America's Cubicles Are Shrinking 484
Hugh Pickens writes "In the 1970s, American corporations typically thought they needed 500 to 700 square feet per employee to build an effective office, but the LA Times reports that today's average is a little more than 200 square feet per person, and the space allocation could hit a mere 50 square feet by 2015. 'We're at a very interesting inflection point in real estate history,' says Peter Miscovich, who studies workplace trends. 'The next 10 years will be very different than the last 30.' Although cubicles have shrunk from an average of 64 feet to 49 feet in recent years, companies are looking for more ways to compress their real estate footprint with offices that squeeze together workstations while setting aside a few rooms where employees can conduct meetings or have private phone conversations. 'Younger workers' lives are all integrated, not segregated,' says Larry Rivard. 'They have learned to work anywhere — at a kitchen table or wherever.'"
Brazil (Score:3, Informative)
Next they'll expect us to share a desk too:
http://movieclips.com/Mkivg-brazil-movie-the-moving-desk/ [movieclips.com]
I'm sitting in about 64 ft^2. It sucks but I like making money too.
Re:I have no idea.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Causality (Score:5, Informative)
I'm autistic, and yes, I occasionally need full-body pressure to calm down, but I also need quiet and space to think. I sure as hell don't want to work cheek-by-jowl with a bunch of people I know only by what went into them at lunch and is coming out of them in the afternoon.
Re:Causality (Score:5, Informative)
That is actually somewhat true - we got a dozen hens from a deep-litter farm. Now, in a deep-litter environment the hens are allowed to wander around a big shed with nesting boxes in aisles and a deep layer of straw on the floor. They're fed, they've got room to move and crucially - unlike true "free-range" - they're unlikely to be ripped in half by foxes. It's a pretty good environment for them, really. If you take them out of a deep-litter farm (like when they start to get old, they lay eggs less frequently and become less cost-effective but perfectly okay if you're not looking for an egg every day from each hen) and chuck them into a big field - after you've carefully shot all the foxes, otherwise they won't be there in the morning - then they will instinctively huddle together even closer than they were in the shed. They're really kind of agoraphobic. If you build a small shed for them they'll run inside and won't leave until they get *really* hungry.
Strange, but true. At least, I think it's strange and you'll have to take my word for it that it's true.
Re:Worldwide translation (Score:2, Informative)
Ah! Thanks for this. In Britain, a cubicle is somewhere one goes to have a shit. In the USA they call these stalls. In Britain, a stall is a seat in the theatre.
It's usually not a good idea to confuse any of these things.
Effective office? Prove it! (Score:5, Informative)
"effective office" cubicle is an oxymoron. There have been many studies over the years that show that open office spaces are counter-productive. The book, Peopleware, by DeMarco and Lister covers this and other topics, related to the management of knowledge workers. At the time Peopleware was written, DeMarco and Lister couldn't find a single productivity study that supported the installation of cubicles.
People not found at their desks are often practicing the productivity enhancement called, "hiding from the boss". It is often the only way to get work done around a micro-manager.
Re:Causality (Score:5, Informative)
I think you're misunderstanding the OP's (admittedly colorful and not entirely well explained) point about what constitutes a "shitass" country. He isn't trying to say that the people in the country are bad, or that there aren't intelligent and successful people within them, but rather that these countries treat their workers, especially working class factory workers, like shit. Unsafe conditions, exceptionally poor pay, and long hours are the rule in most developing countries, and the ones he lists are particularly well known for them. His point (again, colorfully expressed) is that most companies will treat people as poorly as they can get away with. Here in the US (and even more so in Europe and some other countries) we have laws and some level of enforcement to ensure that there is a reasonable bottom limit to how badly you can be treated. In most "shitass" countries it's even worse.