Corporations should be held responsible for the emissions caused by their employee's commuting.
This would really change the discussion about return to office.
Lol they spent decades doing the opposite, generating the vast majority of emissions with big manufacturing and big livestock, and then successfully shifting blame on poor peasants claiming the planet is heating because they're not sorting their recycling well enough.
Yes and also by telling us to buy expensive electric cars because the environment needs us to.
How about buying electric instead of combustion while trying to not buy a new car unless it's really necessary? That should reduce emissions, shouldn't it?
Companies should be on the hook for all negative externalities. Make them internalities and watch how quick things change
But then how would they exploit the poors?
Yes, but we need to see everyone in person!!!11111 There are intangible benefits and impromptu synergies, etc...
/s
Bro, I literally want to punch everyone in the office.
See, and how would you do that if everyone is at home? So office is clearly superior and totally necessary >!/s!<
LOL - game, set, match.
In Nottingham, UK they made it so companies have to pay for every parking space per year over a certain amount, and that money gets invested in public transport. Over time congestion has grown much slower in Nottingham than similar cities, I'm amazed that more cities don't do the same.
This is the way
Modern accounting techniques are amazing and super effective, barely unchanged since their codification in the 1490s by an Italian scholar named Luca Pacioli. The biggest weakness of accounting though is its inability to capture externalities. How does one company record the cost of their employees commute? How do you even begin to calculate that? How do you measure the cost of extra leukemia cases in a town ten years after a train derails nearby? How do you record that in your books? How do you calculate and record the distress these huge noisy shipping vessels cause whales? It's just so subjective and impractical.
In the city of Seattle, for example, every year, companies over a certain number of employees are required to participate in an annual transportation survey. The employees are surveyed. The questions ask how far the employee commutes to work, how long it takes, and by what method (private vehicle, car pool, public transportation), how many days a year they work from home, or take off, etc. The effort is to assess the impact on environment, parking infrastructure, public transportation, roads, etc.
Obviously, there isn't a 100% response rate so the data is extrapolated from the responses to the total number of employees employeed at that site (probably why they only poll companies of a minimum size and larger).
If they wanted to implement something like this in seattle, then the next step would be to take the data they already have and start sending those companies a new bill for a new annual tax based on the assessment.
Lots of taxes work off of an estimated assessment rather than having to account for every nut snd bolt of the thing (property taxes, for example).
So how do you do it? That's how you do it. This isn't rocket science, and you don't need to invent new accounting methods or worry about the accounting-sky falling to accomplish it.
Regarding commuting specifically I meant how do you determine the cost of each extra pound of co2 in the atmosphere. It's inherently incalculable because the effects of climate change are insanely complex. That's my point about externalities. How do you price the value of standing in an open meadow at dusk?
The point of my earlier comment was that the inability to account down to the last carbon atom isn't a valid reason not to start with more generalized high-level estimates and work just from those until/if a better way of doing it is either becomes available or becomes a necessity.
It's like arguing that we might as well not accept the existence of circles because we can't calculate to the final digit of pi....when really, for most things, we don't need that level of precision to still do a good job discussing roundness.
Pi can be rounded. It's infamously difficult to compute externalities in any meaningful sense. Even more difficult to implement a fair and actionable policy for it. You can google "accounting for externalities" and read a bunch f articles and academic papers on the subject, which has been debated for decades.
Beyond fines for dumping chemicals in rivers, and carbon taxes, etc, stronger EPA, etc, I don't really have any good ideas for codifying a real actual plan into law. Probably easier to raise corporate tax rates up a few points from 21% to whatever and use it to fund green energy and cleanup projects etc, rather than change accounting methods to try and capture the costs that way.
Modern accounting techniques are amazing and super effective,
Hmm
The biggest weakness of accounting though is its inability to capture externalities
Oh so you mean it's actually dog shit then, if you can't properly look at external risks outside the clearly defined formulas and can game said fomulas to cook books to one's liking.
How does one company record the cost of their employees commute? How do you even begin to calculate that? How do you measure the cost of extra leukemia cases in a town ten years after a train derails nearby? How do you record that in your books? How do you calculate and record the distress these huge noisy shipping vessels cause whales? It's just so subjective and impractical.
You act like these are difficult tasks in the modern era. Commute is pretty simple, what type of vehicle, what are its maintenance costs at certain mileages, what are the crash statistics, etc. Once you have a general fomula you can add an increased payout to cover ireegular externalities to properly hedge against the edge cases. Same shit for the others. It's not subjective and impractical, it's just not the going to be perfectly effiecnt as you need to create a bigger financial bubble to account for edge cases. The problem is hyper fixation on extracting the most captial possible from a business. Stop trying to be the most clean cut business and focus on aiding your communities, working to better infrastructure and stop interference with local governments for tax benefits. Then progressive changes can be beneficial to both and reduce external unmitigated risks as we have a more nuanced model to work with.
That rant is unhinged, you're not playing with a full deck. Not gonna engage with you if you can't have a reasonable conversation in good faith.
Lol, call out your bullshit and you have nothing but a reductionist argument, but sure bud I'm the one not playing with a full deck. Go lick some more boots if you can't engage in constructive conversation.
Come back when you can codify your point into something that can actually be recorded on a balance sheet and P&L. Until then it's not even wrong, it's just..word salad..
Well, for positions that could be moved to WFH perhaps. To others that would be unfair because companies would descriminate by distance to the office.
So you also make sure location discrimination is illegal as well. There can be multiple parts to the legislation.
I've seen that already, at least pre-Covid and in the U.S. Even though I'm pretty sure that asking that during an interview is illegal, I've been on post-interview sessions where someone inevitably says "yeah, but this candidate lives nearly an hour away, while this other candidate lives 15 minutes away..." so they found out somehow.
It seems simpler to just tax gas at a more rational rate.
Simpler perhaps, but not really better. High gas prices hurt the poor disproportionately because it's a larger part of their income, they don't have as much control over WFH policies or their locations for reducing commutes, and they can't typically afford to upgrade to fuel efficient vehicles. Plus since almost everything is transported by truck, high gas prices make the cost of everything else go up too.
I think part of the labor shortage is from people who did the math and quit after realising that they weren't actually earning anything after subtracting transportation costs.
If we’re talking about some sort of tax on employers based on the commute of their employees, it’s going to disproportionately affect the poor anyway. If you tax employers though you’re incentivizing further control of their employees lives.
Yes, higher gas prices would increase the cost of shipping and therefore most products, but there’s no world in which we hold corporations accountable for their externalities and consumer goods remain as cheap as they are.
So what they are saying is basically large companies have a ridiculous margin and can raise wages (but will not, unless unemployment rate is too low because efficiency) and small companies will go broke or loose all of their workers if bigger ones raise.
That almost sounds like a systemic problem, ain't it?
If you didn't think this was the case in most offices I have a movie to show you
Well if you think like this, it's no wonder they are ending WFH.
Not everyone can be a happy little robot in a suit. Some of us are normal people.
Yep. I have to go into the office 3 days a week. I get up for my first meeting, do some light work, then shower and get ready during my working hours, and leave on the bus. I’ll get there around 11-11:30 usually. Then I’ll leave to be home around 5. I’m not wasting my time on this bullshit. Working from home is way more relaxing and efficient.
One criticism of WFH is that you'll have increased energy bills since you're home all day. Aside from the obvious reasons that's wrong, this provides hard data showing that WFH is better for the environment in addition to being better for literally everyone except commercial real estate investors.
I would assume it takes far more energy on heating/cooling/ventilation systems for large buildings in general than it does for a series of small buildings that have classic ventilation systems called "windows that open to let in fresh air." Something that is pretty rare in office buildings.
EDIT: Furthermore, large buildings usually have automated systems that keep it roughly the same temperature throughout the whole building while individuals in their own homes might try to keep heating/cooling bills low by choosing to only heat/cool specific rooms that they're actually physically using. I know I certainly do this at home, no sense in doing temp control in a room no one is occupying (other than making sure it's above freezing for pipes, etc.).
Yeah. Having a laptop and extra monitor on all day at home probably uses less electricity than the fridge.
Ostensibly you could turn down your thermostat during the day to save money, but almost no one does this
Not if you have pets at home
Maybe I'm weird but I get my doggie sweaters and socks to keep him warm.
And when it's 100+f in the summer? AC has to run enough to keep them cool
This depends greatly on the home and how the home is used for how effective changing the thermostat during the day actually is. You have to keep it mildly in a comfortable temperature range to prevent damage to the home, plus any people or animals at home during the day will reduce the savings available by adjusting the thermostat. There's also the problem of the fact that if you let the home get too far outside of the desired range the HVAC then has to "catch up" for when you get home which may be enough to not only negate but use more energy and if it just stayed at one set temperature.
All of the increased energy use at home is nothing compared to the energy use of a personal car. My family was able to go down to a single vehicle thanks to hybrid work. Literally an entire car off the road. We live in a rural area where traveling between towns is a requirement and driving your own car is the only way to reliably get between towns, so being a single car family and not missing having a second car is a rare luxury where we live
WFH allowance should be mandated -- anyone that wants it for a job where it's possible must be allowed it. it's such a dramatic quality of life difference.
I'm privileged to have a boss not caring where we work from, but i prefer to come into the office once in a while because of my social needs. It's depressing to stay home day after day, but it's more productive.
That's great when it's your choice. The issue is when bosses don't give people the choice.
My boss allows people to WFH officially, but also establishes several small office spaces so people can come to hang out if they feel lonely, or want to get to know their colleagues more. I think this is the best of both world.
for literally no cost too. What exactly are companies losing with WFH? Literaly nothing.
Control. And that is a scary thing to lose if you're a bad manager.
Then hire better managers
Idk how legit it is, but I have read that companies got deals on taxes and such for building their office in the specific city/state and that's with the expectation that the workers will either live in the city or will be from the city, in turn creating tax income from those workers buying things in the city. Basically because wfh employees also move to cheaper cities the companies are losing their benefits
The money they spend on the building and maintenance.
They don't lose that they gain that because they no longer have to pay for a building.
The companies that lose out are the ones that decide to do this stupid hybrid system which is literally the worst of both worlds. The company has a building that they have to pay upkeep on, while also having the IT costs of managing a off-site VPN.
Twenty year leases are hard to get out of.
As someone who works at a company that's permanently hybrid I have to disagree. We now literally have more employees at our corporate office than we have desks, and because all of our employees are 60-90% remote we can pull talent from a larger distance while still being able to have in-person meetings and in-person power sessions for large projects. But by continuing to have an office we have a central location for shipping and receiving, a secure and static space for meeting, working on projects and training plus core infrastructure and roles that don't work well remotely can still be on premises. Its literally the best of both worlds.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against WFH, just providing possible reasons big companies are against it.
They don't lose that they gain that because they no longer have to pay for a building.
That only applies to companies that rent. If they own the building, then an empty office becomes a waste
The companies that lose out are the ones that decide to do this stupid hybrid system which is literally the worst of both worlds.
I disagree on that one. Not everyone wants to WFH or do it full time. Also if they meet with outside persons regularly, like customers and want to do it in person, having an office is useful. Obviously this does not apply to all companies, but it's wrong to say that the hybrid system is the worst.
And how would they not lose that if people were working in the office?
Study in US
The difference is likely less in developed countries with functional public transport
And if they drive, they drive less ridiculous cars. The fact that the F150 is the most sold car in the US is just mind boggling.
Is it bad that I'm seeing more and more of those huge ass trucks here in Australia?
Those trucks make no sense to me.
Yeah. We gotta tax the shit out of them. By the kilo.
Bloody GM's fault for killing Holden and taking away our beautiful utes
Yes, it's bad.
Oh no, you're infected. No cure.
Yes, as an American that prefers to drive small cars I feel like driving is no longer safe. I can't see past any of the tank sized cars that make up 75% of the vehicles on the road and I know, from experience, how destructive getting hit by one of those vehicles can be. I'm down to driving 1-2 times per month and I'm terrified every time I get behind the wheel. The only reason I keep a car is to visit family that lives about 130km away since the Republicans in my area have killed every train project between my hometown and my parents' town.
Wait is this really true?? Why do so mamy people feel the need to buy trucks?
The sad thing is, I really want a truck for transporting stuff for hobbyist gardening and woodworking, but it's so hard to find a truck that isn't 20ft tall with more cabin than bed space. Two door trucks are getting harder to find.
Because they might need to move a large piece of furniture someday...
Wouldn't they just hire a truck if they ever need that? I mean that's what we did, we moved twice in the last 20 years and one involved moving over 300 miles away to another city
No way, that just makes too much sense
I mean there are companies that do this for you, carry everything over (from the front of house to placing them inside as well, like couches and tv and everything) so you don't do anything really except paying them money (and ask for refund if they broke something 😡). Like I guess it's called forwarding
It's primarily a cultural thing
Is it really a proper car if it does more than four miles to the gallon?
people who burn less gas and consume less resources burn less gas and consume less resources, more news at 11.
but it's nice they're pinning numbers onto the amounts
As a full time remote worker, I can confirm, I'm driving so much less. My commute prior to the pandemic was 18 minutes (12.7 miles one way), so 25 miles round trip with 36 minutes spent driving each work day. My commute was short compared to a lot of other people I worked with who'd drive 45 minutes one way, some 1 hour one way! That's a lot of driving that can be cut out if the role allows for remote work.
I find I'm less angry too. A lot of bad drivers out there. Lol
Ah yah...lots of stupid drivers here just piss me off...lots of traffic compared to last year too...
Just being stuck in traffic when you could be getting shit done is what gets me. Time/money/carbon emissions... just wasteful in every way
I have a theory about the increase of bad drivers that seems to have happened after the pandemic. So most of the higher paid desk jobs where usually people are more intelligent mostly went to WFH. So there are less intelligent people on the road than there used to be. So now it's all idiots in cars taking free reign of the roads. Less traffic causes the idiots to be able to more freely speed and run reds. I know since working from home I drive about 90% less and when I do I am scared for my life.
As someone who works a desk job, no, there are lots of idiots in those jobs, and lots of smart people digging ditches.
I'm lucky enough to have multiple routes to my office.
During the times that taking the back roads is dramatically slower, I'll go on the interstate. Holy hell my stress and anger levels rocket when doing that.
I also eat at home a lot more which has a far lower ecological cost than going out to eat
And healthier, since restaurants tend to go all out on sugar, fat, and salt to make their meals tasty.
Oh I never said anything about eating healthy 😅
Food isn't medicine, it's allowed to be healthy and tasty
For sure, it's just that restaurants more often than not take shortcuts that aren't healthy to achieve the tasty. I fully agree that you can make healthier and still very tasty food at home, they're not mutually exclusive.
Yeah, we make large portions when we cook so I can freeze the leftovers for lunch.
i just worked out im saving 2160 litres of fuel a year by not driving every day
Transporting millions of people dozens of miles twice a day OF COURSE has resource costs, in carbon and pollution and energy consumption. This shouldn't be rocket science. Sadly it is for people who are afraid of change.
It also saves the workers money (as they don't have to pay for fuel or public transit), it saves the company money (as they don't have to pay for office space), it saves the environment (as you don't have pollution from commutes), it reduces traffic (as you don't have as many commuters at rush hour), and it's generally good for just about everybody except commercial real estate developers renting out overpriced office buildings and Starbucks that's paying absurd rents to be in the bottom floor of those overpriced office buildings. And of course middle managers who think that hounding their employees in person somehow accomplishes something.
The office is a total waste. A complete, total loss. Fuck that shit.
I went from commuting close to 2 hours daily, with much of that spent stuck in traffic, to working fully remotely. I'd have to get gas every week. Now I go weeks at a time before needing to get gas.
Even better, I used to work for a chemical company part of one of the big oil and gas corporations. Now I work for a green energy company. It cracks me up just how different the two situations are.
Just being able to cook at home has reduced our food waste for sure.
I know it has reduced my food spending and leftover utilization.
I bike to work and turn off my AC/heat and power strips at home before I ride off. I wish everyone could experience how easy this is, I fucking hate driving through traffic.
I wish I could do that again like I did in college.
But we just had 2 months straight with temperatures over 100 degrees where I'm at, and affordable housing is 30 miles from where people work. So going to work would take forever, be miserable, and require a shower upon arrival.
I just got offered an awesome new job that pays half again more than I make now, but it's further into the city, and a 300sft studio apartment within 15 miles of my new job is $2,500/month.
The cheapest home in the City is 1.8 million dollars, and the median price is 2.6 million.
Paying the car note, gas, and rent on 1200sft where I'm at saves me a thousand dollars a month versus moving closer, AND the new job actually pays a fuel stipend because literally nobody at the company lives within a half-hour drive of the office, so it's even better to live where it's cheaper.
We'd move the office, but we're municipal employees and It's hard to justify moving City Hall out of the city
Damn, appreciate the context. Sounds like you're in a Texas city? I didn't know housing costs were that bad there.
I can't say exactly where I'm at for fear of doxing myself, but the general Austin area has gotten very expensive, and there are some small cities in the area that are among the most expensive in the country.
AUSTIN! WE GOT AN AUSTIN GUY HERE!
See, nobody cares :p
Please tell me you were hearing George Costanza's voice in your head as you wrote that...
You mean Wayne Knight right?
Yes, they do.
I would ride to work but there's so many reasons not to. I've tried before, and almost died several times because of asshole drivers and half asleep morons still putting on makeup or drinking coffee or whatever. The bike lanes are a joke and people treat them like passing lanes to get one car length ahead in stop-go traffic. I've ridden with pants on once and got a giant oil stain on my leg from the bike chain. Even if none of that happens, it's extremely hot and humid where i live almost year round, and I wear business casual so I'm drenched in sweat before too long. I wish I could make it work but..no..and of course there's no reliable public transportation.
Are there no showers in your office? I am guessing not.
Nope not even close. I hear some buildings have gyms downstairs so I suppose I could keep work clothes in the locker and ride to and from in street clothes. I'm in the job market so I'll look into it.
I’ve tried before, and almost died several times because of asshole drivers and half asleep morons still putting on makeup or drinking coffee or whatever. The bike lanes are a joke and people treat them like passing lanes to get one car length ahead in stop-go traffic.
Yeah man, I completely understand. I'm very very lucky to live in a cooler climate, only a few miles from my work, with somewhat decent bike lanes (although a joke compared to anywhere in Europe), and I don't sweat too bad lol.
I try to convince a lot of my friends to give bicycling a try but I totally understand if they're afraid of traffic. It's fucked up that we're forced to ride completely unseparated from cars and giant fucking trucks swinging all over the road.
I have solar panels on my roof. My employer's building does not.
I've actually started... walking to work. It takes me like 45min. So it's not a short walk, though it's a very short car commute. But the world is so different now that I'm walking. Having lived in car dependency vs walking is so different. And it's healthy for you too. More people should try it, if i's possible.
id love to do that. unfortunatly its either 90-120 minute drive (each way) or train-train-bike for 6km (2-2.5hr each way)
I'ma be honest with you, I would kill myself if I had to spend around 4-6 hours commuting each day. Or I guess find a different job.
its not hyperbole to say it was a contributer to my depression before. slept 5 hours a night most nights. next to no family time and absolutely zero me time. high stress job. those lost hours didnt help
If it's a nice walk I'm game. I'm continually impressed with how walkable many cities are (except mine of course). If it's ball sweating hot, walking through endless sprawl, dodging cars, on noisy highways, forget it.
I actually started on the day when it was 40°C / 104°F in humidex. Significantly less than favorable conditions. But I figured, if I can do that, I can do any other day. I do have the entire path with sidewalks though. And even a little bit of a park I can cut through.
You're hardcore. I just can't do that though. I'm in good shape but I sweat a LOT and can't show up at the office drenched. It would ruin my day.
That's quite a challenge 45 minutes in hot weather. Specially if there is not shade
Its not the destination, it's the journey
Add to that a podcast, an e-reader or just jogging to work and those 90 min will be pure investment. Well done.
I listen to either music or audiobook. Yeah, time goes fast.
Well, I've traded burning fuel for burning internet and electricity at my home.
My electricity at home is mostly solar (from my roof) and hydro from the grid (I live in Washington State).
Working from home spares me ~20 uncompensated transit hours a week, so the emissions difference (whether I use transit or drive) is substantial and so is the cost savings (in fuel and parking). FWIW, my employer will pay for my transit fares (but not fuel or parking) and that's nice and all, but I'm squeamish about transit during flu/covid season because of all those coughing people going in to jobs that don't encourage them to stay home while sick.
I'm able to work more hours when I do it from home because I'm not constrained by transit schedules/catching the last train out of town, and that way I still come out ahead in terms of having time with my kids, and I have time to take grocery shopping and meal planning and prep off of my wife's plate.
It's better this way, not just in terms of cost and environmental impact and quality of life, but productivity-wise.
There are so many CEOs putting their own private portfolio over the companies they supposedly run having a high staff attrition, and yet “they command such big salaries because they take on so much risk”.
I have heard this but do we have any evidence?
It makes sense, but gotta be able to prove it.
In the two weeks since my work mandated three days in the office I've spent $150 on gas. Awesome.
Granted part of that reason is the car broke down and I had to drive the truck.
If the American owner class has taught Americans paying any attention the last century anything about how they operate, it's "Fuck the commons/planet/species/future, burn it all if it makes me a dollar slightly faster!"
Profit in this case being all the corporate park land they own. Propagating human misery at every step for nothing more than to run up their capital ego score, that doesn't even effect their living conditions at all.
Good thing they don't consider their victims, people without significant net worth, human.
Does it even make them any money if someone is inside the building? It seems more like justifying a purchase that didn't pan out.
It's about holding value for them. Small/medium businesses paying rent in perpetuity to the corporate owners of business complexes. Yes, they'd rather others suffer and the planet burn if it means their capital investment is reaping dividends.
That's why we're on the brink, it's not like man made climate change hasn't been known for half a century. Our owners only care about their capital scores. They destroyed our republic and captured our government that was supposed to regulate/check them for us to increase their capital scores. They're destroying the climate and hobbling the species for generations to increase their capital scores.
Why does everyone act surprised when our owner class acts like sociopaths? Thats why they're in our owner class to begin with. Welcome to America, where practiced sociopathy gets you a corner office, and practiced prosocial vocations and empathy gets you a cardboard box on the sidewalk.
Your employer isn't earning money by having you in the office. But they are losing money on the lease or mortgage for the property if you're not in the office.
No, but it makes the cities where those buildings reside a boatload of tax revenue. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a lot of the "return to office" propaganda was coming from local governments freaking out about the abrupt downturn in tax income from commuters.
Corporate real estate is over represented in investments, so the loss is through the stock market, not the company directly
Edit: I actually don’t know if that’s true, but it’s the theory
While a lot of people work for big companies that may have commercial real estate holdings or are invested in REITs or something, most companies pulling workers back are not. And, indeed, they're run by people that are choosing to pay for the privilege of lording their station over the hired help -- though not to the employees, and many of them not purposefully.
They're just taking productivity hits while swearing up and down that we're all lazy thieves who don't do a thing all day while not in the panopticon.
right but the issue is not environment pollution , its the real estate. They all are empty so fuck the environment and bring yo 9-5 ass to office.
i also think theres an inherent bias that 'leaders' tend to be more extroverted and see more value in people 'being together', and to an extent, at least in my observed experience, are unwilling to acknowledge the fact its not the same for everyone
It is downright malicious in many cases, though. A lot of times, business owners will be renting the property their office is based out of, and that property ends up being owned by a family member or friend (or they themselves) who then get to bill the company for quite a sum without that being considered payroll. If they lose the office, they lose money, and that's all they care about.
'Leaders' also tend to own an outsize amount of real estate as well.
I'm deeply introverted but prefer in-office. I'm in a leadership position and gently encourage staff to work in office too when possible. It's not for socializing and awful pizza parties, and you don't have to tell me about your weekend hobbies if you don't want to.
For me it's mainly because my work requires technical skills, problem solving, and creativity, which means it's very helpful for me to know my staff really well in order to properly review their work. If I see something that looks odd it's really helpful to know 'Mary did this and that's her strength so I'm probably wrong' or 'Steve did this and he sucks in this area so it probably is wrong' etc. WFH removes all that and everyone is just a disembodied talking head, or worse, emails and texts only, so I have no idea who I'm talking to.
I truly get the allure and I still wfh when appropriate but again I encourage in office as much as possible.
Non-existent public transport much?
People who live in caves all the time cut emissions by 95%.
This is far better: People who live without social media all the time cut emissions by 66%.
People who eat more beans cut the cheese.
Only at first
People who die cut emissions 100%
Wouldn’t the decay of one’s be a source of emission?
Yeah but that only takes a couple months even in bad conditions.
Ugh I really want to out the company I work at. Of all companies we should be going and advocating for remote.
But we aren't. 'Because being with each is SO valuable'.
$100 says you're company is either stuck in a lease with their building or owns it outright...so glad I work for a WFH company that started that way 20 years ago and never went to having offices.
Lol no I wish!
I swear to god we just had all our leases expire and chose to renew ALL OF THEMMMM.
In fact, for the main office we've just signed a new multi-year lease in a new building. It's smaller tho. Renovations currently in progress.
But no raises. Times are too tough.
Wow that's some idiotic level of thinking from management. What a bunch of narcissistic jackasses
Mi company offer 50% WFH because there is not enough space in the office for everyone
(Also no to ownership. All the offices are leased.)
$100 says you’re company is either stuck in a lease with their building or owns it outright
But why exactly would that mean "no WFH"?
Stuck in a lease? Its not like if people WFH or W in the office the lease would decrease. On the contrary. less people means less bills to pay.
(Same for owning the building), in this case just rent it for something else.
I'm not saying it makes sense, it's just old school idiots running these companies who think ass in chair is more productive. They're just sociopath control freaks.
The only thing about the 54% number, for me, is that it's not higher.
This shouldn't be news to anyone.
I’m not sure the people making the decisions about work from home have any concern for its effect on carbon emissions.
That's probably primarily a consequence of bad zoning and transportation policy in the U.S - higher density zoning and public transportation/cycling infrastructure would address this more than enough.
Slapping a WFH-band aid on top of this mess doesn't really address the root cause. That's not to say you shouldn't be able to WFH - work whichever way suits you best - but I don't find this particular argument compelling as for a reason to advocate for WFH.
100% agree, we (the US) truly need better city layouts and public transportation. However, it's nice to see more arguments that are "pro WFH" that aren't just talking about the employees themselves or productivity. Not that it's likely to change the path of management but it's still welcome.
I am like infinitive times more productive when working from home. I am voluntarely coming to office usually 1 day per week and oh boy I don't work in office. Vaping, walking around, chatting, meetings, vaping, snacks, walk outside.
I think I will become pro-office at some point lol. 😅
Yep, and if you have management that still values presenteeism over actual work (because it massages their ego), the 20%-40% reduction in productivity while AT work will go unnoticed, most likely.
Yeah, but they deprive their bosses of the opportunity to walk into the building and have everybody who meets them say "Good Morning Mr. Analwart Sir" before shutting their office door and playing Minesweeper for 3 hours
mild shock
The main causes of remote workers’ reduced emissions were less office energy use, as well as fewer emissions from a daily commute.
I mean yeah, that makes sense,
But I wonder what the numbers are when it comes to everyone keeping their homes heated/cooled all day compared to communal heating/cooling of a building.
People working at home will increase their personal emissions to keep their home office heated/cooled, and I suspect you get more bang for your energy buck if they are all in one spot instead of spread out into multiple buildings.
So sure.. less office energy use, but increased home energy use...
I wonder how the study calculated that or even bothered...
I don't know about your home and office, but every office I worked in had atrocious heating and cooling. People wear hoodies inside all summer because the AC is set too low.
Yup. You need a work hoodie for summer.
And there's always that one girl that has a blanket.
Or the lady who keeps bringing in a space heater and plugging it into their computer power strip despite being told repeatedly not to do that
Or who keeps triggering the breaker because her space heater is melting things under her desk.
It's me. I'm the lady with the space heater (and the blanket, and the hoodie). I have garbage circulation, so I have to warm up my frozen fingers and toes a few times a day or I can't get anything done. If there were any other outlets, I'd use those, but there aren't because my building is old as balls.
I pray that you may find a job that lets you work from the climate that suits you best. Probably tropical.
No joke, I was born on a Pacific island, and I swear that set me up for life to crave 85 and humid all year round. Unfortunately, I live in CO, and I love this dumb state, so here we are. With space heaters and office blankets.
definitely a perk working from home, you decide temperature/sound/etc.
But I'm talking from an overall society energy use perspective.
I'm curious if the energy efficiency of having people in one building compares to the energy efficiency of them spread out.
It will greatly vary, as some are already in apartment buildings sharing that efficiency, some are in better eff rated homes, some are in worse eff rated homes.
Not sure this study can accurately claim 54% .. even if they said +-10%, it's still probably way out to lunch.
Don't forget about all the useless TVs and monitors running in offices all the time.
And heating/cooling/lighting all the empty rooms.
Plus staff for cleaning and security.
You're not wrong that it'd be interesting to see some data, but my intuition is offices are extremely wasteful in a lot of ways. I could be wrong though!
I remember reading about a study pre-pandemic that found remote work was greatly better from an emissions standpoint than in-office work and it mostly came down to the massive amounts of resources spent commuting, and if I remember correctly it even found the emissions cost of commuting by public transit to be significant enough to see improvement by remote work
In the US, people typically drive cars to work. These cars are 3000-6000 pounds that move 20-30 miles by burning oiil at 25% efficiency while also polluting the air with brake and tire dust.
I wonder what the numbers are when it comes to everyone keeping their homes heated/cooled all day compared to communal heating/cooling of a building.
District heating is popular in parts of the world. We could lower emissions caused by commuting and lower emissions due to shitty tiny furnaces.
District heating (and cooling) would also alleviate the problem of people continuing to run ancient furnaces and air conditioners that are simply too old and worn down to be effective
You don't get to cut emission likes this, you will stop eating meat tho so better people can fly on private jets. They deserve it, peasants don't deserve anything. Slave bitches!
Well, meat eating should be cut way down; ideally to zero. But we'll always have this disparity where some people will live better. It doesn't mean the answer is to do nothing at all about systemic issues like meat.
Interesting. When the impact of individuals on the environment is discussed, a huge number of users here can't stress enough how the effort of the people doesn't matter and is irrelevant.
Stop eating meat and dairy, not buying plastic wrapped stuff, using public transport,... That's all of no use and no one should even dare to mention it since this is all just propaganda by big corporations.
Unless it's about home office. Suddenly there is great agreement that we have to do home office to save the climate!
It almost seems like for a lot of people it's not so much about protecting the climate, but about not taking up responsibility when it's uncomfortable.
That's why I can sleep easy at night even though my house is heated by coal.
Ignoring all societal implications of burning coal, heating your own home by burning coal is super bad for your lungs!
Yeah, but you should hear the cool sound it makes when they deliver a truckload of coal down the chute.
Because you are selfish? I mean good on you.
If your job really can be done as well 100% from home (as many people insist) then you’ve got a problem - because that means it can be done as well 100% from home by some onefrom India or similar and they’ll be cheaper. Be careful what you wish for.
I’m of the view that actually this isn’t true for a lot of jobs, particular anything that involves interacting in a team, just people wish it was.
It's not the job tho, it's the competence and calibre of the individual.
I spend far too much time unpicking poor workmanship from outsourced colleagues.
You pay peanuts, you get what?
Exactly - it’s the calibre and competence - and implicit in your comment is the idea the person from India isn’t as good. This isn’t my experience- I know plenty of amazing engineers from India. And it’s not outsourcing if they’re employed by the company- it’s just the job currently done by you.
You, my friend, need to introduce me to these people.
The bright sparks don't hang around.
My experience with outsourced folks from extremely low wage countries is that the quality of the work is extremely low.
I read once that in many of those countries that many companies outsource to there's 3 tiers of tech workers, and every tech worker is trying to get to the third tier as quickly as possible: those good enough to work in tech locally, those good enough to work in tech locally for an overseas firm, and those good enough to work in tech for an overseas firm and gain a visa to get the heck out of the country.
The poor quality work from low wage outsourced labor makes it very easy to let sentiments in the same vein as racism sink in, so one always has to be careful not to let those sentiments transition into racism. But just because some anti-outsourcing sentiment comes from racism and some comes from poor quality work doesn't mean that complaints of poor quality work from outsourced workers directly comes from racism
My job can be done 100% remotely. While in office I am "remote", because team is displaced among different cities.
If an Indian can do better than me, it's fair, they can take it. I am not racist. If my company outsource my job in India to save money, I am happy I won't be working there anymore. A company that value a quick, short term saving over its employees is a bad company. They'd have anyway to re insource my position in 5 years anyway, we know how this things work
It’s not outsourcing if they’re employed by your company, just remote working - they’ll be the employee and the company can care for them as much. They’ll just be more productive because of lower cost of living where they happen to live. If your job can be done fine 100% why would they ever change it back? Remote working isn’t the same as insource/outsource
If they can do that, with better results than what I can offer, I am fine with that. Good luck to all people involved. I'll survive.
To be fair they could already do it. As said we are all "remote" among offices. They have never done it. And I am not afraid for my position.
Corporations should be held responsible for the emissions caused by their employee's commuting.
This would really change the discussion about return to office.
Lol they spent decades doing the opposite, generating the vast majority of emissions with big manufacturing and big livestock, and then successfully shifting blame on poor peasants claiming the planet is heating because they're not sorting their recycling well enough.
Yes and also by telling us to buy expensive electric cars because the environment needs us to.
How about buying electric instead of combustion while trying to not buy a new car unless it's really necessary? That should reduce emissions, shouldn't it?
Companies should be on the hook for all negative externalities. Make them internalities and watch how quick things change
But then how would they exploit the poors?
Yes, but we need to see everyone in person!!!11111 There are intangible benefits and impromptu synergies, etc... /s
Bro, I literally want to punch everyone in the office.
See, and how would you do that if everyone is at home? So office is clearly superior and totally necessary >!/s!<
LOL - game, set, match.
In Nottingham, UK they made it so companies have to pay for every parking space per year over a certain amount, and that money gets invested in public transport. Over time congestion has grown much slower in Nottingham than similar cities, I'm amazed that more cities don't do the same.
This is the way
Modern accounting techniques are amazing and super effective, barely unchanged since their codification in the 1490s by an Italian scholar named Luca Pacioli. The biggest weakness of accounting though is its inability to capture externalities. How does one company record the cost of their employees commute? How do you even begin to calculate that? How do you measure the cost of extra leukemia cases in a town ten years after a train derails nearby? How do you record that in your books? How do you calculate and record the distress these huge noisy shipping vessels cause whales? It's just so subjective and impractical.
In the city of Seattle, for example, every year, companies over a certain number of employees are required to participate in an annual transportation survey. The employees are surveyed. The questions ask how far the employee commutes to work, how long it takes, and by what method (private vehicle, car pool, public transportation), how many days a year they work from home, or take off, etc. The effort is to assess the impact on environment, parking infrastructure, public transportation, roads, etc.
Obviously, there isn't a 100% response rate so the data is extrapolated from the responses to the total number of employees employeed at that site (probably why they only poll companies of a minimum size and larger).
If they wanted to implement something like this in seattle, then the next step would be to take the data they already have and start sending those companies a new bill for a new annual tax based on the assessment.
Lots of taxes work off of an estimated assessment rather than having to account for every nut snd bolt of the thing (property taxes, for example).
So how do you do it? That's how you do it. This isn't rocket science, and you don't need to invent new accounting methods or worry about the accounting-sky falling to accomplish it.
Regarding commuting specifically I meant how do you determine the cost of each extra pound of co2 in the atmosphere. It's inherently incalculable because the effects of climate change are insanely complex. That's my point about externalities. How do you price the value of standing in an open meadow at dusk?
The point of my earlier comment was that the inability to account down to the last carbon atom isn't a valid reason not to start with more generalized high-level estimates and work just from those until/if a better way of doing it is either becomes available or becomes a necessity.
It's like arguing that we might as well not accept the existence of circles because we can't calculate to the final digit of pi....when really, for most things, we don't need that level of precision to still do a good job discussing roundness.
Pi can be rounded. It's infamously difficult to compute externalities in any meaningful sense. Even more difficult to implement a fair and actionable policy for it. You can google "accounting for externalities" and read a bunch f articles and academic papers on the subject, which has been debated for decades.
Beyond fines for dumping chemicals in rivers, and carbon taxes, etc, stronger EPA, etc, I don't really have any good ideas for codifying a real actual plan into law. Probably easier to raise corporate tax rates up a few points from 21% to whatever and use it to fund green energy and cleanup projects etc, rather than change accounting methods to try and capture the costs that way.
Hmm
Oh so you mean it's actually dog shit then, if you can't properly look at external risks outside the clearly defined formulas and can game said fomulas to cook books to one's liking.
You act like these are difficult tasks in the modern era. Commute is pretty simple, what type of vehicle, what are its maintenance costs at certain mileages, what are the crash statistics, etc. Once you have a general fomula you can add an increased payout to cover ireegular externalities to properly hedge against the edge cases. Same shit for the others. It's not subjective and impractical, it's just not the going to be perfectly effiecnt as you need to create a bigger financial bubble to account for edge cases. The problem is hyper fixation on extracting the most captial possible from a business. Stop trying to be the most clean cut business and focus on aiding your communities, working to better infrastructure and stop interference with local governments for tax benefits. Then progressive changes can be beneficial to both and reduce external unmitigated risks as we have a more nuanced model to work with.
That rant is unhinged, you're not playing with a full deck. Not gonna engage with you if you can't have a reasonable conversation in good faith.
Lol, call out your bullshit and you have nothing but a reductionist argument, but sure bud I'm the one not playing with a full deck. Go lick some more boots if you can't engage in constructive conversation.
Come back when you can codify your point into something that can actually be recorded on a balance sheet and P&L. Until then it's not even wrong, it's just..word salad..
Well, for positions that could be moved to WFH perhaps. To others that would be unfair because companies would descriminate by distance to the office.
So you also make sure location discrimination is illegal as well. There can be multiple parts to the legislation.
I've seen that already, at least pre-Covid and in the U.S. Even though I'm pretty sure that asking that during an interview is illegal, I've been on post-interview sessions where someone inevitably says "yeah, but this candidate lives nearly an hour away, while this other candidate lives 15 minutes away..." so they found out somehow.
As they should...
It seems simpler to just tax gas at a more rational rate.
Simpler perhaps, but not really better. High gas prices hurt the poor disproportionately because it's a larger part of their income, they don't have as much control over WFH policies or their locations for reducing commutes, and they can't typically afford to upgrade to fuel efficient vehicles. Plus since almost everything is transported by truck, high gas prices make the cost of everything else go up too.
I think part of the labor shortage is from people who did the math and quit after realising that they weren't actually earning anything after subtracting transportation costs.
If we’re talking about some sort of tax on employers based on the commute of their employees, it’s going to disproportionately affect the poor anyway. If you tax employers though you’re incentivizing further control of their employees lives.
Yes, higher gas prices would increase the cost of shipping and therefore most products, but there’s no world in which we hold corporations accountable for their externalities and consumer goods remain as cheap as they are.
And time. Instead of commuting, I'll mow my grass, water the plants, do some chores, etc.
My wife commutes and can't work remotely. I try to consider that and do more chores to bring balance.
That extra 20-30 minutes in the morning and 40 minutes in the PM is priceless, actually.
I agree.
Time truly is our greatest resource as people and getting some back instead of driving is fantastic.
Took me an hour to get to work, so now I get an extra hour and a half in bed as I get up at 9:30 for my 9am start.
Wait... so you're 30min late for work everyday because you sleep in?
That's someone properly refreshed, ready to do some quality work!
3 day week, 4 hour day is doable, but my goodness would it cause wild upward pressure on wage levels....
https://www.investopedia.com/insights/downside-low-unemployment/
Wage inflation is not good apparently...
So what they are saying is basically large companies have a ridiculous margin and can raise wages (but will not, unless unemployment rate is too low because efficiency) and small companies will go broke or loose all of their workers if bigger ones raise.
That almost sounds like a systemic problem, ain't it?
If you didn't think this was the case in most offices I have a movie to show you
Well if you think like this, it's no wonder they are ending WFH.
Not everyone can be a happy little robot in a suit. Some of us are normal people.
Yep. I have to go into the office 3 days a week. I get up for my first meeting, do some light work, then shower and get ready during my working hours, and leave on the bus. I’ll get there around 11-11:30 usually. Then I’ll leave to be home around 5. I’m not wasting my time on this bullshit. Working from home is way more relaxing and efficient.
One criticism of WFH is that you'll have increased energy bills since you're home all day. Aside from the obvious reasons that's wrong, this provides hard data showing that WFH is better for the environment in addition to being better for literally everyone except commercial real estate investors.
I would assume it takes far more energy on heating/cooling/ventilation systems for large buildings in general than it does for a series of small buildings that have classic ventilation systems called "windows that open to let in fresh air." Something that is pretty rare in office buildings.
EDIT: Furthermore, large buildings usually have automated systems that keep it roughly the same temperature throughout the whole building while individuals in their own homes might try to keep heating/cooling bills low by choosing to only heat/cool specific rooms that they're actually physically using. I know I certainly do this at home, no sense in doing temp control in a room no one is occupying (other than making sure it's above freezing for pipes, etc.).
Yeah. Having a laptop and extra monitor on all day at home probably uses less electricity than the fridge.
Ostensibly you could turn down your thermostat during the day to save money, but almost no one does this
Not if you have pets at home
Maybe I'm weird but I get my doggie sweaters and socks to keep him warm.
And when it's 100+f in the summer? AC has to run enough to keep them cool
This depends greatly on the home and how the home is used for how effective changing the thermostat during the day actually is. You have to keep it mildly in a comfortable temperature range to prevent damage to the home, plus any people or animals at home during the day will reduce the savings available by adjusting the thermostat. There's also the problem of the fact that if you let the home get too far outside of the desired range the HVAC then has to "catch up" for when you get home which may be enough to not only negate but use more energy and if it just stayed at one set temperature.
All of the increased energy use at home is nothing compared to the energy use of a personal car. My family was able to go down to a single vehicle thanks to hybrid work. Literally an entire car off the road. We live in a rural area where traveling between towns is a requirement and driving your own car is the only way to reliably get between towns, so being a single car family and not missing having a second car is a rare luxury where we live
WFH allowance should be mandated -- anyone that wants it for a job where it's possible must be allowed it. it's such a dramatic quality of life difference.
I'm privileged to have a boss not caring where we work from, but i prefer to come into the office once in a while because of my social needs. It's depressing to stay home day after day, but it's more productive.
That's great when it's your choice. The issue is when bosses don't give people the choice.
My boss allows people to WFH officially, but also establishes several small office spaces so people can come to hang out if they feel lonely, or want to get to know their colleagues more. I think this is the best of both world.
for literally no cost too. What exactly are companies losing with WFH? Literaly nothing.
Control. And that is a scary thing to lose if you're a bad manager.
Then hire better managers
Idk how legit it is, but I have read that companies got deals on taxes and such for building their office in the specific city/state and that's with the expectation that the workers will either live in the city or will be from the city, in turn creating tax income from those workers buying things in the city. Basically because wfh employees also move to cheaper cities the companies are losing their benefits
The money they spend on the building and maintenance.
They don't lose that they gain that because they no longer have to pay for a building.
The companies that lose out are the ones that decide to do this stupid hybrid system which is literally the worst of both worlds. The company has a building that they have to pay upkeep on, while also having the IT costs of managing a off-site VPN.
Twenty year leases are hard to get out of.
As someone who works at a company that's permanently hybrid I have to disagree. We now literally have more employees at our corporate office than we have desks, and because all of our employees are 60-90% remote we can pull talent from a larger distance while still being able to have in-person meetings and in-person power sessions for large projects. But by continuing to have an office we have a central location for shipping and receiving, a secure and static space for meeting, working on projects and training plus core infrastructure and roles that don't work well remotely can still be on premises. Its literally the best of both worlds.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against WFH, just providing possible reasons big companies are against it.
That only applies to companies that rent. If they own the building, then an empty office becomes a waste
I disagree on that one. Not everyone wants to WFH or do it full time. Also if they meet with outside persons regularly, like customers and want to do it in person, having an office is useful. Obviously this does not apply to all companies, but it's wrong to say that the hybrid system is the worst.
And how would they not lose that if people were working in the office?
The difference is likely less in developed countries with functional public transport
And if they drive, they drive less ridiculous cars. The fact that the F150 is the most sold car in the US is just mind boggling.
Is it bad that I'm seeing more and more of those huge ass trucks here in Australia?
Those trucks make no sense to me.
Yeah. We gotta tax the shit out of them. By the kilo.
Bloody GM's fault for killing Holden and taking away our beautiful utes
Yes, it's bad.
Oh no, you're infected. No cure.
Yes, as an American that prefers to drive small cars I feel like driving is no longer safe. I can't see past any of the tank sized cars that make up 75% of the vehicles on the road and I know, from experience, how destructive getting hit by one of those vehicles can be. I'm down to driving 1-2 times per month and I'm terrified every time I get behind the wheel. The only reason I keep a car is to visit family that lives about 130km away since the Republicans in my area have killed every train project between my hometown and my parents' town.
Wait is this really true?? Why do so mamy people feel the need to buy trucks?
The sad thing is, I really want a truck for transporting stuff for hobbyist gardening and woodworking, but it's so hard to find a truck that isn't 20ft tall with more cabin than bed space. Two door trucks are getting harder to find.
Because they might need to move a large piece of furniture someday...
Wouldn't they just hire a truck if they ever need that? I mean that's what we did, we moved twice in the last 20 years and one involved moving over 300 miles away to another city
No way, that just makes too much sense
I mean there are companies that do this for you, carry everything over (from the front of house to placing them inside as well, like couches and tv and everything) so you don't do anything really except paying them money (and ask for refund if they broke something 😡). Like I guess it's called forwarding
It's primarily a cultural thing
Is it really a proper car if it does more than four miles to the gallon?
people who burn less gas and consume less resources burn less gas and consume less resources, more news at 11.
but it's nice they're pinning numbers onto the amounts
As a full time remote worker, I can confirm, I'm driving so much less. My commute prior to the pandemic was 18 minutes (12.7 miles one way), so 25 miles round trip with 36 minutes spent driving each work day. My commute was short compared to a lot of other people I worked with who'd drive 45 minutes one way, some 1 hour one way! That's a lot of driving that can be cut out if the role allows for remote work.
I find I'm less angry too. A lot of bad drivers out there. Lol
Ah yah...lots of stupid drivers here just piss me off...lots of traffic compared to last year too...
Just being stuck in traffic when you could be getting shit done is what gets me. Time/money/carbon emissions... just wasteful in every way
I have a theory about the increase of bad drivers that seems to have happened after the pandemic. So most of the higher paid desk jobs where usually people are more intelligent mostly went to WFH. So there are less intelligent people on the road than there used to be. So now it's all idiots in cars taking free reign of the roads. Less traffic causes the idiots to be able to more freely speed and run reds. I know since working from home I drive about 90% less and when I do I am scared for my life.
As someone who works a desk job, no, there are lots of idiots in those jobs, and lots of smart people digging ditches.
I'm lucky enough to have multiple routes to my office.
During the times that taking the back roads is dramatically slower, I'll go on the interstate. Holy hell my stress and anger levels rocket when doing that.
I also eat at home a lot more which has a far lower ecological cost than going out to eat
And healthier, since restaurants tend to go all out on sugar, fat, and salt to make their meals tasty.
Oh I never said anything about eating healthy 😅
Food isn't medicine, it's allowed to be healthy and tasty
For sure, it's just that restaurants more often than not take shortcuts that aren't healthy to achieve the tasty. I fully agree that you can make healthier and still very tasty food at home, they're not mutually exclusive.
Yeah, we make large portions when we cook so I can freeze the leftovers for lunch.
i just worked out im saving 2160 litres of fuel a year by not driving every day
Um... no fucking shit.
Transporting millions of people dozens of miles twice a day OF COURSE has resource costs, in carbon and pollution and energy consumption. This shouldn't be rocket science. Sadly it is for people who are afraid of change.
It also saves the workers money (as they don't have to pay for fuel or public transit), it saves the company money (as they don't have to pay for office space), it saves the environment (as you don't have pollution from commutes), it reduces traffic (as you don't have as many commuters at rush hour), and it's generally good for just about everybody except commercial real estate developers renting out overpriced office buildings and Starbucks that's paying absurd rents to be in the bottom floor of those overpriced office buildings. And of course middle managers who think that hounding their employees in person somehow accomplishes something.
The office is a total waste. A complete, total loss. Fuck that shit.
I went from commuting close to 2 hours daily, with much of that spent stuck in traffic, to working fully remotely. I'd have to get gas every week. Now I go weeks at a time before needing to get gas.
Even better, I used to work for a chemical company part of one of the big oil and gas corporations. Now I work for a green energy company. It cracks me up just how different the two situations are.
Just being able to cook at home has reduced our food waste for sure.
I know it has reduced my food spending and leftover utilization.
I bike to work and turn off my AC/heat and power strips at home before I ride off. I wish everyone could experience how easy this is, I fucking hate driving through traffic.
I wish I could do that again like I did in college.
But we just had 2 months straight with temperatures over 100 degrees where I'm at, and affordable housing is 30 miles from where people work. So going to work would take forever, be miserable, and require a shower upon arrival.
I just got offered an awesome new job that pays half again more than I make now, but it's further into the city, and a 300sft studio apartment within 15 miles of my new job is $2,500/month.
The cheapest home in the City is 1.8 million dollars, and the median price is 2.6 million.
Paying the car note, gas, and rent on 1200sft where I'm at saves me a thousand dollars a month versus moving closer, AND the new job actually pays a fuel stipend because literally nobody at the company lives within a half-hour drive of the office, so it's even better to live where it's cheaper.
We'd move the office, but we're municipal employees and It's hard to justify moving City Hall out of the city
Damn, appreciate the context. Sounds like you're in a Texas city? I didn't know housing costs were that bad there.
I can't say exactly where I'm at for fear of doxing myself, but the general Austin area has gotten very expensive, and there are some small cities in the area that are among the most expensive in the country.
AUSTIN! WE GOT AN AUSTIN GUY HERE!
See, nobody cares :p
Please tell me you were hearing George Costanza's voice in your head as you wrote that...
You mean Wayne Knight right?
Yes, they do.
I would ride to work but there's so many reasons not to. I've tried before, and almost died several times because of asshole drivers and half asleep morons still putting on makeup or drinking coffee or whatever. The bike lanes are a joke and people treat them like passing lanes to get one car length ahead in stop-go traffic. I've ridden with pants on once and got a giant oil stain on my leg from the bike chain. Even if none of that happens, it's extremely hot and humid where i live almost year round, and I wear business casual so I'm drenched in sweat before too long. I wish I could make it work but..no..and of course there's no reliable public transportation.
Are there no showers in your office? I am guessing not.
Nope not even close. I hear some buildings have gyms downstairs so I suppose I could keep work clothes in the locker and ride to and from in street clothes. I'm in the job market so I'll look into it.
Yeah man, I completely understand. I'm very very lucky to live in a cooler climate, only a few miles from my work, with somewhat decent bike lanes (although a joke compared to anywhere in Europe), and I don't sweat too bad lol.
I try to convince a lot of my friends to give bicycling a try but I totally understand if they're afraid of traffic. It's fucked up that we're forced to ride completely unseparated from cars and giant fucking trucks swinging all over the road.
I have solar panels on my roof. My employer's building does not.
I've actually started... walking to work. It takes me like 45min. So it's not a short walk, though it's a very short car commute. But the world is so different now that I'm walking. Having lived in car dependency vs walking is so different. And it's healthy for you too. More people should try it, if i's possible.
id love to do that. unfortunatly its either 90-120 minute drive (each way) or train-train-bike for 6km (2-2.5hr each way)
I'ma be honest with you, I would kill myself if I had to spend around 4-6 hours commuting each day. Or I guess find a different job.
its not hyperbole to say it was a contributer to my depression before. slept 5 hours a night most nights. next to no family time and absolutely zero me time. high stress job. those lost hours didnt help
If it's a nice walk I'm game. I'm continually impressed with how walkable many cities are (except mine of course). If it's ball sweating hot, walking through endless sprawl, dodging cars, on noisy highways, forget it.
I actually started on the day when it was 40°C / 104°F in humidex. Significantly less than favorable conditions. But I figured, if I can do that, I can do any other day. I do have the entire path with sidewalks though. And even a little bit of a park I can cut through.
You're hardcore. I just can't do that though. I'm in good shape but I sweat a LOT and can't show up at the office drenched. It would ruin my day.
That's quite a challenge 45 minutes in hot weather. Specially if there is not shade
Its not the destination, it's the journey
Add to that a podcast, an e-reader or just jogging to work and those 90 min will be pure investment. Well done.
I listen to either music or audiobook. Yeah, time goes fast.
Well, I've traded burning fuel for burning internet and electricity at my home. My electricity at home is mostly solar (from my roof) and hydro from the grid (I live in Washington State).
Working from home spares me ~20 uncompensated transit hours a week, so the emissions difference (whether I use transit or drive) is substantial and so is the cost savings (in fuel and parking). FWIW, my employer will pay for my transit fares (but not fuel or parking) and that's nice and all, but I'm squeamish about transit during flu/covid season because of all those coughing people going in to jobs that don't encourage them to stay home while sick.
I'm able to work more hours when I do it from home because I'm not constrained by transit schedules/catching the last train out of town, and that way I still come out ahead in terms of having time with my kids, and I have time to take grocery shopping and meal planning and prep off of my wife's plate.
It's better this way, not just in terms of cost and environmental impact and quality of life, but productivity-wise.
There are so many CEOs putting their own private portfolio over the companies they supposedly run having a high staff attrition, and yet “they command such big salaries because they take on so much risk”.
I have heard this but do we have any evidence?
It makes sense, but gotta be able to prove it.
In the two weeks since my work mandated three days in the office I've spent $150 on gas. Awesome.
Granted part of that reason is the car broke down and I had to drive the truck.
If the American owner class has taught Americans paying any attention the last century anything about how they operate, it's "Fuck the commons/planet/species/future, burn it all if it makes me a dollar slightly faster!"
Profit in this case being all the corporate park land they own. Propagating human misery at every step for nothing more than to run up their capital ego score, that doesn't even effect their living conditions at all.
Good thing they don't consider their victims, people without significant net worth, human.
Does it even make them any money if someone is inside the building? It seems more like justifying a purchase that didn't pan out.
It's about holding value for them. Small/medium businesses paying rent in perpetuity to the corporate owners of business complexes. Yes, they'd rather others suffer and the planet burn if it means their capital investment is reaping dividends.
That's why we're on the brink, it's not like man made climate change hasn't been known for half a century. Our owners only care about their capital scores. They destroyed our republic and captured our government that was supposed to regulate/check them for us to increase their capital scores. They're destroying the climate and hobbling the species for generations to increase their capital scores.
Why does everyone act surprised when our owner class acts like sociopaths? Thats why they're in our owner class to begin with. Welcome to America, where practiced sociopathy gets you a corner office, and practiced prosocial vocations and empathy gets you a cardboard box on the sidewalk.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/18/the-wealthiest-10percent-of-americans-own-a-record-89percent-of-all-us-stocks.html
Your employer isn't earning money by having you in the office. But they are losing money on the lease or mortgage for the property if you're not in the office.
No, but it makes the cities where those buildings reside a boatload of tax revenue. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a lot of the "return to office" propaganda was coming from local governments freaking out about the abrupt downturn in tax income from commuters.
Corporate real estate is over represented in investments, so the loss is through the stock market, not the company directly
Edit: I actually don’t know if that’s true, but it’s the theory
While a lot of people work for big companies that may have commercial real estate holdings or are invested in REITs or something, most companies pulling workers back are not. And, indeed, they're run by people that are choosing to pay for the privilege of lording their station over the hired help -- though not to the employees, and many of them not purposefully.
They're just taking productivity hits while swearing up and down that we're all lazy thieves who don't do a thing all day while not in the panopticon.
right but the issue is not environment pollution , its the real estate. They all are empty so fuck the environment and bring yo 9-5 ass to office.
i also think theres an inherent bias that 'leaders' tend to be more extroverted and see more value in people 'being together', and to an extent, at least in my observed experience, are unwilling to acknowledge the fact its not the same for everyone
It is downright malicious in many cases, though. A lot of times, business owners will be renting the property their office is based out of, and that property ends up being owned by a family member or friend (or they themselves) who then get to bill the company for quite a sum without that being considered payroll. If they lose the office, they lose money, and that's all they care about.
'Leaders' also tend to own an outsize amount of real estate as well.
I'm deeply introverted but prefer in-office. I'm in a leadership position and gently encourage staff to work in office too when possible. It's not for socializing and awful pizza parties, and you don't have to tell me about your weekend hobbies if you don't want to.
For me it's mainly because my work requires technical skills, problem solving, and creativity, which means it's very helpful for me to know my staff really well in order to properly review their work. If I see something that looks odd it's really helpful to know 'Mary did this and that's her strength so I'm probably wrong' or 'Steve did this and he sucks in this area so it probably is wrong' etc. WFH removes all that and everyone is just a disembodied talking head, or worse, emails and texts only, so I have no idea who I'm talking to.
I truly get the allure and I still wfh when appropriate but again I encourage in office as much as possible.
Non-existent public transport much?
People who live in caves all the time cut emissions by 95%.
This is far better: People who live without social media all the time cut emissions by 66%.
People who eat more beans cut the cheese.
Only at first
People who die cut emissions 100%
Wouldn’t the decay of one’s be a source of emission?
Yeah but that only takes a couple months even in bad conditions.
Ugh I really want to out the company I work at. Of all companies we should be going and advocating for remote.
But we aren't. 'Because being with each is SO valuable'.
$100 says you're company is either stuck in a lease with their building or owns it outright...so glad I work for a WFH company that started that way 20 years ago and never went to having offices.
Lol no I wish!
I swear to god we just had all our leases expire and chose to renew ALL OF THEMMMM.
In fact, for the main office we've just signed a new multi-year lease in a new building. It's smaller tho. Renovations currently in progress.
But no raises. Times are too tough.
Wow that's some idiotic level of thinking from management. What a bunch of narcissistic jackasses
Mi company offer 50% WFH because there is not enough space in the office for everyone
(Also no to ownership. All the offices are leased.)
But why exactly would that mean "no WFH"?
Stuck in a lease? Its not like if people WFH or W in the office the lease would decrease. On the contrary. less people means less bills to pay. (Same for owning the building), in this case just rent it for something else.
I'm not saying it makes sense, it's just old school idiots running these companies who think ass in chair is more productive. They're just sociopath control freaks.
The only thing about the 54% number, for me, is that it's not higher.
This shouldn't be news to anyone.
I’m not sure the people making the decisions about work from home have any concern for its effect on carbon emissions.
That's probably primarily a consequence of bad zoning and transportation policy in the U.S - higher density zoning and public transportation/cycling infrastructure would address this more than enough.
Slapping a WFH-band aid on top of this mess doesn't really address the root cause. That's not to say you shouldn't be able to WFH - work whichever way suits you best - but I don't find this particular argument compelling as for a reason to advocate for WFH.
100% agree, we (the US) truly need better city layouts and public transportation. However, it's nice to see more arguments that are "pro WFH" that aren't just talking about the employees themselves or productivity. Not that it's likely to change the path of management but it's still welcome.
I am like infinitive times more productive when working from home. I am voluntarely coming to office usually 1 day per week and oh boy I don't work in office. Vaping, walking around, chatting, meetings, vaping, snacks, walk outside.
I think I will become pro-office at some point lol. 😅
Yep, and if you have management that still values presenteeism over actual work (because it massages their ego), the 20%-40% reduction in productivity while AT work will go unnoticed, most likely.
Yeah, but they deprive their bosses of the opportunity to walk into the building and have everybody who meets them say "Good Morning Mr. Analwart Sir" before shutting their office door and playing Minesweeper for 3 hours
mild shock
The main causes of remote workers’ reduced emissions were less office energy use, as well as fewer emissions from a daily commute.
I mean yeah, that makes sense,
But I wonder what the numbers are when it comes to everyone keeping their homes heated/cooled all day compared to communal heating/cooling of a building.
People working at home will increase their personal emissions to keep their home office heated/cooled, and I suspect you get more bang for your energy buck if they are all in one spot instead of spread out into multiple buildings.
So sure.. less office energy use, but increased home energy use...
I wonder how the study calculated that or even bothered...
I don't know about your home and office, but every office I worked in had atrocious heating and cooling. People wear hoodies inside all summer because the AC is set too low.
Yup. You need a work hoodie for summer.
And there's always that one girl that has a blanket.
Or the lady who keeps bringing in a space heater and plugging it into their computer power strip despite being told repeatedly not to do that
Or who keeps triggering the breaker because her space heater is melting things under her desk.
It's me. I'm the lady with the space heater (and the blanket, and the hoodie). I have garbage circulation, so I have to warm up my frozen fingers and toes a few times a day or I can't get anything done. If there were any other outlets, I'd use those, but there aren't because my building is old as balls.
I pray that you may find a job that lets you work from the climate that suits you best. Probably tropical.
No joke, I was born on a Pacific island, and I swear that set me up for life to crave 85 and humid all year round. Unfortunately, I live in CO, and I love this dumb state, so here we are. With space heaters and office blankets.
definitely a perk working from home, you decide temperature/sound/etc.
But I'm talking from an overall society energy use perspective.
I'm curious if the energy efficiency of having people in one building compares to the energy efficiency of them spread out.
It will greatly vary, as some are already in apartment buildings sharing that efficiency, some are in better eff rated homes, some are in worse eff rated homes.
Not sure this study can accurately claim 54% .. even if they said +-10%, it's still probably way out to lunch.
Don't forget about all the useless TVs and monitors running in offices all the time.
And heating/cooling/lighting all the empty rooms.
Plus staff for cleaning and security.
You're not wrong that it'd be interesting to see some data, but my intuition is offices are extremely wasteful in a lot of ways. I could be wrong though!
I remember reading about a study pre-pandemic that found remote work was greatly better from an emissions standpoint than in-office work and it mostly came down to the massive amounts of resources spent commuting, and if I remember correctly it even found the emissions cost of commuting by public transit to be significant enough to see improvement by remote work
In the US, people typically drive cars to work. These cars are 3000-6000 pounds that move 20-30 miles by burning oiil at 25% efficiency while also polluting the air with brake and tire dust.
District heating is popular in parts of the world. We could lower emissions caused by commuting and lower emissions due to shitty tiny furnaces.
District heating (and cooling) would also alleviate the problem of people continuing to run ancient furnaces and air conditioners that are simply too old and worn down to be effective
You don't get to cut emission likes this, you will stop eating meat tho so better people can fly on private jets. They deserve it, peasants don't deserve anything. Slave bitches!
Well, meat eating should be cut way down; ideally to zero. But we'll always have this disparity where some people will live better. It doesn't mean the answer is to do nothing at all about systemic issues like meat.
Interesting. When the impact of individuals on the environment is discussed, a huge number of users here can't stress enough how the effort of the people doesn't matter and is irrelevant.
Stop eating meat and dairy, not buying plastic wrapped stuff, using public transport,... That's all of no use and no one should even dare to mention it since this is all just propaganda by big corporations.
Unless it's about home office. Suddenly there is great agreement that we have to do home office to save the climate! It almost seems like for a lot of people it's not so much about protecting the climate, but about not taking up responsibility when it's uncomfortable.
That's why I can sleep easy at night even though my house is heated by coal.
Ignoring all societal implications of burning coal, heating your own home by burning coal is super bad for your lungs!
Yeah, but you should hear the cool sound it makes when they deliver a truckload of coal down the chute.
Because you are selfish? I mean good on you.
If your job really can be done as well 100% from home (as many people insist) then you’ve got a problem - because that means it can be done as well 100% from home by some onefrom India or similar and they’ll be cheaper. Be careful what you wish for.
I’m of the view that actually this isn’t true for a lot of jobs, particular anything that involves interacting in a team, just people wish it was.
It's not the job tho, it's the competence and calibre of the individual.
I spend far too much time unpicking poor workmanship from outsourced colleagues.
You pay peanuts, you get what?
Exactly - it’s the calibre and competence - and implicit in your comment is the idea the person from India isn’t as good. This isn’t my experience- I know plenty of amazing engineers from India. And it’s not outsourcing if they’re employed by the company- it’s just the job currently done by you.
You, my friend, need to introduce me to these people.
The bright sparks don't hang around.
My experience with outsourced folks from extremely low wage countries is that the quality of the work is extremely low.
I read once that in many of those countries that many companies outsource to there's 3 tiers of tech workers, and every tech worker is trying to get to the third tier as quickly as possible: those good enough to work in tech locally, those good enough to work in tech locally for an overseas firm, and those good enough to work in tech for an overseas firm and gain a visa to get the heck out of the country.
The poor quality work from low wage outsourced labor makes it very easy to let sentiments in the same vein as racism sink in, so one always has to be careful not to let those sentiments transition into racism. But just because some anti-outsourcing sentiment comes from racism and some comes from poor quality work doesn't mean that complaints of poor quality work from outsourced workers directly comes from racism
My job can be done 100% remotely. While in office I am "remote", because team is displaced among different cities.
If an Indian can do better than me, it's fair, they can take it. I am not racist. If my company outsource my job in India to save money, I am happy I won't be working there anymore. A company that value a quick, short term saving over its employees is a bad company. They'd have anyway to re insource my position in 5 years anyway, we know how this things work
It’s not outsourcing if they’re employed by your company, just remote working - they’ll be the employee and the company can care for them as much. They’ll just be more productive because of lower cost of living where they happen to live. If your job can be done fine 100% why would they ever change it back? Remote working isn’t the same as insource/outsource
If they can do that, with better results than what I can offer, I am fine with that. Good luck to all people involved. I'll survive.
To be fair they could already do it. As said we are all "remote" among offices. They have never done it. And I am not afraid for my position.