41–50 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yours is an enviable existence. For real though if you aren’t aware- it’s a social media platform for work(ing ‘professionals’).
What a kind/just way to open, haha. I thought, 'how does one not know about this, but knows HN?'... in less kind terms. Seriously musha68k, steer clear - Facebook but with even weirder content A lot of things like 'I ignored my family for work' with applauding
So a remote job will become a trophy? If you suck, you are in the office kindergarden panopticon, until you either get good or quit?
Where’s the evidence you can deliver if it’s never been seen. Definitely people I trust no matter what their schedule. Definitely people who worked fine before pandemic and people I hired during the pandemic that are close to useless and just pretend to work if they’re not in the office.
What makes you think they'd be any different in an office? Have you actually walked around an office before? A Significant portion of people are faffing about for the majority of the day. But in remote there's no need to do kabuki and swap tabs whenever your boss walks by so you look busy.
I personally think the remote work genie is out of the bottle and it's here to stay! Unless it's a very collaborative phase or (big) hardware related like automotive there will be plenty of remote jobs.
Whether that salary difference is +10% or +90% I would expect it to show up in salary data eventually, and that might be a more accurate indication of the magnitude of the mismatch than job postings.
Another explanation could be: High-paying tech industry jobs are more likely to offer WFH, and are more competitive than low-paying service-industry jobs. There are more service industry job postings, but more people applying for each tech job posting. Thus, 15% of postings offer WFH, but 50% of applications go to WFH positions. Though true, this is not evidence for the conclusion they're drawing.
Not saying this is the explanation, I'm saying that they're picking out one element of a job posting and drawing conclusions from it.
Companies may ask, but usually people quit and productivity drops. For me return to office would be 60% pay cut. Good luck finding another developer :)
Everyone thinks they're a special snowflake, but the reality is that 75% of devs are easily replaced
>Indeed, as reported by The Washington Post, 50% of job applications on LinkedIn last month were for remote work positions, despite the fact that from-home postings made up just 15% of the listings on the site. This doesn't actually tell us anything nor did the source linked in the article clarify further.
This is a bold claim made on a very shaky set of data. Most companies aren't going to explicitly post jobs for remote, just because a lot of talent management platforms don't really support it well. I think the goto is to post the job as available in every location the company has an office, and see what the applicant wants to do. Of course employers want people to come back. They have millions if not billions of dol…
This logic (we have billions in real estate investments that somehow we need to use. So let's use them by bringing people back to the office) is an example of cost sunk fallacy. The 3 multinationals I worked for are aware of this fallacy. Amazon is another example of company writing-off hundreds of millions right away (FirePhone). All this preamble just to point that there are other things beyond just "we must fill t…
My current company hasn't made such a demand, but I've also heard that in others in this country about 20% of people actually prefer to work in person daily, everyone else seems to work remotely a lot of the time.
Now, I'm probably under a certain sampling bias here, but the few times I recently went into the office, it seemed comparatively empty, unless a team had decided to meet up in person for whatever reason.
I guess not everyone enjoys the commute, especially in pretty cold weather (or just thrives while working remotely for a plethora of reasons).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where’s the evidence you can deliver if it’s never been seen. Definitely people I trust no matter what their schedule. Definitely people who worked fine before pandemic and people I hired during the pandemic that are close to useless and just pretend to work if they’re not in the office.
If one cannot tell if someone is being productive remotely, Its hard for me to believe they could actually tell if they were in office. Someone sitting at a desk is not evidence of productivity.
* overhearing organic topics of conversation
* walking by their desk and observing random 'snapshots' of tasks
* observing general work patterns
* observing any red flags of poor work ethic
When someone is remote, you have to explicitly work to gather this information (many don't, and simply wait to judge output at a deadline), rather than the implicit gathering you'd get from being in physical proximity.
It also helps when people are new in their career and/or come from different backgrounds, and don't fully understand productivity expectations. You can easily provide quick feedback, and you can set examples of expected behavior by doing it in front of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This logic (we have billions in real estate investments that somehow we need to use. So let's use them by bringing people back to the office) is an example of cost sunk fallacy. The 3 multinationals I worked for are aware of this fallacy. Amazon is another example of company writing-off hundreds of millions right away (FirePhone). All this preamble just to point that there are other things beyond just "we must fill t…
It's not guaranteed that it's a sunk cost fallacy. I'm going to make up some dumb numbers: suppose people are 5% more productive in the office, but the office has an amortized cost of 10% total compensation. You shouldn't open an office. But say you've purchased an office outright, and maintenance is now only 2% of the cost of total compensation (8% of cost was paid up front). In that case, you would want people in t…