<div class="text-justify">

I was still laying in bed this morning when Smallsteps came in, flopped herself down and had a sad look on her face. I asked her what is wrong and she said that she didn't want to go to school, and the weekends are too short. She then asked why can't we reverse it, and have five day weekends, and two days of school and work instead. 

>Reality sets in early. 

Though, he argument is valid, I said that it might not be possible to learn all she needs to learn in two days of school, and that some things take more time and energy than others. 

![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/23y8onx1QvuCNW9sMsUibWWjBE2TQutgPQ8Uz2SCAuRers8wykQGo3rYpSP6GaJukuB4G.png)

Last week talking with colleagues over lunch, I was telling them about paying a [monthly allowance to Smallsteps](https://peakd.com/hive-167922/@tarazkp/drawing-on-allowance) instead of weekly and why. And I was asked the question how much of a payrise I would need to take a 6 monthly paycheck instead of a monthly one. 

Aside from the inconvenience and need for better money management, because money has a time affected value, the longer one has to wait for the money, the more risk, as well as the less opportunity to put that money to work, so there has to be a factor on top. This got me thinking about how much it would have to be in order for me to consider it, and I think that it would have to be around a 40% increase. This should be enough to cover the risk, as well as the loss of earnings on that money, under normal conditions. On top of that, it would also have to factor in the inflation level, which is quite high currently.

But, there would be benefits to it too, similar to what I mentioned in the post about the allowance, where getting a larger lumpsum would mean that I would be more careful with how I spent it, or would spend it on larger items, rather than just having it disappear with very little to show for it. This means that getting a large amount will give me the opportunity for a significant investment every six months, instead of having to factor in and continually make smaller investments every month. This has risks in it too, as it is harder to time the markets, so cost averaging is also less stable, and it can potentially miss large movements between deposits. 

>Timing is money. 

And I think that this is something that has to be considered with many things, where if we aren't in the right place, at the right time, with the right resources, we are going to miss opportunities. For instance, today I was in at the office and went to sit and have a coffee in the lounge area. I sat there by myself in the corner, and a moment later a salesperson asked if he could sit down, or if I wanted to be alone. So, we get talking and 45 minutes later, we had discussed some not only interesting topics, but some actionable points that will affect some of my future developments. Tomorrow, I will be home waiting for a washing machine to be delivered.

>What will I miss?

It is an impossible question to answer of course, but this is one of the challenges with the people who work from home, and the companies that support it. It is not that a person *can't do their tasks from home,* but there is more to a career than a set of tasks. Working from home has flexibility and it is convenient, but for a lot of value-added information, it is a silo. Conversations just don't happen in the same way, so innovation doesn't happen in the same way either. 

> Convenience and flexibility come at a cost.

Just like if a company has more time to play with my salary if paying every six months, there is a cost to convenience. For instance, supposedly, part of the gender wage gap is actually determined by women valuing flexibility in working hours, which means they choose jobs where they are not tied to specific times at an office. This is mostly due to the way society has developed women as the main caregiver for children perhaps, but it is an illustration of the cost of flexibility in the workplace. 

And, if it is more effective for some tasks so that people are "more productive" working from home, then that means that due to the way businesses work, they will maximize efficiency. If everyone is ten percent more efficient but it doesn't lead to relative increased demand on their products, then they can reduce headcount by ten percent. This way, they can save money on premises, and on people. 

>Win-win.

Not for the people of course, but they have bought into the idea that their convenience is paramount and it is up to a workplace to ensure that employees are happy. Happy employees don't actually matter to a company, unless it impacts on the bottom line, and the cost of making them happy, is lower than the cost of having unhappy employees.

Much like my daughter, people seem to "not want to go to school" and into an environment where they are able to build careers, because it is inconvenient. It gets in the way of their "me time", cramps their style, requires them to have a shower, put on pants, and do their hair. And, there is nothing wrong with that, but I do think that we should consider the cost of our behaviors, rather than just the savings on our time.

I like working from the office though, because I am far more effective there, and I can make a much larger impact with the time I use. I am able to not only have conversations I wouldn't otherwise, but I am also able to build the kind of relationships that facilitate better outcomes. Some of my colleagues I rarely see in person, but I see a wide selection, and they see a wide selection too, meaning that there is a network effect on interaction, rather than in meeting silos. 

>How much of a pay decrease would people be willing to take to work from home? 

It is interesting to consider, because I don't think many people would want to do that and would consider it unfair if they are doing the same tasks as those in the office, but what about their career? I wonder, if there will be some future data about the differences in change of earnings between people who were predominantly in the office, and those who were predominantly working from home over time and as they shift across companies. My intuition says that those who are willing to be inconvenienced, will end up earning more. 

>If true, there is a cost, and it is a decrease in pay.

But, the opportunities missed and the costs incurred, might go unnoticed for a long time.

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]


</div>