The question being asked is that can the work be done from home, sufficiently.
It’s unlikely that many companies are going to be okay with their labor costs going up 10-20% due to less productive workers, so it is effectively the question being asked.
Also, that’s usually a technique used by those who want to redirect the narrative, by throwing over verbose amounts of text out there, so that people turn away from the conversation being talked about.
We’re talking around 550 words here, taking less than 2 minutes to read for the typical adult. The idea that this was done with ulterior motive to overwhelm people with words cracks me up.
BARRERO: It’s anywhere up to a negative 10% effect on productivity.
I think Corporate America can handle up to 10% productivity hit for the welfare and happiness of their employees. The work will still get done.
The question being asked is that can the work be done from home, sufficiently.
It’s unlikely that many companies are going to be okay with their labor costs going up 10-20% due to less productive workers, so it is effectively the question being asked.
No, its not.
You keep moving the goal posts.
We’re talking around 550 words here, taking less than 2 minutes to read for the typical adult.
The comparison is done in relation to all other comments that are posted and their lenghts, not your one comment.
You passed the threshold of verboseness that would turn people off from continuing to read, regardless of the word count.
Also, different age groups can be reading these comments, not just adults.
I think Corporate America can handle up to 10% productivity hit for the welfare and happiness of their employees. The work will still get done.
Ultimately I agree. I explicitly said that we need to stop pretending that it’s better in all ways, and that we need to have an honest discussion to balance the needs of the individual with productivity.
You keep moving the goal posts.
Disagreed.
Also I love how you spent more time complaining about the length of my post than actually making a point.
If you want thoughtless black and white sound bites, I’m probably not the type of person you want to be having discussions with.
Oh I’ve made points, you’ve just been ignoring them, causing me to have to repeat myself to make my point.
lol. No one said you didn’t make a point. And I certainly did not ignore them. Only that you dedicated far more of your post to whining about post length.
I want intellectually honest conversations with real human beings.
I can see from some of your other responses in here, including to me, that this is your go-to. It’s nothing more than an empty ad hominem to avoid actually addressing points. Sorry.
I can see from some of your other responses in here, including to me, that this is your go-to. It’s nothing more than an empty ad hominem to avoid actually addressing points. Sorry.
You are dancing around like crazy. Every point I bring up, instead of you discussing it, you move on to something else about me, trying to kill the messenger.
If you’re being intellectually honest, and if you actually have read some of my other posts, you’d see it’s definitely not an ad hominem, it’s actually what I believe in, so I express it often.
I hate shills and bots, and corporations trying to redirect the narrative away from the truth to serve their own selfish needs, polluting the conversation.
And when I see shills doing that, by signaling via some of their tells, I call them on it.
Every point I bring up, instead of you discussing it,
Name the point I ignored. I’m happy to address the point.
If you’re being intellectually honest, and if you actually have read some of my other posts, you’d see it’s definitely not an ad hominem, it’s actually what I believe in, so I express it often.
Whether you believe it or not doesn’t change the fact that it’s, quite literally, an ad hominem. You might not realize it and it’s just a defense mechanism to avoid facing the fact that you can’t really defend your position. But it still is exactly that.
And when I see shills doing that, by signaling via some of their tells, I call them on it.
Correction: when you can’t actually defend your position, you just throw that out so you don’t actually have to defend your position.
Name the point I ignored. I’m happy to address the point.
Honestly, at this point, I’d have to just point you back up to my first reply to your comment. You’ve moved the goalposts several times from when we started discussing WFH for employees (and not companies).
You are using multiple argumentative techniques to not have to concede a point, and not being intellectually honest in this conversation. We’ve drifted FAR away from the original topic of WFH.
At this point, I’d rather not waste any more of my time on this, but just instead point you back to our first comments and have you take a look at the like/dislike ratios, they are telling (though I’m sure you’re ignore/excuse those away as well).
Honestly, at this point, I’d have to just point you back up to my first reply to your comment. You’ve moved the goalposts several times from when we started discussing WFH for employees (and not companies).
When given an opportunity to make your point, you offer up nothing but vagueness. You see what you hate in yourself in me, but I assure you you are really just seeing yourself.
https://fortune.com/2023/08/03/remote-workers-less-productive-research/ https://www.npr.org/2023/08/04/1192246138/the-evidence-on-remote-work-is-changing https://time.com/6294640/remote-work-winning/
It’s unlikely that many companies are going to be okay with their labor costs going up 10-20% due to less productive workers, so it is effectively the question being asked.
We’re talking around 550 words here, taking less than 2 minutes to read for the typical adult. The idea that this was done with ulterior motive to overwhelm people with words cracks me up.
From the article:
I think Corporate America can handle up to 10% productivity hit for the welfare and happiness of their employees. The work will still get done.
No, its not.
You keep moving the goal posts.
The comparison is done in relation to all other comments that are posted and their lenghts, not your one comment.
You passed the threshold of verboseness that would turn people off from continuing to read, regardless of the word count.
Also, different age groups can be reading these comments, not just adults.
Ultimately I agree. I explicitly said that we need to stop pretending that it’s better in all ways, and that we need to have an honest discussion to balance the needs of the individual with productivity.
Disagreed.
Also I love how you spent more time complaining about the length of my post than actually making a point.
If you want thoughtless black and white sound bites, I’m probably not the type of person you want to be having discussions with.
Oh I’ve made points, you’ve just been ignoring them, causing me to have to repeat myself to make my point.
I want intellectually honest conversations with real human beings. I don’t have to agree with them, but I don’t want to be wasting my time either.
lol. No one said you didn’t make a point. And I certainly did not ignore them. Only that you dedicated far more of your post to whining about post length.
I can see from some of your other responses in here, including to me, that this is your go-to. It’s nothing more than an empty ad hominem to avoid actually addressing points. Sorry.
You are dancing around like crazy. Every point I bring up, instead of you discussing it, you move on to something else about me, trying to kill the messenger.
If you’re being intellectually honest, and if you actually have read some of my other posts, you’d see it’s definitely not an ad hominem, it’s actually what I believe in, so I express it often.
I hate shills and bots, and corporations trying to redirect the narrative away from the truth to serve their own selfish needs, polluting the conversation.
And when I see shills doing that, by signaling via some of their tells, I call them on it.
Name the point I ignored. I’m happy to address the point.
Whether you believe it or not doesn’t change the fact that it’s, quite literally, an ad hominem. You might not realize it and it’s just a defense mechanism to avoid facing the fact that you can’t really defend your position. But it still is exactly that.
Correction: when you can’t actually defend your position, you just throw that out so you don’t actually have to defend your position.
Honestly, at this point, I’d have to just point you back up to my first reply to your comment. You’ve moved the goalposts several times from when we started discussing WFH for employees (and not companies).
You are using multiple argumentative techniques to not have to concede a point, and not being intellectually honest in this conversation. We’ve drifted FAR away from the original topic of WFH.
At this point, I’d rather not waste any more of my time on this, but just instead point you back to our first comments and have you take a look at the like/dislike ratios, they are telling (though I’m sure you’re ignore/excuse those away as well).
When given an opportunity to make your point, you offer up nothing but vagueness. You see what you hate in yourself in me, but I assure you you are really just seeing yourself.
Also lol @ “like ratios” proving correctness.