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

There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

chartr.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 96 posts

Re: There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

#11

Post by birdyrooster »

mullingitover wrote: post #10
mike_d wrote: post #4

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…

> Of course employers want people to come back. They have millions if not billions of dollars in real estate liabilities that are effectively useless. If employers able to get productive work out of employees who aren't using that real estate, the real problem is getting the real estate costs off their books, not getting the butts back in seats in some arbitrary office location. This is a problem for landlords, not e…

What about employers that are also landlords because they bought their real estate to become more efficient?

Re: There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

#13

Post by dh2022 »

mike_d wrote: post #4

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 these offices". Probably productivity decreased? BTW - my current employer (big tech company) also wants to bring everyone back into the office, even though it increased the headcount during the pandemic and there was no campus expansion for 1 and half year due to COVID lockdowns and there is no space for everyone.

Re: There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

#14

Post by whywhywhywhy »

mike_d wrote: post #4

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…

Seeing lots of people on teams very vocal about not wanting to work with remote people either and saying no to anyone that has the inkling of it.

Something the remote crowd might not realize is happening.

Re: There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

#15

Post by mullingitover »

birdyrooster wrote: post #11
mullingitover wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course employers want people to come back. They have millions if not billions of dollars in real estate liabilities that are effectively useless. If employers able to get productive work out of employees who aren't using that real estate, the real problem is getting the real estate costs off their books, not getting the butts back in seats in some arbitrary office location. This is a problem for landlords, not e…

What about employers that are also landlords because they bought their real estate to become more efficient?

Is their real estate making them more competitive now? If not, they should offload that dead weight right away, before their competition does.

Re: There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

#16

Post by SQueeeeeL »

birdyrooster wrote: post #11
mullingitover wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course employers want people to come back. They have millions if not billions of dollars in real estate liabilities that are effectively useless. If employers able to get productive work out of employees who aren't using that real estate, the real problem is getting the real estate costs off their books, not getting the butts back in seats in some arbitrary office location. This is a problem for landlords, not e…

What about employers that are also landlords because they bought their real estate to become more efficient?

I have literally never worked for a non-billion dollar business who owns their real estate and has remote work. Businesses just kinda expect to rent. But also once the national real estate bubble collapses, a lot of people are going to be left "holding the bag"

Re: There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

#17

Post by whywhywhywhy »

PicassoCTs wrote: post #12

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.

Re: There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

#18

Post by mike_d »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #14
mike_d wrote: post #4

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…

Seeing lots of people on teams very vocal about not wanting to work with remote people either and saying no to anyone that has the inkling of it. Something the remote crowd might not realize is happening.

Sounds like a pretty toxic environment. Working with remote employees is no different than working with someone in another office.

Consider the pre-pandemic prevalence of "phone booths" and one person conference rooms, so you can be in a meeting as the only local attendee. As far as the other location is considered, you are remote just with access to a bigger coffee maker.

Re: There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

#20

Post by safetybox »

This is like saying "There aren't enough high-paying jobs".

Remote is one property of a job to select for.

You may not value it high enough to compromise on other parameters.

Sure, there aren't enough remote jobs for everyone to have one.

But everyone doesn't want a remote job, just like everyone wants a high-paying job. (Sure, everyone wants money. But they want to work excessive hours, or work in a field they find questionable? Well, maybe high pay isn't always a good trade-off either.)

Post reply on HN