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

Wall Street grudgingly allows remote work as bankers dig in

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 250 posts

Re: Wall Street grudgingly allows remote work as bankers dig in

#121

Post by netizen-936824 »

jkljkljkl1 wrote: post #116
heavyset_go wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slavery isn't just chattel slavery, it comes in many forms, including wage slavery. The abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass had this to say on the subject[1]: > [E]xperience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other From Wikipedia[1]: > Douglass went on to speak…

Working at FB isn't wage slavery, though, is it? If they can work there, cant they go get a similar job?

The issue goes far beyond Facebook and extends to nearly all US companies. It seems disingenuous to suggest otherwise

Re: Wall Street grudgingly allows remote work as bankers dig in

#122

Post by jkljkljkl1 »

netizen-936824 wrote: post #120
jkljkljkl1 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employees have numerous options? Slaves cant just get a new master, it was criminal to escape?

Does an unskilled laborer have options in silicon valley? What options are those?

Seems like goalposts, wasn't the thread about Facebook monitoring it's employees'? What unskilled labor is that?

Re: Wall Street grudgingly allows remote work as bankers dig in

#123

Post by frutiger »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #81
mabbo wrote: post #5

Like all industries that can move to remote, I suspect we will soon see a split. Some companies will embrace it, some won't. And that's not to detract from either side of that choice. It's just a choice that has to be made. What's going to be more interesting is what this does to the market rate for labor compensation between these two pools. Simply put: if you want me to be in the city from 9-6 every day, while your…

> Or put another way, your competitors can compensate me less and I'll consider it a better deal. It seems a lot of people disagree with you: > In an accompanying survey of more than 1,200 technology professionals, Hired found that 75% of employees would begin looking for a new job if their salary were to decrease, while 45% of candidates disagreed with using the cost of living of the employee's location as a baselin…

> If my work is bringing in $X in revenue whether I'm sitting in a chair in an office building you're leasing or at home, I don't see why my share of that should be any less.

This is a common but fundamental misunderstanding of what determines your salary. Your salary is determined by the market, with the tacit assumption that the total revenue generated by your employment will exceed the total cost of your salary & other costs over the course of your career.

Re: Wall Street grudgingly allows remote work as bankers dig in

#124

Post by 01100011 »

snicker7 wrote: post #111
mabbo wrote: post #5

Like all industries that can move to remote, I suspect we will soon see a split. Some companies will embrace it, some won't. And that's not to detract from either side of that choice. It's just a choice that has to be made. What's going to be more interesting is what this does to the market rate for labor compensation between these two pools. Simply put: if you want me to be in the city from 9-6 every day, while your…

At a certain income threshold, rent becomes irrelevant. The difference in top decile salaries between, say, NYC and Pittsburgh is far more significant than the slight difference in a rent.

Rent is only part of it though. I'd gladly pay the equivalent rent in a better city assuming I keep my salary. I'm just trying to get a better quality of life.

Re: Wall Street grudgingly allows remote work as bankers dig in

#125

Post by actually_a_dog »

jxidjhdhdhdhfhf wrote: post #86
actually_a_dog wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or put another way, your competitors can compensate me less and I'll consider it a better deal. It seems a lot of people disagree with you: > In an accompanying survey of more than 1,200 technology professionals, Hired found that 75% of employees would begin looking for a new job if their salary were to decrease, while 45% of candidates disagreed with using the cost of living of the employee's location as a baselin…

But what if you turn that around? If you are currently remote but considering an offer from a place that's in-office, wouldn't you want a higher wage to compensate you for the extra hassle of commuting? That's extra free time you're never getting back.

I'll make whichever argument gets me the most money in a salary negotiation.

Re: Wall Street grudgingly allows remote work as bankers dig in

#126

Post by staticautomatic »

frutiger wrote: post #123
actually_a_dog wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or put another way, your competitors can compensate me less and I'll consider it a better deal. It seems a lot of people disagree with you: > In an accompanying survey of more than 1,200 technology professionals, Hired found that 75% of employees would begin looking for a new job if their salary were to decrease, while 45% of candidates disagreed with using the cost of living of the employee's location as a baselin…

> If my work is bringing in $X in revenue whether I'm sitting in a chair in an office building you're leasing or at home, I don't see why my share of that should be any less. This is a common but fundamental misunderstanding of what determines your salary. Your salary is determined by the market, with the tacit assumption that the total revenue generated by your employment will exceed the total cost of your salary &…

And yet that cost goes down when employers don’t pay for your office space…

Re: Wall Street grudgingly allows remote work as bankers dig in

#127

Post by golemotron »

> In the early days, our team experienced the burn that comes with the realities of having a large monorepo ... This severe lag stemmed from having code housed with so many other services — regardless of whether or not the code actually interacted with or affected those other services. Naturally, it quickly became apparent that this model was incapable of supporting an agile, fast-moving company.

Google would like a word.

Re: Wall Street grudgingly allows remote work as bankers dig in

#128

Post by actually_a_dog »

staticautomatic wrote: post #126
frutiger wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If my work is bringing in $X in revenue whether I'm sitting in a chair in an office building you're leasing or at home, I don't see why my share of that should be any less. This is a common but fundamental misunderstanding of what determines your salary. Your salary is determined by the market, with the tacit assumption that the total revenue generated by your employment will exceed the total cost of your salary &…

And yet that cost goes down when employers don’t pay for your office space…

And my cost goes up when I pay for my own office space.

Re: Wall Street grudgingly allows remote work as bankers dig in

#129

Post by isbvhodnvemrwvn »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #125
jxidjhdhdhdhfhf wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if you turn that around? If you are currently remote but considering an offer from a place that's in-office, wouldn't you want a higher wage to compensate you for the extra hassle of commuting? That's extra free time you're never getting back.

I'll make whichever argument gets me the most money in a salary negotiation.

Which is short sighted if you value your time at all. Spending an hour more a day commuting is directly decreasing the value of your life.

Re: Wall Street grudgingly allows remote work as bankers dig in

#130

Post by [deleted] »

tdfx wrote: post #105
randallsquared wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people who prefer to work in an office, and some who have that preference even if it puts them on a train for an hour or two a day. As long as we don't get legislation to force employers one way or another, I'd expect employees to self-select into those who like being around others all day, and those who prefer to work in a private office. It's a serendipitous solution we've been presented to all those open…

But shouldn't the employees that require extra subsidies (office space, commuting reimbursement, office utilities/supplies) receive the same overall compensation as those working from home with lower expense to the company? It seems to me that if being in the office is an optional preference for some, they should carry the cost of it.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN