Is the Big Tech (e.g. #Google) claim that employees and temps need to be "in the office" to effectively work and share ideas, as opposed to working from home using the advanced video conferencing and other technologies available:
I don't think it's a stark true or false question.
Some level of in person face time has huge benefits, but the marginal advantage drops off quite quickly.
So one day a week in the office or even one day every other week can have huge benefits, but every day in the office ends up having the marginal costs soaring past the marginal benefits.
Consider the existence of academic conferences. They are expensive, and time-consuming, and take a ton of time, and yet academic societies around the world keep having them. Why? Because as irrational as it may be, humans do experience progress from seeing each other in person.
I don't believe these tech companies are stupid or looking to throw money away on the costs of having people come to their offices. I think they actually do see the benefits from people showing up in person.
They are the ones with skin in the game, so I tend to defer to their decisions to spend their resources in this way
Logically I would agree with you.
But I think that human irrationality means that I have to accept that the world doesn't quite follow that theory.
And the biggest ax that I have to grind in this way is the inefficiency of large cities, that run into huge scaling problems. Why do they exist? Why do we accept the cost of supporting large cities with dense populations when we could shoulder the cost of those populations in more efficient, smaller communities?
Well, I think the research shows that there are these irrational factors whereby humans derive value out of being packed together so closely. And that is regardless of technology.
In my ideal world humans would be more efficient and not drive benefit from such costly side factors like overly large cities or face to face time in the workplace, but we are stuck with the humans we are stuck with :-)
Humans are going to spend resources on office buildings, huge cities, and the super bowl, and that's just part of human nature, whether I like it or not, and I don't, but there you go.
@volkris Perhaps surprisingly I studied urban geography at one time. The answers to "why cities" (and "why offices") are almost entirely historical and technological. In the absence of technology that makes delivery of services less practical in suburban, exurban, and rural areas, people tend to congregate.
Of course when we're talking about primary agriculture societies vs. urban societies China is one of the best examples, but I won't get into details here of course.
The bottom line however is that as the work ops and work product of more and more workers involves communication and data, the advancing technology makes the previous arguments for centralization increasingly moot, especially when their primary work involves sitting at a screen.
Two primary reasons for trying to get employees back to the office are financial -- justifying all those big fancy buildings that they rushed to build becomes impossible unless they're filled with warm bodies, and of course, control.
The latter is well exemplified by all the firms who ordered their call center workers back to offices when they were operating completely effectively from home during the pandemic. Unless one really wants to argue that somehow they can't do their work answering calls without in-person meetings, it's obvious that control is the primary factor.
I could go on but you get my drift.
Personally, I am a country person.
I don't like cities. I find them claustrophobic and noisy and generally annoying. But my personal preferences aside, I appreciate that there is a certain economy of scale that seems to benefit from a certain level of urban density, the exact same sort of thing that gives rise to academic conferences getting together in person.
It is irrational, but a bunch of academics all drinking wine and getting a little toasted together does lead to progress.
So that's just how humans are. Whether I like it or not, whether it is good for our mental or physical health or not, that is just how humans are wired.
A zoom meeting is just no substitute for a couple dozen people talking amongst themselves in person in a room.
Literally last week I was unofficially officially required to join a little work party among a bunch of different people to celebrate the end of a project, and you could just see the gears turning for the next project as these people met in person to discuss the past and talk about the future.
It's just how humans are wired, whether we like it or not.
@volkris I don't like parties. I don't like crowds. Cities are great for all kinds of things -- including spreading pandemics. Look, I've lived in L.A. my entire life, and have never had any interest in living anywhere else -- it's a very, very large but very diverse place. But I haven't been downtown in uncountable years, and probably have been standing on a street in downtown L.A. no more than a half dozen times in my life, if that. Too many parties and conferences and meetings turn into booze fests of one kind or another, and for someone who isn't a drinker it's just another irritation and waste of time. There's a "emperor's new clothes" mentality behind a lot of in-office requirements -- that should be impossible for anyone to deny.
@volkris And I'll note that you mentioned the booze before I did! Very uncomfortable for someone like me who doesn't drink, doesn't do drugs, and just wants to get on with my work.
Yeah, but however we want to judge it, for better or worse, this seems to be how humans are.
Just based on real world experience, it's an empirical question, whether we like it or not, and I don't like it, a whole lot of business and correspondence and organization and progress is made when humans meet in person, often with booze involved.
Again I reiterate that I don't like this observation, but it seems to be pretty solid in my experience and also in the experiences of so many others who keep going back to this well
It is what it is even though you and I might not like it to be this way. And we can't deny it just because we wish it was otherwise.
@volkris I believe that as the technology advances, that argument becomes less and less sound. And by the way, I stopped accepting conference invites many years ago. The hassles of travel (like the hassles of commuting) and everything else involved far exceeded the actual technical content and the ancillary activities of chatting with colleagues and fun times.