[the_gorilla]

Most people can establish friendships that are primarily online. It's not "screen relationships" vs "in-person relationships" for me, it's "real relationships" vs "work relationships". The main thing is that I don't want anything to do with coworkers and would choose not to engage with them even in the office. They're not friends, or family, they're coworkers and they come and go with the money. I had one coworker I liked to talk to, but he got a better job somewhere else and that was the end of that relationship. I would prefer to put more time and energy into actual relationships and not at work relationships.

[ywvcbk]

> coworkers and would choose not to engage with them even in the office

Which is fine and understandable. Some people actually enjoy their work and like spending time with their colleagues (due to shared interests, worldviews etc.).

> actual relationships and not at work relationships.

I don’t see a difference or rather why can’t there be a significant overlap between the two (after this has always been the case for most people). Why wouldn’t you choose to work with the people you enjoy spending time with if you have the option?

[consteval]

> Why wouldn’t you choose to work with the people you enjoy spending time with if you have the option?

Because in practice this doesn't work. Someone gets mad at someone, someone leaves the company, HR gets involved, etc etc.

It's all fun and games but I can't call my work friend a dumb bitch, can I? Well then how good of friends are we?

Similarly, I have many friends who I love dearly, but if I had to live with them, I know our relationship would implode. Being roommates and being friends are ALSO two different things. And, often, living with your best friends isn't a treat - it's a nightmare.

[s1artibartfast]

please understand you are not representative everyone. Most of my friends are coworkers from various points in my career. I also don't care for screen relationships either.

[the_gorilla]

Who else am I representing? Of course I'm representing myself, these are opinions and I'm saying them, which makes them my opinions. The difference is whether you get to force people to go into the office because that's how you make friends.

[s1artibartfast]

For some reason I read your post as a negation or dismissive of the parent post.

I dont think there will be a clear solution to the issue. I think companies will sort into those with in person cultures and remote cultures, but there will always be some dissatisfied minority in each one.

The burden will then be on the employee. If you dont want to work in person, dont accept an offer with that in the job requirements. Inversely, if you want in person relations, dont join a remote company.

[the_gorilla]

That's fair. I was also trying not to be dismissive. It's just a fundamental difference in how we see work relationships.

[s1artibartfast]

That part was kind of interesting to me. I have both "real relationships", and "work relationships", but they are not at all mutually exclusive categories.

For me, the more the two categories overlap, the happier I am. I like working with people who I deeply enjoy and trust. People I can laugh with and be honest with.

Afterall, the reality of a 40 hour week is that I spend as much time with these people as my wife and family. Life is too short for me to spend 40 hours without real connection.

[brailsafe]

> Most of my friends are coworkers from various points in my career

That's fine, but contextually it would seem more important what you'd prefer to be the case, not what is the case.

As in, would you prefer to have a greater portion of your social circle made up of friends outside the places you've worked, or are you happier having most of those come from work?

[s1artibartfast]

I like it

However, the way I view it, having fewer friends from work doesn't imply making more friends outside of work.

I spend 40ish hours the the workplace either way. If I categorically avoid seeking or making friends there, that doesn't mean I'm spending more time looking elsewhere. It just means I'm spending 40hrs/week friendless.

[brailsafe]

I take your point, but to me it doesn't seem like much of that time would be spent in friendship mode anyway, and if you can legitimately call them friends (instead of something more akin to casual acquaintances you met at work and might still have the contact info of or occasionally play games with), you'd need to spend that time outside of work anyway to cultivate those relationships more substantially. Imo there isn't even close to enough time in that 40h block to form enough of a relationship—one that will survive on its own on a regular basis outside that workplace—without also going to a bar after, getting coffee on the weekend, etc..

At least, I'd think the point would be to spend other unrelated time doing other stuff with whoever you have chemistry with, and maybe go so far as to suggest if the only capacity in which you've spent time with someone is at work, it's not really a friendship.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> I spend 40ish hours the the workplace either way

Lets call it 45 or 50 due to commuting. With that said, that seems to be begging the question. If you weren't spending all that time in the workplace or commuting (in other words, if you worked remote), you'd have more time and opportunity to make friends outside of work.

[s1artibartfast]

Still seems like a trade of 40 hrs for 10hrs, no?

Of course, none of this stuff is binary time spent.

[ImPostingOnHN]

I'm sorry, I'm not quite following what you mean by "a trade of 40 hrs for 10hrs".

Working remote, for example, you could hang out with friends or family or neighbors in the middle of the day for lunch, the commute savings time is just a bonus.