Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Real reasons why tech giants are hugging “Remote Work”

om.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

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

#51

Post by ojbyrne »

rhencke wrote: post #29
lukeschlather wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Planning is never on a permanent basis. That’s what “plan” means.

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

#52

Post by foogazi »

highfrequency wrote: post #21
voisin wrote: 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.

What stops them from doing that already?

Facebook has offices in Brazil: https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations/saopaulo/?p[offic...

Why didn’t they close down the Palo Alto office already?

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

#53

Post by foogazi »

option wrote: post #20
voisin wrote: 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 full WFH also means your talent pool to hire from is more global, and, on average, cheaper

Isn’t there a global talent pool already? All these companies already have had international offices for a while

They are still filing for visas, why didn’t they just hire the employees in their own country

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

#54

Post by option »

foogazi wrote: post #53
option wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The full WFH also means your talent pool to hire from is more global, and, on average, cheaper

Isn’t there a global talent pool already? All these companies already have had international offices for a while They are still filing for visas, why didn’t they just hire the employees in their own country

“why didn’t they just hire the employees in their own country”

- now much more of that will come. Obviously not an on/off switch.

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

#55

Post by foogazi »

option wrote: post #54
foogazi wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t there a global talent pool already? All these companies already have had international offices for a while They are still filing for visas, why didn’t they just hire the employees in their own country

“why didn’t they just hire the employees in their own country” - now much more of that will come. Obviously not an on/off switch.

But what was stopping them from doing that before?

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

#56

Post by moises_silva »

foogazi wrote: post #52
highfrequency wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What stops them from doing that already? Facebook has offices in Brazil: https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations/saopaulo/?p[offic... Why didn’t they close down the Palo Alto office already?

Brazil is a big country, not everyone lives in São Paulo. Why would they close Palo Alto in any case? they want to add to the talent pool, not exchange it. Also, not everywhere you see offices they have engineering teams. The same narrow-minded policies of having teams co-located prevents them from hiring engineers there even if they have offices there.

As a data point, I turned down an offer for FB Palo Alto, one of the main reasons being having to relocate from Toronto. They have offices in Toronto, but no engineering.

Bottom line, they might have some presence in some major cities, but if they're serious about remote work the talent pool definitely grows significantly.

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

#57

Post by codyswann »

ojbyrne wrote: post #51
rhencke wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shopify is planning to do this on a permanent basis. https://twitter.com/tobi/status/1263483496087064579

Planning is never on a permanent basis. That’s what “plan” means.

Narrator's voice: "No. It doesn't."

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

#58

Post by codyswann »

voisin wrote: 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,…

It's not just about saving money on rent. You reduce your labor needs a ton. (Bye, bye, HR). And you also expand your hiring pool (Bye, bye, high salaries).

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

#59

Post by k__ »

bradlys wrote: post #26
k__ wrote: 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)

- companies that settle in a city require office buildings

- people working in these companies require living space

If fewer companies where in the cities, the space for offices and the space their employees need to live would be free.

The prices would go down.

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

#60

Post by cm277 »

All these analyses are forgetting one big reason: culture (and yes, cost too of course). The first office I built (out of 6 or so) was open plan, specifically because I was starting up a tech company in a conservative culture where the 'boss' was behind a close door (often a solid, non-glass door). Open plan meant not just more people per sq.mt. and cheaper construction (which it does, by an order of magnitude); it also meant that the boss was available for any question no matter how trivial by just calling out his name.

That was a huge step back then. I know it's almost expected now (which is probably why we're ready to move to remote/open cultures) but you gotta remember why open plans were revolutionary when they appeared and what cubicle farms meant for the company values, not just its lease payments.

Post reply on HN