Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

It just occurred to me that the "Work in Office" vs. "Work from Home" is a fake employee rights fight, when it's really a fight between competing corporate interests.

The "Work from Office" crowd is the banks and owners of the office buildings, that are losing clients and potential revenue.

The "Work from Home" crowd is the businesses that realize that taking away another worker right (the right to have a place to work provided to them) actually saves substantial costs to the Employer.

YES, having a place to work provided by the employer is a worker BENEFIT, not an OBLIGATION.  Not having to provide your own office supplies, furniture, internet connection, or phone service. Getting paid for being there rather than proving you are producing work.  Having your employer include you in their payroll, with the mandatory deductions, rather than throwing you to the Tax Wolves as an Independent Contractor.

Are there some that would see a working from home as beneficial? Sure.  But I think the "work from home" movement is really about taking AWAY worker benefits  in the guise of rewards.

[Maximum Spin]

But I think the "work from home" movement is really about taking AWAY worker benefits  in the guise of rewards.

You're uh... just figuring that out?
Work from home saves corporations tons of money, at the expense of either employees or taxpayers when the employees figure out they can deduct work expenses.

[EuchreJack]

"See, we can all just pay less to the Government, and we'll all get richer!
...of course, only I can afford the accountants and corporate structure to get away with it, whereas you will probably crumble if the IRS even looks at you.
But Progress!" ::Capitalist Hat::

[Maximum Spin]

"See, we can all just pay less to the Government, and we'll all get richer!
...of course, only I can afford the accountants and corporate structure to get away with it, whereas you will probably crumble if the IRS even looks at you.
But Progress!" ::Capitalist Hat::

Well... no, deducting work expenses is legal and easy and also the IRS makes it mandatory to have free tax software available (I use it).

The main problem I would have brought up is that it doesn't actually reimburse you for the expenses, it just means you aren't TAXED on them, so you're still on the hook for the actual cost, and your employer isn't either way.

[EuchreJack]

"See, we can all just pay less to the Government, and we'll all get richer!
...of course, only I can afford the accountants and corporate structure to get away with it, whereas you will probably crumble if the IRS even looks at you.
But Progress!" ::Capitalist Hat::

Well... no, deducting work expenses is legal and easy and also the IRS makes it mandatory to have free tax software available (I use it).

The main problem I would have brought up is that it doesn't actually reimburse you for the expenses, it just means you aren't TAXED on them, so you're still on the hook for the actual cost, and your employer isn't either way.

Which, for the viewer at home's benefit since you already know this, means employees contractors can legally earn less than minimum wage!

[McTraveller]

This is a bizarre take... I am way better off financially, mental health, and in any other criteria you can think of for working from home.

It's like a broken window fallacy, saying that it's better for society if I don't work from home because then I'm generating tax revenue and paying others higher prices for (say) eating out for lunch instead of eating at home, rather than just not spending that money on "accidental expenses" and instead spending it on things I want.

I mean sure the transition is tough, but what if instead of needing 1000 people in a city to do office building maintenance and janitorial, those 1000 people are free to do something else?

- - - -

Totally different topic, the one for which I came back to this thread to post before seeing the other stuff:

When industries (or individuals) yell about their suppliers having "excessive pricing", is this emotion-based, or is it based on some kind of objective criteria?  More philosophically - if you were a regulatory agency trying to determine if the pricing was excessive, how would you know?

Or more basically, isn't "excessive" always a relative term, not absolute?

Is it even possible to come up with a (fair?) criteria for excessive?  If supply meets demand at some price, how is that excessive?

[Maximum Spin]

I mean sure the transition is tough, but what if instead of needing 1000 people in a city to do office building maintenance and janitorial, those 1000 people are free to do something else?

That's called "not having jobs anymore". What, do you think they're going to learn to code? In this economy?

Nobody made anything resembling a broken windows argument, anyway. We were talking about the need to set aside dedicated office space in your home, heat or cool that space while you're there, supply it in various ways, pay for your own network usage, pay for your own printing and copying, now being responsible for your own paperwork and other materials instead of being able to leave it in someone else's custody at the end of the day... and so on. You may see a small savings from eating at home - statistically, most people eat takeout most of the time anyway - and probably a much larger one you didn't even mention from avoiding the commute, but that doesn't change the fact that your employer is getting away with pushing a lot of responsibility onto your plate and convincing you to like it.

When industries (or individuals) yell about their suppliers having "excessive pricing", is this emotion-based, or is it based on some kind of objective criteria?  More philosophically - if you were a regulatory agency trying to determine if the pricing was excessive, how would you know?

Or more basically, isn't "excessive" always a relative term, not absolute?

Is it even possible to come up with a (fair?) criteria for excessive?  If supply meets demand at some price, how is that excessive?

Nope. It just means "asking more than I hoped to pay".

[McTraveller]

The argument is if you had a society that didn't need janitors then you'd be better off than if you do need janitors.  Sure if you already have a society that needs janitors, and transition to a society that doesn't need them, then you repeat the endless historical pattern of "oh heavens my livelihood was replaced by progress."

Yes it sucks for the individuals caught in the transition, but it's better for society.  It's like the broken window fallacy because you're spending money on janitorial staff that you wouldn't need at all if you didn't have millions of square feet of office buildings.  Yes they have jobs, but it's literally just pushing dirt around. Just like paying people to clean up broken windows - yes you employ them, but that's about it.

Also if your home office makes you spend more on internet, HVAC, and "printing" (do people still do that!?) by more than you save from having no commute - I unequivocally say that You Are Doing Something Wrong.  I mean you're more than welcome to keep working in an office if you want, but for me, it's not worth the tradeoffs.

Even though I do need to get out of my basement (office) more often. 

[MrRoboto75]

Part of it is the sunk cost of already renting all that office space, and needing to justify why it's there.

Or middle management needing to physically micromanage to justify why they are there.

The argument is if you had a society that didn't need janitors then you'd be better off than if you do need janitors.  Sure if you already have a society that needs janitors, and transition to a society that doesn't need them, then you repeat the endless historical pattern of "oh heavens my livelihood was replaced by progress."

Yes it sucks for the individuals caught in the transition, but it's better for society.  It's like the broken window fallacy because you're spending money on janitorial staff that you wouldn't need at all if you didn't have millions of square feet of office buildings.  Yes they have jobs, but it's literally just pushing dirt around. Just like paying people to clean up broken windows - yes you employ them, but that's about it.

Also if your home office makes you spend more on internet, HVAC, and "printing" (do people still do that!?) by more than you save from having no commute - I unequivocally say that You Are Doing Something Wrong.  I mean you're more than welcome to keep working in an office if you want, but for me, it's not worth the tradeoffs.

Even though I do need to get out of my basement (office) more often. 

On the other hand, we're rapidly running out of shit for people to actually do, especially if they're unskilled.  And if people run out of shit to do they just kinda starve to death.

[McTraveller]

Sounds like an opportunity to me! Hydroponics for your meager apartment, so at least you won't starve?

Or, hydroponics for your cardboard box, so you won't starve, even though you got kicked out of your meager apartment? 

It is fascinating, in that "watching a car crash" sense, how, at least in the US, society went mostly from self-sufficient pioneers, to now being in cities where you generally aren't even allowed to grow your own food in meaningful quantities. I don't think a couple potted vegetables or herbs is meaningful, at any rate.

I think this contributes to some of the political divide - some folks still have that "there was literally nothing here, we built it all ourselves through muscle and will" and others are "oh there's nothing here (because it was all taken already) so it's not worth trying."  Yeah I'm being a bit reductio ad absurdum but that's what it feels like to me, being in the "with will and muscle, there's a way".  I mean think about people building in swamps, or deserts, or rainforests... that is physically hard, not just legally hard...

[Maximum Spin]

I mean, I live in the woods, but it's just a fact that you're not going to get most people to go along with it.

Besides, you've still got to produce enough value for society to pay your property taxes, or your stuff will get taken away and given to somebody who will.

[EuchreJack]

Uh, we still got factories and farms.  Those folks do not get to work from home.

Work from home is white-collar work.  Frankly, the whole "work from home" vs. "work from office" is a white-collar "problem".

The fact that one must already have excess space for a home office, a reliable internet connection, and a computer, means we're talking about another white-collar barrier to non-labor intensive work.

[Maximum Spin]

Uh, we still got factories and farms.  Those folks do not get to work from home.

I mean... farmers usually live somewhere on their farms.

[EuchreJack]

Uh, we still got factories and farms.  Those folks do not get to work from home.

I mean... farmers usually live somewhere on their farms.

...good point! 

[EuchreJack]

The "Middle Class" continue to be suckers: Middle-income Americans think prosperity is within reach