Live data from Hacker News

3 years ago, remote top paying gigs were hard to find. Today they are the norm

twitter.com

141–147 of 147 posts

Re: 3 years ago, remote top paying gigs were hard to find. Today they are the norm

#141
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the same process, you can also hire a 15 year of experience software engineer from europe or south america for 80k a year, and doing it as a contractor would also mean no payroll taxes. In the remote game, people living in the US have a formidable economic foe. But there is a reason why companies haven't done this massively before, both for international remote and US remote. Very few companies pre-Covid were full…

B2B customers generally have it spelled into the contracts that engineers outside of the US may not access customer data. The value of an engineer who can remediate a customer problem end-to-end for a thousand $500K ARR contracts is far greater than saving $200K/year on salary.

What's the difference between an immigrant working for FAANG today remotely from the US or from another country?

Re: 3 years ago, remote top paying gigs were hard to find. Today they are the norm

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working from home doesn't work. People need to be together physically to create trust in each other. Trust is the base ingredient for successful collaboration. Many teams in current covid situation suffer from team issues. Demotivation, unaligned, conflicts. The fun is gone. Specially visible in software dev teams in which generally people are not the most proactive talkers. Most positive feedback you hear today are…

This is just provably false. Basecamp and GitHub are the famous counterexamples, but there are many, many more. (Although GitHub changed course when they got larger.) Working from home doesn't work for companies who don't know how to do it. It's not the same as working in an office and of course many companies are doing it wrong right now because they leaped into it without any knowledge of how to do it. But plenty o…

Basecamp has about 50 employees

Re: 3 years ago, remote top paying gigs were hard to find. Today they are the norm

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you express an opinion that is shared by many people who are simply comforted and reassured by the status-quo. Additionally, you work for Google, which has been quite stringent about keeping all work on-site. You'd like to keep your job, so cognitive dissonance induces you to conclude - without much evidence - that this status quo is The Best of All Worlds. Working full-time from the office is a condition t…

> You'd like to keep your job, so cognitive dissonance induces you to conclude - without much evidence - that this status quo is The Best of All Worlds. No, I'm just unhappy working from home, and greatly miss the office. You don't need to invent a conspiracy theory. > It is not at all necessary in our modern world I never said it was. I said that many employees find it preferable. I agree some do not. But you're sol…

Your entire counter-argument against me rests on the strawman that I proposed "banning offices", and is therefore invalid.

I never suggested "banning offices" (how would that be achieved, exactly?). In fact I specifically presented a model in which voluntary offices / co-working spaces exist for those who want them.

Re: 3 years ago, remote top paying gigs were hard to find. Today they are the norm

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'd like to keep your job, so cognitive dissonance induces you to conclude - without much evidence - that this status quo is The Best of All Worlds. No, I'm just unhappy working from home, and greatly miss the office. You don't need to invent a conspiracy theory. > It is not at all necessary in our modern world I never said it was. I said that many employees find it preferable. I agree some do not. But you're sol…

Your entire counter-argument against me rests on the strawman that I proposed "banning offices", and is therefore invalid. I never suggested "banning offices" (how would that be achieved, exactly?). In fact I specifically presented a model in which voluntary offices / co-working spaces exist for those who want them.

> In fact I specifically presented a model in which voluntary offices / co-working spaces exist for those who want them.

No, you presented "co-working spaces" as a particular form of alternative to offices. Those two things aren't the same, and from your prior comments, it does seem that you find offices to be bad, and want to replace them with co-working spaces. (co-working spaces, at least to my mind, resemble something where I might rent a space and work in proximity to other people, but we all have various employers)

Further, when I stated that I'd likely choose an employer who provided an office, you resorted to calling me naive and implying I have ulterior motives like trying to keep my job, seemingly suggesting that me commenting negatively about offices would cause Google to fire me.

I maintain that up until this post, everything you said supported a remote-only approach, instead of remote-optional, and that's flawed. If that's a misrepresentation of your actual opinion, than you're more than welcome to clarify it, but I'll reiterate that to many, a co-working space is less useful than a dedicated company office, and both are superior to work from home. Hacker News is not broadly representative of opinions on WFH. I realize that as someone who likes work from home you may not enjoy hearing those things, but they're true.

Re: 3 years ago, remote top paying gigs were hard to find. Today they are the norm

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and they are the one that makes the least money :)

What does that have to do with anything?

One could argue that the lack of free cash flow is correlated with the shitty culture.

I'm not sure I'd make that argument, but Netflix doesn't really count as big tech to me as I'm not convinced they'll survive for much longer.

Re: 3 years ago, remote top paying gigs were hard to find. Today they are the norm

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your entire counter-argument against me rests on the strawman that I proposed "banning offices", and is therefore invalid. I never suggested "banning offices" (how would that be achieved, exactly?). In fact I specifically presented a model in which voluntary offices / co-working spaces exist for those who want them.

> In fact I specifically presented a model in which voluntary offices / co-working spaces exist for those who want them. No, you presented "co-working spaces" as a particular form of alternative to offices. Those two things aren't the same, and from your prior comments, it does seem that you find offices to be bad, and want to replace them with co-working spaces. (co-working spaces, at least to my mind, resemble some…

I mentioned that I expect most employers would still have physical offices in other comments in this thread, though perhaps not directly to you.

Co-working spaces are already used as "mini offices" by employers who hire remotely. One of my recent offers featured one. It's basically a light-weight, low-cost way for some employers to offer physical offices in many diverse locations. Of course, some co-working places are more about mixing different employers.

> you resorted to calling me naive and implying I have ulterior motives like trying to keep my job, seemingly suggesting that me commenting negatively about offices would cause Google to fire me.

No, what I meant by "cognitive dissonance" is that since you are happy working for an employer who doesn't and won't offer remote work, you would like to believe that this is the best fit for you as well. This is the meaning of cognitive dissonance.

> I maintain that up until this post, everything you said supported a remote-only approach, instead of remote-optional, and that's flawed.

I don't believe a "remote only approach" exists, because if an employer chooses to have a physical office, it's completely outlandish that anyone would try to prevent them from doing that. There's simply no basis, rhyme, or reason to try. Like what you gonna do, make offices illegal? :)

> Hacker News is not broadly representative of opinions on WFH. I realize that as someone who likes work from home you may not enjoy hearing those things, but they're true.

We'll see. I'm not very frequent participant on Hacker News, and I have many real-world friends in the tech industry. I can tell you that many of them preferred working remotely long before the pandemic. In fact it's been a common feature of senior engineers working for startups and small-medium sized companies for years now: they often can and do choose to work remotely, which is generally (though perhaps not universally) considered a major perk that they can afford to demand for sacrificing higher comp at the bigger companies.

Speaking of these bigger companies: they have formed the most major resistance to this trend so far, but we are now seeing some of them - Facebook, Salesforce, Twitter - joining in. We will see how it all plays out, but I'm sure you'll agree that 2020 wasn't a bad year for those who prefer to work remotely.

Finally, let me emphasize again that I'm not trying to force anyone to work remotely. Quite the opposite: I am just hoping for more options for all those who want them.

The meaning of my comments to you earlier was:

1. Even if your company goes remote, you will have options like co-working spaces at the very least.

2. You may be happier with some of these options. For example, working from a co-working space (i.e. a small satellite office) in the town where your family lives, which isn't available to you right now.

That is, I believe more distributed work model can bring more satisfaction to both those who want to work 100% from home, and those who prefer a more traditional office environment. It will certainly be better than the only option available with many big employers right now: move to one of very few tech hubs and work in a huge office.

Re: 3 years ago, remote top paying gigs were hard to find. Today they are the norm

#147
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my experience working with global teams, as soon as you have Asia & EMEA, you need to go to two meetings if you actually want to retain said staff. This is annoying, but it's much better than people taking meetings at midnight, which is what happens otherwise.

2 meetings work fine for large company / departmental scope presentations, because only %1-5 of the people in the meeting have to do the midnight thing, but break at the 5-10 person level unfortunately. Someone is forced into a midnight meeting somewhere as part of syncing up planning between teams at the very least.

Not necessarily.

It just requires the manager/lead to run two meetings.

I did this with small teams for many years, and it's annoying but it can be done.

I generally aimed to have everyone together 1/quarter in person to do the higher level planning stuff, which would be much more difficult in the times of Covid.

Post reply on HN