If those politicians could read, they would be very angry.
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2025
63 points (97.0% liked)
Science
5508 readers
41 users here now
General discussions about "science" itself
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
If those ~~politicians~~ capitalists could read, they would be very angry.
If those ~~politicians~~ capitalists could read, they would ~~be very angry~~ still not care.
That's exactly why the oligarchs want to shut it down. If ordinary people thrive, they will be less easy to control and farm for wealth. They want us desperate until we're dead. Value should flow from us, not to us.
This article is based on verified sources and supported by editorial technologies.
Well then, list the sources, you twits. Also "editorial technologies" sounds suspiciously like "AI".
Anyone have a link to the actual study?
...Right?
"This article is supported by verified sources and supported by editorial technology"
Cool... So if those sources are verified you won't mind sharing them with me?
Maybe it should be a rule for this instance that any post about a study must have the proper citation
Ruling class, resoundingly: "we don't care."
Oh they do, "must stop this immediately!"
I am all for working from home but i think its disingenuous for these articles to not include which jobs and industries it applies to.
I can do my job entirely remotely but there are clear times when in person collaboration with office colleagues and tradies benefits both my work and theirs. (Professional construction industry)
I think some industries are definately benefit from on site/office work, and some people/personality types that thrive in person or benefit from the mental health benefits of social interaction when they might otherwise not have any.
I love these results, i just think there needs to be more nuance in the reporting.
And those folks who must be in person should benefit from the lower traffic letting people who can work from home do so.
Ask any tradie what driving during Covid was like.
The best setups match tasks, roles, and personalities. Hybrid patterns serve hands-on work or intense collaboration weeks, while full-time home setups suit deep, individual projects. The point is fit: policy should respect job realities and human needs, because alignment prevents friction and protects momentum.
Wait, we're thriving?
Working from home makes life significantly better, but that's a pretty low bar.
The article, at least, doesn't seem to try to define or measure "productivity". Well no shit people are going to be happier not being forced to go somewhere for some period of time five days a week.
Am I happier working from home, or having the choice to do so? Sure. Their data strongly backs that. Do I actually get my work done equally well? For me personally yes but anecdotally group decision-making in remote contexts is much slower.
The research here is ultimately pointless, because it drives zero action to the people who would be deciding WFH policy who are making that choice based on business goals, not personal goals. It might inform politicians if they're driving policy to promote remote work, but without data about productivity tradeoff or lack thereof, there's no informed decision to make.
Those studies have already been done, this is yet another study with the same outcomes. People are happier and more productive working hybrid and WFH.
Two studies in early 2022 validated the views of remote/hybrid work advocates. Research from Owl Labs found that remote and hybrid employees were 22% happier than workers in an onsite office environment and stayed in their jobs longer. Plus, remote workers had less stress, more focus and were more productive than when they toiled in the office. Working from home led to better work/life balance and was more beneficial for the physical and mental well-being of employees.
Now the actual results will vary from person to person and some jobs require some level of in person interaction for a variety of reasons including personal preferences for communication.
Right?! I agree with the vibe, but I was hoping for more detail, a link to the study, etc... But the article just ends with this incredibly vague statement and no sources:
"This article is based on verified sources and supported by editorial technologies."
🤷♂️
When I see this type of thing my default assumption is the actual source is ChatGPT. The article is attributed to "the editorial team" but that link just goes to a list of other articles and credits no-one. But somehow they're putting out like 20 a day, all of them similarly lacking sources or authors, and only linking to other articles on the same site. Plus the writing style is full of AI-isms.
I appreciate this as a balanced take.
I've done a little work from home, and it's nice being home, but it's still work. If you're doing your job right, it's still your job.
Unfortunately, I've also seen that while some people are great at WFH and even do better, a lot of people either don't get anything done, or look very "productive" because they're harassing people still at work with meaningless busywork like sending emails that don't do anything or asking other people to do parts of their job they'd be able to do if they were at work.
I think that partially goes to the point of "what is productivity?" since someone can look busy but not be doing anything that actually does anything positive for either boots on the ground micro views or mile high macro views. "Oh, look at how many emails got sent" great, did that actually help the business run? And sometimes the answer is "yes, and we should let this WFH worker continue at all costs", and in others the answer is "No, and we need to get this person into the office or eliminate the position because either would be better than the status quo"
It's a bit managerial in the way to look at it, but in order to justify WFH, the people working from home must be providing enough value to justify their employment, because too much overhead waste and the business ends, maybe every business embracing WFH ends, and then all that's left is the ones that didn't. To be clear, that's not a moral stance, but a purely pragmatic evolutionary stance: Those things which survive continue and those that die do not.
Thrive? That sounds like commie talk! Get 'em back in the office ASAP
Now we need a genius architect to convert all of that office space into homes for the homeless. That includes changing any laws that would prevent that from happening.
Converting an office building to apartments isn’t as easy as you think. For example, apartments need firewalls between them, and adding them ain’t cheap.
Might be easier to rezone and demolish, but the timelines on that are huge and there’s already a labor shortage in the construction industry.
We’ve painted ourselves into a lot of corners as a nation.
I didn't think it was easy and there are always naysayers, no matter what.
There's no superhero coming to save you. Bother your local city council yourself, or at least donate to groups who will.
Well, I don't need saving, but others do. There is no such thing as a superhero but I agree...there is lots of bureaucracy and administration! Going through proper channels while the world burns is not something I put a whole lot of faith in when the first knee-jerk response to anything is the economic cost. Sometimes the people have to get involved, not the systems (which are decidedly lacking nowadays).
The fish step is realizing that it's a possibility. The second step is to create awareness. This person just made it to step two. Let's cheer them on!
🐠
working does not make us thrive
Having a purpose makes us thrive. In some cases, it could be work.
nah
I prefer working from my office. I don't want everyone to be forced, however.
I like my colleagues, my boss is nice and we collaborate better together on site.
However, if I didn't like my colleagues or my boss I would probably want to work from home full time. Or if I had an expensive or time consuming commute (10-15 min bicycle ride currently)
I like my boss and colleagues, but we have an option to work hybrid and working from home 3 days a week is awesome because there aren't any office distractions and I get to do the in person thing for those that need it twice a week. Some people do go into the office every day because that works better for them, and the flexible arrangement works really well for everyone overall.
Hybrid is the way
Optional is the way.
Now imagine: being home without working!
The almost equivalent claim is that going to work sucks. This second claim is perhaps more instructive.
But how would my boss and project manager continue to make my life miserable? It would take away all their power over me. They wouldn't be able to manipulate me into submission anymore. I would be my own person and not an empty shell that can be shaped into whatever they want. I'm sorry but it just seems unreasonable to work from home and be happy.
I’m WFH and my boss makes me miserable a lot.
But at least I’m not wearing pants.
I used to work for 4 years from home. My productivity went down, I was distracted all the time. I would never do that.
Me too. Seriously hit my mental health because I was feeling so isolated. Even just two days a week from the office was better, the best for me personally is 4 days in the office, one or half from home.
My criticism towards most WFH set ups is that it erodes the unity of workers, making it easier for managers to pick on them. You end up knowing your coworkers less and therefore working less as a team.
- again, my personal experience.
I have worked from home for four years as well. Because I have self control, it has been amazing. It sounds like you need a babysitter, not a job.
A bit harsh maybe on someone for enjoying to work in a different way than you?
Not when these losers are trying to make work from home look bad. I'm honestly betting it's some middle management shill.
Different people prefer doing things in different ways, that should be obvious?
Someone needing to be constantly monitored to be effective isn't a different way of doing something, it is acting like a child.
That is not what they said. I could argue you are acting like a child.
They literally said they couldn't keep them self on task.