101–110 of 699 posts
> One Google employee ..would likely see their pay cut by about 10% by working from home full-time > The employee was considering remote work but decided to keep going to the office - despite the two-hour commute. 10% paycut in place of 10 hours of commute seems a good deal to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google does not already pay the most. In recent years, they've been known to even 'lowball' SWE candidates with no leverage. Source: https://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Google,Facebook,Microsoft&tr...
Anacdata: My personal comp is on the lower half of the spectrum for my level. Took a small pay cut from the startup I came from. Left for Google because I was tired of proposing changes, having someone else in the org disagree, and then having someone high up say "I talked to my friend at Google and he likes my way better so it's better than yours". Now I'm going to be the Googler and never have to worry about that a…
Class A office space in Manhattan is about $70/sqft, and the average office employee gets 150 sqft allocated (desk, hallway, conference room, supply closets...) Google is probably 170. That's $11900 annually that they save by not having an employee take up office space. No, it's not fungible on a small scale, but it's certainly fungible on a large scale: reduce your office needs by 100 people and you can rearrange de…
With all the secrets going around your average FAANG office, no way would any company sublease a partial floor. Maybe an entire floor, but that creates more issues with the complicated separate lobby and elevator systems they previously built
These companies could maybe cut the costs in a few years, maybe in 10-15. Most of these employees working from home probably won't work there by that time
I really doubt we see headlines such as 'Google leaves 2 floors in Chelsea office' anytime soon, with or without workers in office. They'll just keep paying for empty office space. maybe convert empty cubicles into another smoothie or burrito bar
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because employees in the office are more productive.
Thats quite the leap of judgement, and I'd say its almost certainly not true (and quite possibly the opposite, I know thats been the case for me).
I could achieve before some tasks in 3 mins by just going to respective folks, interrupting them nicely and get the stuff done. Now I am chasing them for a week for same trivial task.
May not be an issue at Google, I would expect them to be less dysfunctional then our broken corp, but most multinationals are super far from well oiled machine.
The cost of commuting on the environment is extremely high. We should be offering incentives to companies to switch to remote work. If 20% of jobs permanently switched to remote, the impact on carbon emissions would be immediate, and extremely positive.
Edit: The OP makes an extraordinary claim about remote work and reduction in CO2. I would assume members of HN would be intellectually curious enough to want to dig deeper.
Companies were never paying based on value provided. They pay market rate which, until recently, was artificially limited to a few expensive markets. With remote, these companies are now able to do what every other large labor driven industry has done and lower their costs by finding labor in cheaper markets.
This is a good thing, it's not healthy to have all your wealth in one small region of a country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google does not already pay the most. In recent years, they've been known to even 'lowball' SWE candidates with no leverage. Source: https://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Google,Facebook,Microsoft&tr...
Anacdata: My personal comp is on the lower half of the spectrum for my level. Took a small pay cut from the startup I came from. Left for Google because I was tired of proposing changes, having someone else in the org disagree, and then having someone high up say "I talked to my friend at Google and he likes my way better so it's better than yours". Now I'm going to be the Googler and never have to worry about that a…
The cost of commuting on the environment is extremely high. We should be offering incentives to companies to switch to remote work. If 20% of jobs permanently switched to remote, the impact on carbon emissions would be immediate, and extremely positive.
Sources please. Edit: The OP makes an extraordinary claim about remote work and reduction in CO2. I would assume members of HN would be intellectually curious enough to want to dig deeper.
> A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.
> This assumes the average gasoline vehicle on the road today has a fuel economy of about 22.0 miles per gallon and drives around 11,500 miles per year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The planet is actually on fire, right now, as you read this. So fuck productivity. We can manage. We must sacrifice the inconvenience of wasting our time commuting because of some arbitrary productivity definition to stop the surface of the planet from being engulfed in flames. There's also a pandemic that's killed 4.3 million people because productivity is apparently more important than containing the outbreak of a…
The planet is always on fire in a couple dozen places. This is about as useful as saying "The planet is actually underwater, right now, as you read this." Of course it is. That's sort of how it works. Whether or not someone rides the train isn't going to change anything.