Live data from Hacker News

Real reasons why tech giants are hugging “Remote Work”

om.co

21–30 of 62 posts

Re: Real reasons why tech giants are hugging “Remote Work”

#21
post #6

It is a huge bet that productivity in the long run is equal to or greater than the savings in rent. When you do the math on the occupancy cost per square foot relative to the labour cost on a per square foot basis (using a company’s occupancy numbers divided by square footage of the office), it works out to 4 - 7%. If you increase employee turnover slightly or decrease productivity in the long run by a small amount,…

The main potential savings is not from avoiding office leases, it's from hiring engineers for 1/3 of the cost or less from places like Europe, India, and Brazil.

Re: Real reasons why tech giants are hugging “Remote Work”

#22
> 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)

This 100%. But also - my own economic ideology position is that employees should be as self-empowered as possible. If your employer owns all your tools, your workspace, your IP, etc. then they completely control your access to the labour market. The means of production should be as widely distributed as possible to prevent huge power imbalance in favour of employers. Remote Work will mean that people can move companies easily (which means putting up with less shit since you can just move), be setup for freelance work already if they need extra income or want a break from working for somebody else, can learn more about their toolset due to being responsible for setting up an environment to work from home, etc. While there are some downsides, I think this is an overall positive.

Re: Real reasons why tech giants are hugging “Remote Work”

#23
post #6

It is a huge bet that productivity in the long run is equal to or greater than the savings in rent. When you do the math on the occupancy cost per square foot relative to the labour cost on a per square foot basis (using a company’s occupancy numbers divided by square footage of the office), it works out to 4 - 7%. If you increase employee turnover slightly or decrease productivity in the long run by a small amount,…

The main potential savings is not from avoiding office leases, it's from hiring engineers for 1/3 of the cost or less from places like Europe, India, and Brazil.

Large software companies already do this and have offices internationally.

Re: Real reasons why tech giants are hugging “Remote Work”

#24
post #15

Working remote just makes so much more sense. My old routine was - get up, have some coffee, start dreading the one hour commute, then do the one hour commute, then get to work and spend an hour decompressing from the one hour commute... now it’s get up, pour a cup of coffee, start enjoying working on stuff in my bathrobe. And the coffee is way better than what the office was paying for :-)

I'm sure we'll all come to love the new routine — get up, have some coffee, work until you go to sleep.

Even if you personally are capable of enforcing work/life separation there's zero chance an entire company will when so many people already fear the Performance Review looming over their head.

Re: Real reasons why tech giants are hugging “Remote Work”

#26
post #25

I'm saying this for years now. Companies burning billions for real estate alone, while all their teams are working remote in respect to each other anyway. My hopes are, this will relieve cities from the huge burden these companies were...

How are cities hurting? The cities are the ones refusing to build. The landlords are profiting from this and so is the city. (Higher land value => higher tax revenue)

Do you really think this will "relieve" anything except push the problem onto other cities that also refuse to build? (And will inevitably push out people who already had to leave the big city due to the cost)

Re: Real reasons why tech giants are hugging “Remote Work”

#27
post #6

It is a huge bet that productivity in the long run is equal to or greater than the savings in rent. When you do the math on the occupancy cost per square foot relative to the labour cost on a per square foot basis (using a company’s occupancy numbers divided by square footage of the office), it works out to 4 - 7%. If you increase employee turnover slightly or decrease productivity in the long run by a small amount,…

I don't see any companies planning to definitely do this forever but the reality is that this situation is probably going to persist for at least 12 months and at that point it's better to just treat it as a permanent transition from the employees' perspective.

However even with Facebook you can see they're making a lot of decisions that would make the decision easy to reverse. They're still paying rent on all their existing buildings, they're still encouraging people to live in tech hubs via higher salaries.

Re: Real reasons why tech giants are hugging “Remote Work”

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A moment of thought will tell you that lost productivity by being all remote outweighs the benefits money that the FAANGs are saving. Really? Three years working remote and I'm still more productive.

There are some who are adapting well to remote work, like yourself, there are some who would be adapting well to work but other disruptions from COVID-19 reduce their effectiveness when remote, and there are quite a few who are just not effective when remote. At my employer, for example, effectiveness reduction estimates by department range from -20% to over -50% for particularly hardware dependent teams.

I think we hoped for "work from anywhere", but many got "try to work while minding your kids at home, also webcams and stuff are out of stock".

Re: Real reasons why tech giants are hugging “Remote Work”

#29
post #6

It is a huge bet that productivity in the long run is equal to or greater than the savings in rent. When you do the math on the occupancy cost per square foot relative to the labour cost on a per square foot basis (using a company’s occupancy numbers divided by square footage of the office), it works out to 4 - 7%. If you increase employee turnover slightly or decrease productivity in the long run by a small amount,…

I don't see any companies planning to definitely do this forever but the reality is that this situation is probably going to persist for at least 12 months and at that point it's better to just treat it as a permanent transition from the employees' perspective. However even with Facebook you can see they're making a lot of decisions that would make the decision easy to reverse. They're still paying rent on all their…

Shopify is planning to do this on a permanent basis.

https://twitter.com/tobi/status/1263483496087064579

Re: Real reasons why tech giants are hugging “Remote Work”

#30
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A moment of thought will tell you that lost productivity by being all remote outweighs the benefits money that the FAANGs are saving. Really? Three years working remote and I'm still more productive.

It’s also a matter of culture. For remote employees to be fully productive, the company’s culture needs to be heavily geared towards remote. You can’t have 50% of the employees in the office having impromptu hallway conversations and whiteboard discussions while the rest of the team that is remote is half-isolated, separated from the in-office idea generation, and only gets to hear about what was decided by email. Yo…

> the in-office superstars and leaders who are highly paid, and the cheaper remote workers who have a glass ceiling on their career progression and are mostly relegated to the execution of the in-office team’s vision.

I went remote a few years ago, and last year, without even asking permission, I dropped the lease on my overpriced DC tiny condo and moved a few hours away where rent is half the price, and eventually I'll buy a real home for half the cost of DC.

While I definitely had more opportunities to network and hobnob with management while in the office, the reality is it didn't matter in the long run. My salary hasn't gone down since moving, and I save money on tolls, lunches, gas, and now especially rent which is pretty significant.

As a developer, I've never once been offered any sort of 'path' to anything other than continued code grinding and JIRA tasks. At best, I'm often give pseudo-promotions to 'team-lead' which includes more work on my end for no extra compensation, respect, or authority.

There are so many people who CANNOT code, I've never seen any company I worked for helping their developers move towards the business or management teams. In fact, it's almost as if they actively oppose it and gatekeep any knowledge that's related to sales, customers, revenue, etc. After all, what would they be needed for, if we could do their jobs, too? And if we knew what value we provided, we might get a bit more uppity when it came time for raises and bonuses.

Furthermore, most jobs of mine last less than 4 years or so, and if you don't move on you're not getting raises, nor are you accumulating more required buzzwords for the resume.

I kind of gave up on moving up the corporate ranks into a management or more respected, higher paid position years ago, and now I play for myself. That means I continue to accumulate money in investments, and hopefully, by about 45, I won't depend on any company's promises or continued raises, and instead can opt out of the corporate system, go live on a beach, and start my own small business. The odds that the stock market will continue paying 8% are far more likely than any company I end up working for will provide opportunities for more pay, authority, and respect, especially for engineers, regardless of how good of friends I am with management or happy hours I attend with them.

Post reply on HN