<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>strken</author><text>This is close to the broken window fallacy. We tend to forget the flow of money is an indirect proxy for work performed. If 20% of construction workers are freed up from fixing roads because of lower traffic, they don&amp;#x27;t just sit around crying, they find other work to do. Same with tech workers, same with everyone. That&amp;#x27;s a net good because the work they&amp;#x27;ll move to will by definition be worth paying someone to do.&lt;p&gt;Wasting time fixing stuff that didn&amp;#x27;t need to be broken is intrinsically bad for the economy, but it&amp;#x27;s disruptive to suddenly have your now-pointless job taken away.</text><parent_chain><item><author>friendzis</author><text>Wellllll.... debatable.&lt;p&gt;This argument of expense rerouting is a bit flawed. Suppose working from home saves one some money that they spend elsewhere. Working from the office they spend that money on fuel, indirectly spend on road maintenance, directly spend on vehicle maintenance where the shop in turn spends on parts and tools and so on. The money one spends circulates in the economy much longer and reaches more actors until it eventually falls back into original pocket. Working from home then they buy more items that have been manufactured in China, spend eating out where restaurants pay mostly wages and farmers, making the chain much shorter.&lt;p&gt;There are different economic health considerations for different spending habits. While not exactly a loss it&amp;#x27;s not entirely equal too.</text></item><item><author>chii</author><text>&amp;gt; This obviously is a financial loss for the economy&lt;p&gt;it&amp;#x27;s not, because the money that was otherwise spent (wasted) can now be deployed else where.&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, why not increase the GDP and economy, by periodically just breaking every window? The replacement is gonna cause huge growth!</text></item><item><author>michaelteter</author><text>This applies everywhere: just because a job or business has existed does not mean it has a right to exist forever.  This is not being harsh on people; it&amp;#x27;s just a reality.&lt;p&gt;The blacksmiths in the horse and buggy days saw demand for their services fall when time and technologies changed.  The coal miners began losing their jobs when we realized that coal as fuel was more harmful than it was beneficial.  History is full of valid jobs which later became unneeded or &amp;quot;invalid&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;Remote work can increase efficiency by eliminating artificial inefficiencies.  Not having to drive to work reduces fuel consumption and lengthens the time between car repairs or replacement.  This obviously is a financial loss for the economy because it shifts the balance back from money to time.  The same goes for office space: less office space need reduces demand which reduces rents (and amount of space leased).  However, that cost can be offset some as home working can increase demand for larger homes.  Even so, a slightly larger home is still probably less cost than a commercial space which goes unused for 12+ hours per day.&lt;p&gt;It smells like much of this anti-remote-work conversation (not TFA, but the topic in general) is because the people accustomed to being in charge have a fear of losing control.  The manager who rules by force or threat has much to fear of subordinates who are out of sight.  However, the manager (leader) who works together with a group of people toward a common goal has little to fear.  Some companies operate very successfully even when management cannot observe the workers.  The alarms and complaints we hear are almost certainly from the bad group.  Eventually that group will be like the dinosaurs.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Is remote work bad for the economy?</title><url>https://www.fractional.work/p/is-remote-work-bad-for-the-economy</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>chii</author><text>&amp;gt; The money one spends circulates in the economy much longer and reaches more actors until it eventually falls back into original pocket.&lt;p&gt;that&amp;#x27;s a total assumption being made. Who knows how the money from an office worker&amp;#x27;s commute gets dispersed. It&amp;#x27;s likely too difficult to track exactly. And it&amp;#x27;s irrelevant to the person how this dispersion happens or why.&lt;p&gt;All they need to care about is that they&amp;#x27;ve eliminated a source of inefficiency, and thus have extra money for either investment or different consumption.</text><parent_chain><item><author>friendzis</author><text>Wellllll.... debatable.&lt;p&gt;This argument of expense rerouting is a bit flawed. Suppose working from home saves one some money that they spend elsewhere. Working from the office they spend that money on fuel, indirectly spend on road maintenance, directly spend on vehicle maintenance where the shop in turn spends on parts and tools and so on. The money one spends circulates in the economy much longer and reaches more actors until it eventually falls back into original pocket. Working from home then they buy more items that have been manufactured in China, spend eating out where restaurants pay mostly wages and farmers, making the chain much shorter.&lt;p&gt;There are different economic health considerations for different spending habits. While not exactly a loss it&amp;#x27;s not entirely equal too.</text></item><item><author>chii</author><text>&amp;gt; This obviously is a financial loss for the economy&lt;p&gt;it&amp;#x27;s not, because the money that was otherwise spent (wasted) can now be deployed else where.&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, why not increase the GDP and economy, by periodically just breaking every window? The replacement is gonna cause huge growth!</text></item><item><author>michaelteter</author><text>This applies everywhere: just because a job or business has existed does not mean it has a right to exist forever.  This is not being harsh on people; it&amp;#x27;s just a reality.&lt;p&gt;The blacksmiths in the horse and buggy days saw demand for their services fall when time and technologies changed.  The coal miners began losing their jobs when we realized that coal as fuel was more harmful than it was beneficial.  History is full of valid jobs which later became unneeded or &amp;quot;invalid&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;Remote work can increase efficiency by eliminating artificial inefficiencies.  Not having to drive to work reduces fuel consumption and lengthens the time between car repairs or replacement.  This obviously is a financial loss for the economy because it shifts the balance back from money to time.  The same goes for office space: less office space need reduces demand which reduces rents (and amount of space leased).  However, that cost can be offset some as home working can increase demand for larger homes.  Even so, a slightly larger home is still probably less cost than a commercial space which goes unused for 12+ hours per day.&lt;p&gt;It smells like much of this anti-remote-work conversation (not TFA, but the topic in general) is because the people accustomed to being in charge have a fear of losing control.  The manager who rules by force or threat has much to fear of subordinates who are out of sight.  However, the manager (leader) who works together with a group of people toward a common goal has little to fear.  Some companies operate very successfully even when management cannot observe the workers.  The alarms and complaints we hear are almost certainly from the bad group.  Eventually that group will be like the dinosaurs.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Is remote work bad for the economy?</title><url>https://www.fractional.work/p/is-remote-work-bad-for-the-economy</url></story>