351–360 of 1001 posts
The days of being able to live on a mountain or in the woods while drawing an SV (or finance for NYC) salary were numbered for the vast majority.
What's problematic is that rents have already spiked and that's before the Big Return.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
does going remote impact one's salary?
Yes, it's based on where you work. Though you can work remote from the same city as your current office and have no pay difference.
I'd like to understand how these market values are calculated. It can't be supply and demand, because if you move to a place with 0 supply you do not maximize your value.
I should be able to say to them "hey, I create $x for you now and I cost $y, but if I move I will make the same $x for you for $(y-z), and it will make no impact on means or ends since I'm entirely remote."
For work that truly is location-based, it's obvious. I once read that a garbage truck driver in NYC earns as much as 100K. I don't know if that number is true, but it kind of makes sense. It's strictly location based and the driver has to live somewhat close to the inner city.
Google was/is location-based, where being in an ultra high cost environment normally is a downside, so it must have unique upsides to counter this. I guess that would be the local talent pool and ecosystem.
Whilst this factor will not be removed, for sure it will be weakened. In any given team, on any given day, there will be remote workers. The other 2 days of the week. Those with a permanent exception. Those with an extension. Things are going to get more flexible and complex which means your team by definition is hybrid. In practice, a hybrid team is quite similar to a fully remote team if you do it well. You should involve the remote workers in anything of any importance.
If your team is hybrid/virtual by definition, the idea to pay based on location of the individual comes into play. The talented 200K engineer that moved to South Dakota to work fully remotely now is a 100K engineer.
I guess 100K is the talent value, when location is stripped. But location hasn't been stripped yet. There's Europe, India, other places...so ultimately what remains may be 50K. Yes, I'm making up these numbers but you get my point.
Those saying that it's bullshit to pay people based on location and think that this means that they can just keep that 200K and work from a different location are in for a rude awakening. It means you compete on talent only. If you're so top notch that purely on talent you continue to earn that pay, good for you. But be aware that you're in competition for that salary with the entire world now, and that world has armies of people hungry and willing to do anything.
And if you think that downward spiral is unfair...no it isn't. This is how it works in the working class in the west and in every class everywhere else. What you consider low pay in developing countries has been the step up for those developing countries. Whilst the west is largely stagnant, they've been building up a better quality of life. As it should be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sucks in the Norcal office but if you're in any of the other offices the max distance is not too bad.
laughs in New York City at getting lost in stairwells of the original 111 8th Ave building or Chelsea market building, and soon (not) going between Chelsea and Hudson Square.
A few months back I was talking to a manager at [huge established software company]. He was making the case that obviously anyone who has moved away from the Bay Area should have their pay cut. He personally has not been in the office for a single day since spring 2020, but since he telecommutes from Berkeley rather than Omaha, he sees no reason to cut his own pay. Later that same day I spoke to someone who's managin…
Despite not making any sense, cost of living adjustments based on your location seem to be the trend that we are heading toward. If you contribute the same work, it seems that it shouldn't matter where you are located, but companies are sociopathic by nature and will reduce costs anywhere they can get away with it. This opens the door to the next step of having salaries match the lowest common denominator - if you ca…
No. Each region will have its own supply and demand that affect prices.
Employees are no different. If Google can find enough qualified people in Ohio for 80% of the salary, that’s the cost of an employee in Ohio. Just because it’s more in CA doesn’t change that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We've proven that the big tech companies can go fully remote and not completely crash and burn, that's about it. Agreed. We've proven that big tech companies can continue to be productive for up to two years going remote. I suspect that that doesn't generalize very well to being completely remote over the long term. It works well when you already have a bunch of personal relationships between teammates that were es…
> Agreed. We've proven that big tech companies can continue to be productive for up to two years going remote. This sentence amuses me a bit. Does that also mean that American Democracy has only been proven to work for up to 245 years? :-)
OP's point is that 2 years of remote work isn't a test that a company can successfully go through a lifecycle of a team of employees. You know, onboard a grad, get them up to speed, get useful productivity, maintain whatever system/documentation, have them leave AND repeat this until the original members of the team are all gone AND then check that things are still ticking along well.
It may be that said companies are "going well" because there is 1 person left holding the fort while a bunch of new starters fumble around with their remote work, not getting up to speed properly.
Unlikely maybe? But the point is that 2 years isn't a proper test of such working conditions.
EDIT: remove political rub.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want my opinion, open space sucks and I can buy my own snacks. After one day at the office, I feel my head is about to explode. Constant noise, bright artificial lights... The only good thing is that I can have informal meetings with my colleagues, talk around the white board and so on... this is very valuable.
I used to get a cold around every 6 weeks from working with people and being in the office with freezing airconditioning all year round. Since working from home I haven't been sick in two years.
I arrived, checked in and was shown to a meeting room. A few minutes after the meeting was supposed to start the receptionist came scurrying in and connected me to the meeting via that cube looking meeting machine they had in every office. Everyone appeared on the screen from various different offices, some at home, and one person in the same building as me.
I regretted that trip the entire flight home.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I absolutely agree - and if it was upto me, they would be gone already - but when the manager is also one of those 'do as little as I can' types of people, they don't really want to open that particular can of worms.
> the manager is also one of those 'do as little as I can' types of people Doesn't sound like the kind of person you should put all that much effort in for.
I have been fully remote my entire career (several decades), in fact in 30+ years have never been on site anywhere for more than 2 weeks total. Wouldn't have it any other way. But as a counter-point, seeing a whole bunch of people who were never remote before, how little work they are actually doing, it is no surprise to me that a lot of employers are going to start forcing - to the extent possible - employees back i…
Speaking for myself, I need the structure and am currently getting very little done. A lot of us aren’t trying to scam the remote work system, we’re just hanging on by our fingernails until the office opens back up.