• hiddengoat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I trust Forbes to be correct about this about as much as I trust Forbes to be correct about anything.

    They’re a trash rag that exists solely to fellate capitalist shitbags.

    Fuck 'em.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Even if it were accurate, it could entirely be explained by socioeconomic or demographic reasons — e.g. the majority of Gen-Z workers:

      • live with their parents or room mates, thus no peace and quiet when WFH.
      • are too poor to afford food, thus depend on the free coffee, cereal, and fruit to make ends meat.
      • sample size is smaller, with most not working in roles where WFH is even an option (or is viewed negatively by superiors)
      • the oldest of Gen-Z are still in their 20’s, and perhaps at the age where the desire to socialise in person is strongest.

      Basically, the oligarch capitalist mouthpiece is throwing shit at the walls to see what sticks, because commercial real estate is fuck.

    • bitwise@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      What, you don’t like smoothbrained out-of-touch takes about an entire generation based on the transparent dictate of global property holdings companies?

      Old Souls in Young Bodies™ my ass. People are going low-tech to escape pervasive panopticon and the endless stream of fake fucking people and conspiracy peddlers.

      Any time I read these broad-brush generation articles, I have to hold my eyes still to avoid setting my skull on fire with frictive heating.

  • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    11 months ago

    Whoever wrote that article couldn’t be more out of touch with reality. That kind of writing may impress their corporate managers but the rest of us see right through that bullshit for what it is, which is bullshit.

    Also, fuck corporate speak. Every time I see a job ad or a recruiter posting that reads like that, it’s an immediate pass.

    • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      As a Gen X I welcome our Gen Z overlords. I am looking forward to these bright minded individuals to creating the kind of retirement I always dreamed of.

          • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            The majority of 65+ people aren’t going to be able to “retire” in another 10-20 years. The entire premise of retirement funds and pensions is that the planet is not on fire and ecosystems aren’t collapsing… That is to say that inflation is stable and predictable, and younger generations are employable; paying back into the system.

            Go to any retirement calculator and change the annual inflation rate from the 2-4% default (historic reality) to 6-7+% (reality with climate change). For the majority, that will mean the difference between being wealthy into their 90’s, and being broke in their 70’s. Gen X is going to be the first generation to realise the retirement savings they were told would be adequate, is wholly insufficient. Hopefully N2O suicide booths are an option.

            • HubertManne@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              It don’t matter how much you save if you are physically or mentally unable to work. Youd be surprised how many regular folk don’t really make it to 65.

  • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    It makes some sense, TBH. I think we all forget what it’s like to start your first office job and have no context around working for real. You pick up a lot of random tribal knowledge from being surrounded by people who have worked for years. And Gen z doesn’t get that and must notice it missing.

    Also, they’re the age where you still go out and get wasted with coworkers after work. They don’t have kids to get back to.

    Still, once they’ve been at it a few years, i’m sure the novelty will taper off.

    • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Gen z doesn’t get that and must notice it missing.

      Can’t miss what you don’t know. And tribal knowledge getting passed around isn’t represented in movies or TV if at all, so where would they learn about what they don’t know to ask about?

      What does work is having chat and email to document the tribal knowledge and pass that around.

    • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      A good remote job still has communication and ways to bounce ideas off each other. That’s not every company but they certainly exist.

    • HubertManne@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Maybe some types. I never went out with co-workers. During that time I would meet up with my actual friends after work. I have like many people I have worked with but ultimately we are just acquaintances.

  • CheeseBread@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Remote learning has had a devastating effect on education. Gen Z’s time in college and high school was royally fucked by the pandemic. It’s no wonder why they would be less interested in remote work, not because they’re “old souls.”

    • Uranium3006@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s more likely we’re too young to have enough leverage at job negotiations to be able to demand WFH

      • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        There is absolutely stuff lost in pure WFH.

        People of all ages and roles don’t ask the actually important “lack of knowledge” anymore in important meetings, IMO due to a fear of it being recorded and used against them.

        Not to mention the ease of turning around and explaining something to someone, or overhearing a discussion and adding an expert opinion.

        That said, WFH is absolutely the best way forward. We just need to determine how to regain the in-person off the cuff stuff lost in WFH.

        • HubertManne@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I think the biggest thing is teams are not colocated anymore. If your going to be having folks remote one way or the other that eliminates any benefit wfo had. If not that then you get that the benefits are something that is sporadic and limited whereas wfh benefits are constant and every single day (save commuting time, save commutings money, healthier and less expensive food, see your family and/or pets, take a meaningful lunch time that actually refreshes you)

          • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Understand that I’m absolutely on the side of WFH and I fully understand the benefits of it.

            But to describe the loss of WFO knowledge as sporadic is just Trumpian levels of lying.

            Edit: it would be nice to find a way to regain that which was lost without dropping WFH, since losing WFH isn’t a thing.

            • HubertManne@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Im not sure you lose the WFO knowledge though. It just does not come up quite as easily. I actually find WFH results in more specific one on ones where you have to say to someone. I need to understand X, wereas in WFO it was like you just announce something is wierd or what up with X and there is an impromtu back and forth that gets the knowledge transfered. When I say its sporadic. I mean the occasions where it occurs is sporadic. So you can go days or weeks without some sort of tidbit being passed on so for all those days in office it offered no real benefit, whereas you always get the WFH benefits any time you do it.

    • coolkicks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      The study forbes referenced appears to be essentially “how to design offices for gen z”, presuming they really want to use an office.

      The tips to drive virtual engagement are pretty standard management material at this point.

      Would have liked to see some real evidence to “boomerang” being philosophical, that felt like a cheap misuse of the term to seem more relevant than “what kind of games should be in the break room”

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      They’re misinterpreting their own crappy chart. Gen Z falls between Millennials and Gen X, but somehow the author lumps them in with boomers, and then makes up a whole rationale.

      You can probably explain the discrepancy completely by accounting for the people in Gen Z that probably still live with parents/roommates where WFH is impractical compared to going into the office/coworking space.

      • accideath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Perhaps but I for example hated working from home even when I lived in my own one bedroom apartment. I need the casual interactions with collegues that you don’t really get online and a dedicated workspace where I can get into „the zone“ and don’t get distracted that easily.

  • Furedadmins@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    Remote worker advocates are so unbelievably short sighted it’s mind boggling. If you argue that your job can be effectively done remotely (and some can but certainly not as much as advocates claim) then it can be done by someone in developing countries for a fraction of the cost. Not done well but decades of offshoring has shown that companies don’t care how shitty things are done if they save a few bucks.

    • HubertManne@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      being in the office when your work can be done remotely will not make your work less offshoreable. Pretending your work can only be done in an office will not work.