You're viewing a single thread.
WFH solves at least three of those problems, but only if our corporate lords allow it.
Wfh only benefits a pretty small subset of the population... Speaking as someone who can't work from home.
It still benefits you by greatly reducing traffic.
I work a graveyard shift so traffic doesn't really affect me. Which I'm sure is at least somewhat common among the people who can't wfh.
Yeah, I work in an underground lair in a barracks. It wouldn't benefit me either, so not much interest in supporting it. I'd rather we vote for faster escalators. Now that's something everyone can use.
In my experience WFH wasn't worth it. The jobs pay way less with shitty benefits and the pressure was intense. Hybrid jobs are much more chill and pay more so I can afford things like a weekly cleaning lady to take some pressure off home life.
It shouldn't be like this but here we are, and we have to make the best of it.
None of that is inherent to WFH, that's just your employers being assholes.
And quite likely intentional to make workers think WFH is inherently bad
Arguably extensible to most of capitalism.
All of this could be less shitty, and it wouldn't not be capitalism.
my wfh job pays above industry average, you just gotta keep switching it up until you win
This is proof that the plural of anecdote is not data. I've been working from home for almost six years and the pay and benefits are great and any pressure I have is made up for by the fact that I can work without pants.
the jobs pay less
You're doing very
Shitty benefits
VERY
pressure intense
VERY wrong.
I don't work from home, but that's a choice of field. As soon as I can, I'll hop back to it.