linked to production but in the US or UK, less people working tends to mean less production capacity.

That's totally not the argument you were making two posts ago...

On an unrelated note, it seems the sweet spot is a minimum of 3 days per week in the office.
Studies have also shown that the type of work being done plays a big part in how effective working from home is, consensus seems to be that deep work tasks and projects are better at home without interruption, but service and communication based roles have terrible productivity with working from home.

If everyone who is required to return to the office quits, the market will run out of work from home positions and people will be required to settle.
As  I stated earlier, it will be a perk afforded to the best workers who demonstrate an ability to self-manage.
In a time where obesity and social media addiction has never been higher, it would seem that self-discipline is not a trait that we are excelling at as a society.

Three days is the compromise solution right now. Most at home jobs are based around specific production goals, which is why it works, so in office should solely be the time it takes to review the completed projects and assign new ones. Anything else you are splitting task environments which loses production. Hybrid is not meant to last though, corporate real estate holdings are an investment, and it has more value being in full use and not partial use. Most companies that did hybrid are expected to go full time return for all non-executives or irreplicable tech experts in the next year.

The service argument I seen, but that started in the late 00's because it was far cheaper to send the jobs overseas or min wage them and move them to work from home.

The study mentioned above baffles me, as data entry should either be in office, or automated. If you are entering shit from one form to another or off the internet, a human is not needed. If working with physical material, then it is best to move that material as little as possible. Like that is not a job that a job that realistically is done from home. And if a computer cannot do it, it will not be done by Americans when you can get Indians or Asians to do for 2 bucks an hour happily.

Right now there is such a large excess of jobs for the remote work jobs, that people can easily hop around. Employer in San Fran loses 20 employees because they quit over return to work they are looking internationally for jobs. Meanwhile their replacement have to come from people in the San Fran areas or who are willing to relocate there. Creates a very asymmetric system that favors people who work from home. I could quit a drug trial analysis job in San Fran and get one at Munich the next month.

And that has been what ahs been happening, as mentioned through out this thread, jobs demand people come back, 20% to 30% and fill jobs internationally that still want work from home people. While this market cannot support everyone quitting at once, so far is has easily been taking those who quit, which is why 67% of people with skills to work form home in the US are working from home, and only 33% doing hybrid.

I would greatly enjoy a hybrid model. I was so much more effective working from home. My wife is 99% work from home. In 16 months she's gone to the office 3 times.

Aug 13, 2023 23:08:08 GMT c said:

Three days is the compromise solution right now. Most at home jobs are based around specific production goals, which is why it works, so in office should solely be the time it takes to review the completed projects and assign new ones. Anything else you are splitting task environments which loses production. Hybrid is not meant to last though, corporate real estate holdings are an investment, and it has more value being in full use and not partial use. Most companies that did hybrid are expected to go full time return for all non-executives or irreplicable tech experts in the next year.

The service argument I seen, but that started in the late 00's because it was far cheaper to send the jobs overseas or min wage them and move them to work from home.

The study mentioned above baffles me, as data entry should either be in office, or automated. If you are entering shit from one form to another or off the internet, a human is not needed. If working with physical material, then it is best to move that material as little as possible. Like that is not a job that a job that realistically is done from home. And if a computer cannot do it, it will not be done by Americans when you can get Indians or Asians to do for 2 bucks an hour happily.

Right now there is such a large excess of jobs for the remote work jobs, that people can easily hop around. Employer in San Fran loses 20 employees because they quit over return to work they are looking internationally for jobs. Meanwhile their replacement have to come from people in the San Fran areas or who are willing to relocate there. Creates a very asymmetric system that favors people who work from home. I could quit a drug trial analysis job in San Fran and get one at Munich the next month.

And that has been what ahs been happening, as mentioned through out this thread, jobs demand people come back, 20% to 30% and fill jobs internationally that still want work from home people. While this market cannot support everyone quitting at once, so far is has easily been taking those who quit, which is why 67% of people with skills to work form home in the US are working from home, and only 33% doing hybrid.

When I am talking about service businesses I am differentiating between companies or roles that mostly focus on project work versus tasks assigned and completed in real time.
If you have a customer facing role, you are in a service business, there is little flexibility in the role as it exists to service the customer at their convenience, not at the flexible timing that suits a work from home person.

I think iron maiden could speak more to this, and I expect that she is a dynamo when working from home, but I doubt the same can be said for all her colleagues.

This is a real problem for business, if the service levels to customers are improved having workers in the office, then allowing a predominantly WFH model could see their overall business suffer.
I'm planning to ditch my freight company for this very reason.

My problem with hybrid now is it does not make sense as most use it. Works great if you are discussing tasks as the measure of labor, but when you use hours it gets weird. Like if you met once a week, used it to review the shit you did for the week for a few hours, then get your tasks for the next week, it would make sense. But that is not how things are done, and meetings are still done via zoom anyway, just the office instead of home, and there is no real separation at all of work you do in office or at home.

My lab was mostly work from home, but we all meet for two to four hours a week, reviewed where we were on the various projects, assigned the next weeks tasks and like went our ways. Any given time half the team was all but dissertation so this was the only time they were on campus that week at all. And it worked great which is why most labs use this system. But only works if you can turn everything into a task based system and not hour based one.

Aug 13, 2023 23:35:22 GMT iNCY said:

Aug 13, 2023 23:08:08 GMT c said:

Three days is the compromise solution right now. Most at home jobs are based around specific production goals, which is why it works, so in office should solely be the time it takes to review the completed projects and assign new ones. Anything else you are splitting task environments which loses production. Hybrid is not meant to last though, corporate real estate holdings are an investment, and it has more value being in full use and not partial use. Most companies that did hybrid are expected to go full time return for all non-executives or irreplicable tech experts in the next year.

The service argument I seen, but that started in the late 00's because it was far cheaper to send the jobs overseas or min wage them and move them to work from home.

The study mentioned above baffles me, as data entry should either be in office, or automated. If you are entering shit from one form to another or off the internet, a human is not needed. If working with physical material, then it is best to move that material as little as possible. Like that is not a job that a job that realistically is done from home. And if a computer cannot do it, it will not be done by Americans when you can get Indians or Asians to do for 2 bucks an hour happily.

Right now there is such a large excess of jobs for the remote work jobs, that people can easily hop around. Employer in San Fran loses 20 employees because they quit over return to work they are looking internationally for jobs. Meanwhile their replacement have to come from people in the San Fran areas or who are willing to relocate there. Creates a very asymmetric system that favors people who work from home. I could quit a drug trial analysis job in San Fran and get one at Munich the next month.

And that has been what ahs been happening, as mentioned through out this thread, jobs demand people come back, 20% to 30% and fill jobs internationally that still want work from home people. While this market cannot support everyone quitting at once, so far is has easily been taking those who quit, which is why 67% of people with skills to work form home in the US are working from home, and only 33% doing hybrid.

When I am talking about service businesses I am differentiating between companies or roles that mostly focus on project work versus tasks assigned and completed in real time.
If you have a customer facing role, you are in a service business, there is little flexibility in the role as it exists to service the customer at their convenience, not at the flexible timing that suits a work from home person.

I think iron maiden could speak more to this, and I expect that she is a dynamo when working from home, but I doubt the same can be said for all her colleagues.

This is a real problem for business, if the service levels to customers are improved having workers in the office, then allowing a predominantly WFH model could see their overall business suffer.
I'm planning to ditch my freight company for this very reason.

I have friends who did service based work in the US on the at call model.  Their standards were far, far higher than that of office workers.  When the phone rings, you answer, no matter what.  In an office can be home for the day, in the bathroom, talking with the boss, and other things can just call back.  The at call model for most in the US is when the phone rings you are expected to answer no matter what, and you will be fired if not after a warning.  They do not care what you do the rest of the time but when it rings there are no acceptable excuses not to answer and solve the problem on the other side on the spot.  

Reddit full of people taking these consumer service support jobs not realizing what they mean.  You go on vacation you are expected to answer the phone.  4am you are expected to answer the phone.  Your mom dies you are expected to answer the phone at the funeral.  You go to the hospital and have possession of the phone you are expected to answer it.  These are not the same standards for office workers.   

I very much suspect this is not the case over there as support workers are independent contractors and not protected by reasonable labor laws here.  But this is not something our businesses fuck around with if they are selling your service to a third party.  

Also almost no service workers are work from home in the US outside really of IT.  If you could work from home, you could work from home in India or Asia for $2 an hour.  IT is a far more complicated system than just work from home given they are not employees in the US.

Aug 13, 2023 23:59:00 GMT c said:

Aug 13, 2023 23:35:22 GMT iNCY said:

When I am talking about service businesses I am differentiating between companies or roles that mostly focus on project work versus tasks assigned and completed in real time.
If you have a customer facing role, you are in a service business, there is little flexibility in the role as it exists to service the customer at their convenience, not at the flexible timing that suits a work from home person.

I think iron maiden could speak more to this, and I expect that she is a dynamo when working from home, but I doubt the same can be said for all her colleagues.

This is a real problem for business, if the service levels to customers are improved having workers in the office, then allowing a predominantly WFH model could see their overall business suffer.
I'm planning to ditch my freight company for this very reason.

I have friends who did service based work in the US on the at call model.  Their standards were far, far higher than that of office workers.  When the phone rings, you answer, no matter what.  In an office can be home for the day, in the bathroom, talking with the boss, and other things can just call back.  The at call model for most in the US is when the phone rings you are expected to answer no matter what, and you will be fired if not after a warning.  They do not care what you do the rest of the time but when it rings there are no acceptable excuses not to answer and solve the problem on the other side on the spot.  

Reddit full of people taking these consumer service support jobs not realizing what they mean.  You go on vacation you are expected to answer the phone.  4am you are expected to answer the phone.  Your mom dies you are expected to answer the phone at the funeral.  You go to the hospital and have possession of the phone you are expected to answer it.  These are not the same standards for office workers.   

I very much suspect this is not the case over there as support workers are independent contractors and not protected by reasonable labor laws here.  But this is not something our businesses fuck around with if they are selling your service to a third party.  

Also almost no service workers are work from home in the US outside really of IT.  If you could work from home, you could work from home in India or Asia for $2 an hour.  IT is a far more complicated system than just work from home given they are not employees in the US.

No... Still not the roles I am talking about

Almost everyone who works with inventory here works from the office, even if you just interface with counts. Places will not remote tech your hardware at home. So ordering, accounts receivable, inventory, shipping and returns departments never went work from home at all. They all were office. Could be done remotely but would have to offer support for interfacing with the office systems, which most places were unwilling to provide at their cost.

None of the people I used to work with got to go remote at the aerospace plant. Only the planners, customer service and management got remote. Everyone was else was essential.

Most of the world did not do lockdown like Australia and in the US really only digital based jobs went work from home, with teaching being shifted into that. Everything else remained opened with only management, and digital based teams working from home. I suspect the jobs you assume are working from home, never went remote to begin with.

This will easily show why so many are pushing so hard for white collar workers to head back. A lot of investments are nearly worthless now as Americans leave the heart of cities.

downtownrecovery.com/charts/rankings

Predictions are corporate real estate in downtown spaces will drop 40% if they remain empty, and nearby property will take a huge hit as well.  Many businesses in these areas are now underwater after rent due to decreased sales which will result in a shuttering of major downtown spaces in cities by 2025 unless we can return everyone in them to the office.

Economic hit if remote work does not end is over 1 trillion in the US alone.  Which may be enough to jumpstart a global depression if the US people do not authorize a trillion dollar bailout to the largest corporations.

Aug 14, 2023 2:13:05 GMT c said:

Almost everyone who works with inventory here works from the office, even if you just interface with counts. Places will not remote tech your hardware at home. So ordering, accounts receivable, inventory, shipping and returns departments never went work from home at all. They all were office. Could be done remotely but would have to offer support for interfacing with the office systems, which most places were unwilling to provide at their cost.

None of the people I used to work with got to go remote at the aerospace plant. Only the planners, customer service and management got remote. Everyone was else was essential.

Most of the world did not do lockdown like Australia and in the US really only digital based jobs went work from home, with teaching being shifted into that. Everything else remained opened with only management, and digital based teams working from home. I suspect the jobs you assume are working from home, never went remote to begin with.

No, all those jobs went remote, that's what IM was doing during Covid
Our freight companies are working from as well as:
Insurance, banking, power company, courier company all these contacts I have are still WFH

I take back everything I said about work from home, everyone should return to the office right now. Turns out bringing those workers back against their wishes is spurring a surge in workers joining unions. Turns out union recruitment works best with disgruntled workers forced into close proximity to each other.

Unions breaking into many major groups like Wells Fargo now. And unions are striking more than they have in decades.

Truly a great labor day this year.

Quick everyone panic, the white collar office workers are coming to get us!

----

" I'm making a complaint! "

" ok, sure.. are you working in unsafe conditions? "

" well, no.

" ok, are you not receiving your entitlements? "

" ahh... no.

" ok, are they discriminating against you based on race, sex, gender? "

" ummm.. no. Not quite... "

" not quite? Have you been victimised? "

" they're... they're... [incoherent sobbing] they're... MAKING ME GO TO WORK! "

" sorry, can you repeat that.. you were on mute. "