by kappi on 3/2/25, 4:47 PM with 490 comments
by stego-tech on 3/2/25, 6:36 PM
I ended up painting a picture that, when considering just the costs of vehicular wear and tear, associated insurance costs, added food costs, lost time commuting, and lost economic opportunity in housing choice, that it would end up being approximately equivalent to a $30,000 USD pay cut (primarily due to housing and vehicle costs to preserve the existing commute, rather than searching further afield with a hybrid or remote schedule). I also added that, for the technology teams in particular, our follow-the-sun support model meant we were all incredibly scattered about anyway with no real colleagues in our local office to network with.
The response was to double-down: those outside of "hubs" were increasingly passed over for promotions and growth opportunities, hubs started enforcing mandatory in-office days (dictated by the VP), and - of course - the company's promise to support minority colleagues was effectively compromised to "encourage" relocation to Texas. It wasn't really surprising when I got RIFed, just incredibly disappointing.
Data alone is not enough to sway these people. They have their own agendas that have no concern for their workers' needs or goals. The solution will be collective action, rather than bargaining for basic empathy.
by dividefuel on 3/2/25, 5:18 PM
This applies to both work location and number of hours per week. It's gotta be hard to understand and accept that lower-level workers have a different view and priorities from your own, especially when all your fellow execs share your own view.
And, as the tweet says, at a certain level you can afford to offset all the negatives of work location / work hours. No commute. Personal chef. All household chores covered. Full time individual childcare. It's a lot easier to come into the office for 50-60 hours per week when you don't have to also spend your time outside the office trying to balance sleep and survival. But, again, that's not what life looks like for an average employee.
by IshKebab on 3/2/25, 6:07 PM
But it's waaaay less useful if you are a worker bee just programming all day. Yes it's still better to talk to people next to a physical whiteboard, but it only matters very occasionally. My wife found it astounding that pre-covid I would sometimes go into the office and not really talk to anyone all day. Literally would just be sitting at a desk typing; the desk could have been anywhere.
If you're somehow a FAAaaaang executive reading this, consider making RTO only mandatory for the people you directly manage and talk to, and then let them decide the policy for their subordinates.
by barbazoo on 3/2/25, 5:21 PM
> Remember, they live literally in another world. This doesn't necessarily make them evil, just disconnected. I do not want to be "out of touch" but it is important to acknowledge that this does happen over time.
No they don’t. We all live in the same world and it’s everyone’s responsibility to realize that and our impact on those around us as well as our environment. The ruling class’ personality disorders (detaching from the common folk) are primarily their problems and should be dealt with by them, not worked around by us.
by mccoyb on 3/2/25, 5:14 PM
Is it really so hard to imagine the struggles of someone who doesn’t have any of the benefits listed in the post?
Just sitting down and doing a quick calculation would immediately reveal time allocation dilemmas of prioritizing “return to office” for someone who doesn’t have the benefits.
Time is universally valuable! But even more so for someone who … has significantly less of it because they can’t hire legions of staff to manage their lives?
“What if I didn’t have this? How would that make me feel?” Pretty depressing. Empathy can’t run the business — but surely it is correlated with strong team cohesion and performance?
by rybosome on 3/2/25, 5:09 PM
During the TGIF (company all hands) discussing this, the architect of the policy, someone high up in the HR org, explained why it was necessary.
I don’t recall what they said, but I do recall that they happened to be working remotely at the time, after the policy against remote work had already gone into effect.
The brazenness of lecturing us on why remote work was harmful to Google while working remotely was shocking. Predictably, the internal anger over this was enormous.
Rules for thee but not for me, some animals are more equal than others, etc.
by EncomLab on 3/2/25, 5:09 PM
by moi2388 on 3/2/25, 5:23 PM
Did the rest of the employees not do that as well though? Minus the wealth bit of course.
by giantg2 on 3/2/25, 5:09 PM
by lr4444lr on 3/2/25, 5:48 PM
There will be no return to office.
The unspoken issue here is trust. Managers and execs at these RTO mandate companies do not trust that the rank and file are working productively when not monitored in office.
Why else would they want to lose hours to commuting, and not take advantage of their employees living in cheaper CoL areas? Because they don't truly trust their work output when not monitored in person, and the cost of higher salaries to afford housing near the office plus lost hours and energy commuting are worth buying the trust they otherwise don't feel they have. It's dysfunctional, but it makes sense.
I am glad to work in a high trust work environment. I have seen people who abuse the system get let go. They deserve it.
by EPWN3D on 3/2/25, 5:37 PM
Remote work is just such a massive improvement in every respect for people with families for that reason.
The executives are just on a different planet. These are people who embody Lucille Bluthe's quote "It's one banana Michael. How much can it cost, $10?"
by siliconc0w on 3/2/25, 5:44 PM
by dotdi on 3/2/25, 5:37 PM
These are highly intelligent people. They got to be very high up in the food chain. They are driven. They are smart.
Yet, the claim is that they can't imagine there exist people not like themselves? Sorry, not buying it.
More plausible to me is that remote work will hurt their bottom lines because they (and their superiors, investors, board members, etc) heavily invested in real estate.
Means, motive and opportunity.
by spacebanana7 on 3/2/25, 5:16 PM
Enterprises can remove a meaningful number of employees for whom it’s a dealbreaker issue without the associated redundancy costs or PR issues.
by the_gastropod on 3/2/25, 6:02 PM
by tonnydourado on 3/2/25, 6:25 PM
Kinda hard to see the difference. I, too, live in a completely different world than people with much less money than me, but I can still conceive that they can't have a cleaner twice a month, order food every other day, or use uber more often than public transportation. I wouldn't even consider making a decision that impacts people's lives without having at least an inkling of how they actually live.
by astennumero on 3/2/25, 6:16 PM
Therefore, some governments are actively pushing corporations to bring people back to the office to revive the economy. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this, though. On one hand, reviving the economy will have long-term benefits. On the other hand, forcing people to spend money is not ideal.
Also, personally, I think we all grow and learn more about the world when we are in the world. You get to see and experience so many things while commuting, for example. I think it builds character.
by NewJazz on 3/2/25, 5:11 PM
by mariusor on 3/2/25, 6:05 PM
No, no, that level of lack of awareness and empathy makes them straight up evil.
by willhslade on 3/2/25, 6:12 PM
No judgment here to those who did, but during the pandemic, several people, including several software engineers, took the opportunity to work multiple jobs. Notably, at Equifax, which is probably the worst place to do it because they have records of most people's employment. https://www.businessinsider.com/equifax-used-itsproduct-to-f...
This is the main reason. Management doesn't want you pulling 2 salaries, even if you could, so they are trying to make it difficult so you don't even try.
In addition, if WFH becomes normalized, there is a lot of debt floating office buildings in major cities, and there will be a great renegotiation. This is really bad for senior management, the stock market, transit systems and the budget of most cities. So most people that manage you and manage your managers are aligned against you. https://nypost.com/2024/08/02/real-estate/huge-midtown-offic...
Lastly, and I'm only mentioning this because I think it needs to be said, but I think that most people who are pushing WFH are short sighted. If it is proved conclusively that software development can be managed and completed remotely, then it will devalue your labour as you are forced to compete with smart people in countries with significantly lower housing and energy costs. Anecdotally, this is already occurring.
by wooger on 3/3/25, 11:32 AM
Remote working also doesn't suit some people at all, and their productivity went of the cliff during COVID and the big shift to remote / hybrid. If you don't see, socialise and really get to know your colleagues multiple times a week it's really hard for some people to see them as real people and care about how the job they're doing (or slacking off) affects others.
by rwmj on 3/2/25, 5:53 PM
Non-xitter link since that site hasn't worked in Firefox for quite a long time. It'd be nice if HN rewrote such URLs automatically.
by JackFr on 3/2/25, 6:27 PM
I’m less empathetic than I might be because I came into the office 5 days a week for 30 years. My wife also worked. We raised three kids. I went to night school. It’s all very doable, and honestly not that hard.
Now I understand that technology has changed circumstances, and what was not technologically feasible 30 years ago is easy today.
But with respect to empathy, most of the commenters here could bear to examine, if only just for a minute, the idea that the executives are acting in good faith, and just trying to run the company effectively and efficiently.
by trey-jones on 3/2/25, 6:12 PM
by mhh__ on 3/2/25, 5:39 PM
Ignoring that its quite hard to learn from other people remotely (somewhat easier in tech because people are used to it), a lot of people frankly don't realise that they're basically running off like a headless chicken working on stuff that doesn't actually matter - programmers especially. You really do need to see the whites of some peoples eyes to get them to actually do the right thing, some people just aren't the type to instinctively know the macro picture of what they're working on.
If I were running a company and had the cash to facilitate I think I would probably go for something like a cycle of "x weeks off 1 week of intense in-office sprinting" then repeat. Going into the office for no reason is basically pointless, or at least the option on spontaneity may be worth less than the cost of going, there's an arbitrage in recognising that.
by dmitrygr on 3/3/25, 1:43 AM
by bvanderveen on 3/2/25, 7:05 PM
I have paid less than $200/mo for this. In terms of cost, this isn't anything like having a nanny, your house paid off, or retiring at age 50. But it's interesting that for this guy, it's on the same list as those things.
In sum: I highly recommend deploying a couple hundred bucks a month to pay someone to do house chores if you have a hard time motivating yourself to do it or have housemates/partners you have to spend time arguing about it with.
by corytheboyd on 3/2/25, 8:44 PM
by orblivion on 3/2/25, 6:23 PM
But since 2020, the market has swayed a lot in favor of remote work compared to before (though it seems to sway back and forth since then). And the way some of these execs talk about it, they say we're all spoiled and we need to put back into the offices where we belong. They're the ones with the self entitled attitude, not respecting the market.
by voidhorse on 3/2/25, 6:37 PM
1. Whether we like it or not, we are all in this together. Your dependency on others is extremely high, no matter where you sit in society.
2. We posses the technological means to realize a restructuring of labor and society, one which would benefit a large swath of people across several dimensions —remote work was just an existence proof of this—beyond that, we actually have the infrastructure and technical capacity to solve many societal problems that are being artificially maintained at this stage in history.
3. Different members of society have different incentives, and some benefit much more significantly from existing labor structure and organization than others. Often, these benefits are derived in direct opposition to realizing the net benefits possible in (2.) (see: modern healthcare in the united states).
Remote work during covid was a crack in the glass. External factors forced the C-suite and their ilk to make concessions that showed that the current labor structure is antiquated and that it persists mostly for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. The psychopathy of the executives lies in their desire to make this structure persist. RTO mandates are an irrational attempt to brute-force rollback the tiny bit of power they gave up to the masses during covid. CEOs are evil. They are evil because they perpetuate a system of labor that increases inequality and puts most people under unnecessary duress because of an artificially imposed scarcity. It is not a "difference in lifestyle" that makes this class of people repulsive. It is their continual and persistent attempts to preserve a structure that demeans and subjugates human beings. They do this actively, and effectively by spreading "free-market" propaganda and continually steering the conversation away from the realization of a more equitable society, which is already technologically feasible.
by jmward01 on 3/2/25, 5:18 PM
by etruong42 on 3/6/25, 4:44 PM
by mjburgess on 3/2/25, 5:15 PM
I think the issue is just that fundamental difference between what the work of relevant people comprises -- moreso than class. Managers, executives, and so on are "social workers": their job is to align people, brainstorm ideas, communicate, "govern" etc.
"Knowledge workers" job is, in large part, to think alone, then to create alone -- and when that fails seek some minimal intervention by another knowledge worker to resolve an issue.
"The Office" is not well-designed for knowledge work -- it's design for "social work". It's born of an era when manual workers worked in factories, and "social workers" worked in offices -- and "knowledge workers" were in academia, in the basement or some hidden (, silent) back office.
Reducing this to class seems to miss the point. Will anyone ever just recognise what the job of creative knowledge work is? Is it so incomprehensible? In the quest to "comprehend" it, we're told its our lack of maids which burden us so.
It's kinda laughable. A maid is no help if you won't STFU.
by kermatt on 3/3/25, 6:44 PM
If you are very highly compensated, responsible for people's ability to earn what they need to survive, and don't care enough to understand your employee's perspectives and realities, you some definition of evil.
Responsibility is the key word here.
by Jcampuzano2 on 3/2/25, 5:47 PM
It depends on whether you consider that evil or not. But no, I do not take that they don't understand somehow because of their privilege.
This is just another executive grift trying to make people feel better about them and the decisions they make.
Stop the bullshit and say the quiet part out loud. They do not care what your employees have going on. They understand it fucks with people's work life balance and simply do not care.
by Apreche on 3/2/25, 7:20 PM
by miltonlost on 3/2/25, 5:28 PM
by tennisflyi on 3/2/25, 7:43 PM
by horns4lyfe on 3/3/25, 1:20 AM
by newsclues on 3/2/25, 6:59 PM
by dpc_01234 on 3/2/25, 10:31 PM
If you're a manager, maybe it's your responsibility to figure out who's slacking and who's productive.
by phendrenad2 on 3/2/25, 6:43 PM
by VWWHFSfQ on 3/2/25, 5:32 PM
by idkwhattocallme on 3/2/25, 5:49 PM
The bare minimum for pickup/drop off help is ~ $2500 a month.
Frankly I don't know how people are managing.
by datavirtue on 3/2/25, 6:03 PM
What we are really witnessing is law and order breaking down.
by BrenBarn on 3/2/25, 9:26 PM
> This is not a screed against executive wealth.
And that again shows how out of touch he still is. You haven't fully accepted how out-of-touch wealthy you are until you've made the decision to actively oppose allowing anyone to reach that situation.
by lowbloodsugar on 3/2/25, 9:43 PM
by rglullis on 3/2/25, 5:34 PM
1) No mortgage 2) A maid service cleans every two weeks 3) Someone else mows the grass "
Just an anecdote, but all of his examples (except maybe for the personal assistant) could be given by anyone living in a middle-class family from Brazil until the late 90s.
by garfieldnate on 3/9/25, 3:17 AM
One of my favorite sociology books is about rich people practically living in a different country, Richistan.
by simonswords82 on 3/2/25, 6:52 PM
by alsoforgotmypwd on 3/3/25, 3:20 AM
by cowmix on 3/2/25, 5:35 PM
Keep in mind, COVID was still raging at this point.
Right in the middle of his calm rant, a courier—UPS or Amazon, I think—knocked on his door, rang the bell, and then dropped off a package, loud and clear for everyone to hear. It was hilarious and completely undercut his entire message. Funny, but also infuriating.
by babuloseo on 3/2/25, 5:54 PM
by davesque on 3/2/25, 9:06 PM
That's the point though isn't it? He retired at 50. Most of us will work to at least age 65 (perhaps until we literally can't work anymore in today's economy). And we won't get some of the wealth.
by efitz on 3/2/25, 6:08 PM
Yes, free meals, interesting spaces, massage rooms, etc are all great perks. But you’re there to work, and the reality is hoteling, no shred of privacy (need to have an ad hoc phone conversation with someone somewhere else? Good luck booking a phone room and walking 10min to get there).
If you want people in the office, give them offices. Small, glass-walled, but acoustically private. And above all, assigned, so that you can personalize it a little and not mind sitting there for 8-12 hours.
by blackeyeblitzar on 3/2/25, 5:55 PM
by neofrommatrix on 3/2/25, 5:30 PM
by markus_zhang on 3/2/25, 5:46 PM
by danny_codes on 3/2/25, 6:30 PM
by Invictus0 on 3/2/25, 5:19 PM
by from-nibly on 3/2/25, 7:44 PM
Nothing in private equity or public companies is done for the purpose of making the company better. It's for making the company look like it will do better in the future, so that a bigger fool will hold the bag.
Don't try to rationalize the irrational, that only serves to promote the myth that they are trying to do something we just don't understand.
It's called misdirection.
by 2OEH8eoCRo0 on 3/2/25, 5:46 PM
by gscott on 3/2/25, 6:04 PM
by farts_mckensy on 3/2/25, 6:51 PM
by jcgrillo on 3/2/25, 5:56 PM
If you spend your entire day in meetings, you might reasonably think that you'd be better off if all your meetings were face-to-face.
If you only touch a computer to write and respond to emails, the email summary parrot might reasonably seem like some omniscient god.
The trouble is I don't feel charitable. These people got to where they are by behaving like narcissists and sociopaths. That's because they are narcissists and sociopaths. It's about controlling other people and hurting them. Full stop.
by wesselbindt on 3/2/25, 6:42 PM