[collyw]

So if a remote working can get twice as much done as a London based office worker, is it greedy or value for money they are providing?

[mezis]

In my humble opinion, if a given remote worker can get twice as much done as a on-site worker, they're either:

- more senior, so they'd get paid relatively more anyways;

- exceptional, so they'd get paid relatively more anyways;

- working too many hours, which is never a good idea for knowledge workers, and doesn't last long.

[collyw]

or get better working conditions, not being interrupted every 20 minutes. This is a major motivation for me to find remote work (as well as the fact that the pay is fairly poor where I am).

[mezis]

> not being interrupted every 20 minutes

Completely agree this is a major issue in many companies.

This said, I'd call it more a problem with how a given company works on-site (open plan offices) than an inherent advantage of remote work; in other words, it's incidental.

But then you can't easily convince anyone to abandon silly open spaces these days :)

http://www.designcurial.com/news/survey-reveals-open-plan-44...