I've been happy to see a lot of major companies announcing that they'll be more supportive of remote work, but overall I think people are also putting too much stock in it being a permanent...
I've been happy to see a lot of major companies announcing that they'll be more supportive of remote work, but overall I think people are also putting too much stock in it being a permanent stance. There's nothing preventing them from changing their mind and going back to requiring people come into the office if they decide it's not actually working out.
When I started working at Reddit it was effectively a fully-remote company, with people spread out all over the country. All it took was one event where the CEO decided that problems had been caused by poor communication due to being remote, and suddenly everyone had to decide if they were moving to San Francisco or quitting.
Management positions at tech companies can get replaced fairly often, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see some of these companies walk back or greatly restrict how much remote work they actually allow when some new executives come in and decide they don't like it. A lot of people have no experience managing a fully-remote team and really aren't comfortable with it.
Hiring and onboarding are also a lot more difficult to do remotely, and because a lot of companies have also reduced or halted their hiring right now, they probably haven't fully noticed the impact of this. When hiring starts speeding up again, I think they'll start worrying about how difficult it is to find new employees and get them integrated into existing teams while being remote. That alone could cause some teams to walk back their remote-friendliness.
Right, which is why imo the more likely long term change, at least for the Bay, is more generous WFH policies. As in, you can WFH 2-3 days of the work week. Sometimes, especially for ICs, you...
Right, which is why imo the more likely long term change, at least for the Bay, is more generous WFH policies. As in, you can WFH 2-3 days of the work week. Sometimes, especially for ICs, you really are just going to program for 8 hours, and being in your home office in your PJs is not a problem. Sometimes, especially at the beginning of projects when you're really spending more time hashing out details and specifications, it is good to be at the office, in person with other people you can easily communicate with.
As for migration, rather than full on move to montana time, I think there might be more of a spread to other parts of the Bay, where things are relatively cheaper, like the safe parts of Oakland or something. A longer commute isn't as much of a problem if you only do it twice every week.
And overall this can somewhat, but not that much, reduce traffic for everyone.
I think that regardless of their motivations, it is a good thing that tech companies are accepting the reality that most tech jobs can be done remotely. Requiring employees to be physically...
I think that regardless of their motivations, it is a good thing that tech companies are accepting the reality that most tech jobs can be done remotely. Requiring employees to be physically present even if they don't need to be means lower paid workers get screwed by housing prices near tech hubs and contributes to congestion & pollution as the workers have to commute in to work from suburbs. Additionally, a broader culture of remote work means workers have more freedom to switch companies, since they don't need to worry about relocating.
I don't mean to discount the fact that big tech companies are absolutely taking advantage of a push for remote work to lower worker salaries. But this article reads as if it is totally opposed to remote work, and doesn't really spend any time thinking about the benefits. Also, for what it's worth, I think most software engineers at big tech companies are grossly overpaid for the actual job that they do.
It's true. I was actually ranting a lot last year about how great it would be for housing markets if we had widespread remote work. I honestly think the U.S. government should offer businesses tax...
It's true. I was actually ranting a lot last year about how great it would be for housing markets if we had widespread remote work. I honestly think the U.S. government should offer businesses tax incentives for maintaining some kind of minimum level of remote employment. I think it would instantly relieve congested urban housing markets, and put a big plug in rust belt brain drain.
I agree. One of the more underrated benefits I also see in this is people who live in small cities don't need to leave them to find a programming job and those who live in big cities don't need to...
I agree. One of the more underrated benefits I also see in this is people who live in small cities don't need to leave them to find a programming job and those who live in big cities don't need to cope with rush hour.
I don’t think there are enough piece-work programming jobs to make much of a dent in big city traffic even if they were all 100% remote. Also, getting new jobs is largely about networking, which...
I don’t think there are enough piece-work programming jobs to make much of a dent in big city traffic even if they were all 100% remote.
Also, getting new jobs is largely about networking, which you need to be near a job hub to do. So there are still strong incentives to drive spatial agglomeration.
This would be a great thing...However there would need to be a minimum of infrastructure to help support that mode of work...I'm speaking of at least widely, cheaply available high speed internet...
...people who live in small cities don't need to leave them to find a programming job...
This would be a great thing...However there would need to be a minimum of infrastructure to help support that mode of work...I'm speaking of at least widely, cheaply available high speed internet access; something that is often not as widely, cheaply available as desired in rural areas. (I'm assuming your reference to "small cities" would also include rural areas.) Of course, as @bloup noted about tax incentives, I'll extend their note to wonder aloud if taxes captured elsewhere in the federal government could help subsidize more universal internet access for all which could help all this widespread remote work. (I'm ignoring the obvious, core, already-broken mess that is internet access and the ungodly amounts of money shipped to the big monopoly ISP/carriers across the U.S.)
Admittedly it didn't, but they should too. And you're very correct about high-speed internet, I did a test and it says my PC connection is 2Mbps and my mobile connection was 10 IIRC, (I live in...
(I'm assuming your reference to "small cities" would also include rural areas.)
Admittedly it didn't, but they should too. And you're very correct about high-speed internet, I did a test and it says my PC connection is 2Mbps and my mobile connection was 10 IIRC, (I live in the outskirts of São Paulo) so it's definitely a big problem when it comes to doing this long term.
This! This this this! It's so obvious to me but nobody else seems to get it, and I'm so glad I'm not the one to point it out! Big tech companies have basically shot themselves in the foot by...
This! This this this! It's so obvious to me but nobody else seems to get it, and I'm so glad I'm not the one to point it out!
Big tech companies have basically shot themselves in the foot by keeping headquarters in places like Silicon Valley; they have limited themselves to privileged people who can afford to already live there or have the freedom to relocate and then they claim there isn't enough skilled workers and import them from other countries instead. They pay the big bucks because they all concentrate in the same area and have caused the cost of living to skyrocket, negatively affecting the people who live in the vicinity. And these are all jobs for which there is literally no reason for them to physically be there.
There's an easy, cynical explanation for every decision, but there's no reporting in this article to indicate that it's the "real reason" for the decision, nor does it show that it's the wrong...
There's an easy, cynical explanation for every decision, but there's no reporting in this article to indicate that it's the "real reason" for the decision, nor does it show that it's the wrong decision.
It's likely that they thought about how much it would cost and about liability concerns because why wouldn't you think about those things when making big decisions? But liability concerns aren't the only reason to avoid infecting your workforce, and I think it's also quite likely that many tech workers want to continue to work from home for a while.
Without evidence you can't narrow down intent much at all.
It’s a great point, and it seems like the only solution that really makes sense would be to raise the global living standard so that you don’t have people competing for desperation wages. But can...
It’s a great point, and it seems like the only solution that really makes sense would be to raise the global living standard so that you don’t have people competing for desperation wages. But can you have billionaires, cheap junk that you can buy on whim that will be delivered to you within a week’s time, AND a first world standard of living for all who labor? Personally, I’m not so sure.
I feel like there is such a thing as being overly cynical, and this article is it. For one, Jack Dorsey, for who knows what reason, is on a charity streak. He's personally donated very large sums...
I feel like there is such a thing as being overly cynical, and this article is it. For one, Jack Dorsey, for who knows what reason, is on a charity streak. He's personally donated very large sums of his personal fortune to help the Coronavirus cause. It's not too far of a stretch to say that permanent WFH is just part of that.
Facebook, too, is still testing the waters; only a ten thousand or so will be moved to WFH, and you need to be vetted.
If anything, it's proven to the be opposite of his point; if it's so expensive to accommodate COVID19, why have all of 3 companies had permanent WFH plans? Y'know, there's a lot of companies in the Bay. And in fact, several large ones like Google have explicitly said they expect a return to the office eventually.
Also
So, you want to work remotely for Facebook? Great! All you have to do is figure out your own office space (much like how an Uber driver is responsible for the upkeep of their vehicle) — oh, and settle for less money relative to your colleagues living and working closer to the Bay Area.
This is such a false dichotomy lol. You're really comparing having a nice room in to do work in to keeping a car for rideshare? I'm pretty sure some ikea furniture and a monitor is less than a car. And I'm pretty sure you don't need to purchase separate insurance for your office. And I'm pretty sure that your home office doesn't actively deteriorate (at least, I would hope your dwelling doesn't) like a car. What's home office yearly maintenance? Vacuuming it?
I've been happy to see a lot of major companies announcing that they'll be more supportive of remote work, but overall I think people are also putting too much stock in it being a permanent stance. There's nothing preventing them from changing their mind and going back to requiring people come into the office if they decide it's not actually working out.
When I started working at Reddit it was effectively a fully-remote company, with people spread out all over the country. All it took was one event where the CEO decided that problems had been caused by poor communication due to being remote, and suddenly everyone had to decide if they were moving to San Francisco or quitting.
Management positions at tech companies can get replaced fairly often, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see some of these companies walk back or greatly restrict how much remote work they actually allow when some new executives come in and decide they don't like it. A lot of people have no experience managing a fully-remote team and really aren't comfortable with it.
Hiring and onboarding are also a lot more difficult to do remotely, and because a lot of companies have also reduced or halted their hiring right now, they probably haven't fully noticed the impact of this. When hiring starts speeding up again, I think they'll start worrying about how difficult it is to find new employees and get them integrated into existing teams while being remote. That alone could cause some teams to walk back their remote-friendliness.
Right, which is why imo the more likely long term change, at least for the Bay, is more generous WFH policies. As in, you can WFH 2-3 days of the work week. Sometimes, especially for ICs, you really are just going to program for 8 hours, and being in your home office in your PJs is not a problem. Sometimes, especially at the beginning of projects when you're really spending more time hashing out details and specifications, it is good to be at the office, in person with other people you can easily communicate with.
As for migration, rather than full on move to montana time, I think there might be more of a spread to other parts of the Bay, where things are relatively cheaper, like the safe parts of Oakland or something. A longer commute isn't as much of a problem if you only do it twice every week.
And overall this can somewhat, but not that much, reduce traffic for everyone.
I think that regardless of their motivations, it is a good thing that tech companies are accepting the reality that most tech jobs can be done remotely. Requiring employees to be physically present even if they don't need to be means lower paid workers get screwed by housing prices near tech hubs and contributes to congestion & pollution as the workers have to commute in to work from suburbs. Additionally, a broader culture of remote work means workers have more freedom to switch companies, since they don't need to worry about relocating.
I don't mean to discount the fact that big tech companies are absolutely taking advantage of a push for remote work to lower worker salaries. But this article reads as if it is totally opposed to remote work, and doesn't really spend any time thinking about the benefits. Also, for what it's worth, I think most software engineers at big tech companies are grossly overpaid for the actual job that they do.
It's true. I was actually ranting a lot last year about how great it would be for housing markets if we had widespread remote work. I honestly think the U.S. government should offer businesses tax incentives for maintaining some kind of minimum level of remote employment. I think it would instantly relieve congested urban housing markets, and put a big plug in rust belt brain drain.
I agree. One of the more underrated benefits I also see in this is people who live in small cities don't need to leave them to find a programming job and those who live in big cities don't need to cope with rush hour.
I don’t think there are enough piece-work programming jobs to make much of a dent in big city traffic even if they were all 100% remote.
Also, getting new jobs is largely about networking, which you need to be near a job hub to do. So there are still strong incentives to drive spatial agglomeration.
This would be a great thing...However there would need to be a minimum of infrastructure to help support that mode of work...I'm speaking of at least widely, cheaply available high speed internet access; something that is often not as widely, cheaply available as desired in rural areas. (I'm assuming your reference to "small cities" would also include rural areas.) Of course, as @bloup noted about tax incentives, I'll extend their note to wonder aloud if taxes captured elsewhere in the federal government could help subsidize more universal internet access for all which could help all this widespread remote work. (I'm ignoring the obvious, core, already-broken mess that is internet access and the ungodly amounts of money shipped to the big monopoly ISP/carriers across the U.S.)
Admittedly it didn't, but they should too. And you're very correct about high-speed internet, I did a test and it says my PC connection is 2Mbps and my mobile connection was 10 IIRC, (I live in the outskirts of São Paulo) so it's definitely a big problem when it comes to doing this long term.
This! This this this! It's so obvious to me but nobody else seems to get it, and I'm so glad I'm not the one to point it out!
Big tech companies have basically shot themselves in the foot by keeping headquarters in places like Silicon Valley; they have limited themselves to privileged people who can afford to already live there or have the freedom to relocate and then they claim there isn't enough skilled workers and import them from other countries instead. They pay the big bucks because they all concentrate in the same area and have caused the cost of living to skyrocket, negatively affecting the people who live in the vicinity. And these are all jobs for which there is literally no reason for them to physically be there.
There's an easy, cynical explanation for every decision, but there's no reporting in this article to indicate that it's the "real reason" for the decision, nor does it show that it's the wrong decision.
It's likely that they thought about how much it would cost and about liability concerns because why wouldn't you think about those things when making big decisions? But liability concerns aren't the only reason to avoid infecting your workforce, and I think it's also quite likely that many tech workers want to continue to work from home for a while.
Without evidence you can't narrow down intent much at all.
Also interesting, there are unintended consequences of working from home.
https://tildes.net/~life/oyr/the_unintended_consequences_of_working_from_home
It’s a great point, and it seems like the only solution that really makes sense would be to raise the global living standard so that you don’t have people competing for desperation wages. But can you have billionaires, cheap junk that you can buy on whim that will be delivered to you within a week’s time, AND a first world standard of living for all who labor? Personally, I’m not so sure.
I feel like there is such a thing as being overly cynical, and this article is it. For one, Jack Dorsey, for who knows what reason, is on a charity streak. He's personally donated very large sums of his personal fortune to help the Coronavirus cause. It's not too far of a stretch to say that permanent WFH is just part of that.
Facebook, too, is still testing the waters; only a ten thousand or so will be moved to WFH, and you need to be vetted.
If anything, it's proven to the be opposite of his point; if it's so expensive to accommodate COVID19, why have all of 3 companies had permanent WFH plans? Y'know, there's a lot of companies in the Bay. And in fact, several large ones like Google have explicitly said they expect a return to the office eventually.
Also
This is such a false dichotomy lol. You're really comparing having a nice room in to do work in to keeping a car for rideshare? I'm pretty sure some ikea furniture and a monitor is less than a car. And I'm pretty sure you don't need to purchase separate insurance for your office. And I'm pretty sure that your home office doesn't actively deteriorate (at least, I would hope your dwelling doesn't) like a car. What's home office yearly maintenance? Vacuuming it?
A home office is a tax deduction too. (Often abused.)