Wall Street grudgingly allows remote work as bankers dig in • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by sokoloff » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 1:42 AM UTC

humanwhosits wrote: post #179

sokoloff wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that model, why wouldn’t the company insist that you move closer to work to minimize the commuting payment? You picked where you live and what company you applied to work at; they didn’t pick where you live. If that means that you want to only apply for remote positions, that’s certainly your choice; I don’t blame you in the least for it, but expecting a company to pay you as a result of where you chose to live se…

Many people have purchased a house that they intend to remain in, the friction to move houses is often larger than friction to change jobs. Also, there may be a spouse who just doesn't want to move house.

I agree with you on those points. I purchased a house I intend to remain in and my spouse doesn’t want to move either.

None of that is remotely* a concern of my company, though…

* pun was accidental, but pleasing enough to leave it in there.

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

#182

Post by EMM_386 » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 1:43 AM UTC

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…

> Put another way, if I'm worth $Y to you sitting in an office, and I can accomplish the same work at home, from anywhere, just as effectively, why should I get paid any less?

The problem is there are likely very competent engineers living in low cost of living areas who would gladly bid lower than your high "city salary" to maintain their preferred way of life.

Given two comparable candidates, the company will go with the one with the lower salary demands.

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

#183

Post by jdavis703 » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 1:49 AM UTC

mabbo wrote: post #47

bko wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while your competitor says I can live anywhere and remote in I think most companies still consider your location when determining your pay. Facebook does for instance, even going as far as tracking your IP to make sure you're being honest. If you choose to move to a lower cost city, they'll adjust your wage. Not sure about the other way around. That'll probably eventually change, but it could be a useful indicator.…

I think some companies might do that. I think they'll wind up losing money as a result. If you're willing to pay more for identical work because your employee chose to live somewhere more expensive, you're encouraging your employees to live in the most expensive places. On the other hand, if you offer a fair wage for the work done regardless of location, your employees get better value by living somewhere inexpensive…

This works great until they start offshoring jobs to countries where software engineers make less than the total median American wage. Then do we all hope Polish or Indian immigration services approve us for a work visa?

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

#184

Post by travoc » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 1:50 AM UTC

lvl100 wrote: post #166

snicker7 wrote: post #106

I work at a hedge fund. Despite a recent return-to-work mandate, literally no one in my team is in the office. Our job is super stressful and emotionally taxing. Not having wearing to pants makes it somewhat bearable.

Your job is “super stressful and emotionally taxing?” Why do Wall Streeters always grossly overestimate their jobs? Managing money is really not that hard especially in the past 10 years. Even monkeys can do it.

Monkeys can do it, but can they sell it?

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

#185

Post by ITB » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 1:54 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #169

thwarted wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the angle that's not fully communicated here is that the default expectation is 40 hours of work a week at 8 hours per day. At a company that expects you to be in the office for those 8 hours, many people actually spend more than 8 hours in service of the need to be in the office for 8 hours . That is, if it takes you 30 minutes of travel each way to satisfy a mandate to be in an office for 8 hours, you're re…

In that model, why wouldn’t the company insist that you move closer to work to minimize the commuting payment? You picked where you live and what company you applied to work at; they didn’t pick where you live. If that means that you want to only apply for remote positions, that’s certainly your choice; I don’t blame you in the least for it, but expecting a company to pay you as a result of where you chose to live se…

There are a lot of discrimination landmines when you ask employees to live in particular locations. In general, the safest thing to do is to require them to show up in person, and they will decide how far they are willing to live. In fact, if I recall correctly, you can't even ask people if they own a car. Being prescriptive about location can become a lawsuit for class discrimination.

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

#186

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 1:58 AM UTC

toss1 wrote: post #13

lotsofpulp wrote: post #2

>She often woke up at 4:30 a.m. to drive from her home in New Jersey, catch a bus into Manhattan, hop on the subway, squeeze in a workout and get to Jefferies’ trading floor by 7:30 a.m. Work dinners ran late into the night, and redeye flights to London were common. >For Ms. Batchelor, Jefferies’s new policy means coming in to the office three days a week. Although she plans to travel to meetings when necessary, Ms.…

>>Sometimes I wonder if journalists compete to get the most eye rolling quotes. They definitely select the most eye-catching/rolling quotes out of an interview, been there, done that, been astonished at the way the article turned out. That said, however, this is NOT unusual. When I worked at IBM in Manhattan, my manager lived in Poughipse, and woke up at 4:30 every morning to catch the train, slept on the way in, and…

[deleted]

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

#187

Post by throwawaythekey » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 2:05 AM UTC

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 &…

> This is a common but fundamental misunderstanding of what determines your salary. Your salary is determined by the market...

Location based adjustments are replacing this misunderstanding with a different misunderstanding which is roughly "The market rate for the position is determined by where *the employee* lives, not by the many others elsewhere that would be qualified by the job"

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

#188

Post by Buttons840 » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 2:08 AM UTC

MrPatan wrote: post #90

chadash wrote: post #20

While I do think that attitudes towards remote work have fundamentally changed, it'll be interesting to see how things shake out over the next 5-10 years. I suspect that as people start to go into the office more, there will be pressure to do so for your career to advance, in many fields. If your boss's boss works in the office, who is more likely to get a promotion, the person that works from home or the person who…

What's a "promotion"? Is it like quitting and getting a nicer job in another company?

Kind of, but it doesn't increase your pay as much.

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

#189

Post by gutitout » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 2:08 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #96

Wall Street banks posted record profit and revenue during the pandemic, as government stimulus supported consumers stuck at home and companies sought to do deals, proving to bankers and traders that they have little need to work out of the office the way they used to. The attendance numbers are low. The financial industry employs 332,100 people in New York City. In October, only 27 percent of those people came in dai…

Do the Wall Street banks own the mortgages of the commercial office spaces?

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

#190

Post by netizen-936824 » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 2:11 AM UTC

HideousKojima wrote: post #153

netizen-936824 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes they can just choose to starve to death! Couldn't slaves make the choice to be beaten to death or executed for not working? Thank you for proving my point

If you're suggesting that human beings are "slaves" to the natural condition, yes. Work or starve has been the default state of humanity (and all forms of life on Earth) since the dawn of time. It's not "slavery" or "capitalism" or anything else, it's the default state of being.

Oh my apologies, I guess that excuses paying people so little that they can't survive off the wages and need food assistance from the government. Capitalism truly has all the answers!

Companies were in a race to the bottom for wages, and many still are. People working these jobs sure maybe they can get an education, or get a foot in somewhere else. What about the next person to fill the shitty role they left? It's a continuous cycle of shitting on the lowest paid people in society and it needs to stop