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

191–200 of 250 posts

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

#191

Post by cheeze »

throwaway55421 wrote: post #158

I just wish I could find a 100% normal in person job. Like I had in Feb 2020. I don't want to work from home. I don't want to interact with others through a screen. Zoom calls are like torture to me. I don't want to spend all of my time in the same place. I want to go to work on the Tube, have lunch and go to the pub with my colleagues, and then go home. I think video work is another thing we'll just regret in 10 yea…

I find that I agree. I like living downtown in a city and walking into the office. I don't care that rent is higher. I'd be living here regardless.

For me, the biggest thing is that I feel bad when I'm not fully productive at home. Half hour lunch break feels long, and I end up feeling guilty if I don't get enough done. When I'm in the office? Hell yeah I'm taking an hour lunch, possibly longer with some coworkers. We'll have random concersations and shoot the shit about life, work, etc.

I am much happier in the office. I hate remote. It's okay that some folks like it, more power to them. But I want to be in the office with coworkers who have to as well.

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

#192

Post by netizen-936824 »

jkljkljkl1 wrote: post #122
netizen-936824 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The post I initially responded to was about employers in general, and that post was responding to something about Facebook. This transitioned the conversation to the overarching theme of employer/employee relationship and pay

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

#193

Post by netizen-936824 »

xyzzyz wrote: post #73
netizen-936824 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Nobody forced them into slavery, why didn't they just go somewhere else?'

People actually were forced into slavery, and actually are not forced to work for Facebook. Do you often exploit slaves as a rhetorical tool?

Have you heard of the concept of 'wage slavery'?

People at the lowest paid tiers of society do not have a choice

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

#194

Post by gruez »

jdavis703 wrote: post #180
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…

> why wouldn’t the company insist that you move closer to work to minimize the commuting payment The closest homes to work are $1.15MM and $1.5MM. I’m not sure if the CEO is paid enough in cash to qualify for one of these homes on salary alone.

>The closest homes to work are $1.15MM and $1.5MM. I’m not sure if the CEO is paid enough in cash to qualify for one of these homes on salary alone.

Obviously yes? You realize that most people mortgage their homes? A 1.5M, 30 year mortgage at today's rates (3.1%) translates to $76,863/year which seems pretty doable for a CEO (unless you're the garage startup type).

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

#195

Post by macintux »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #145
macintux wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will be interesting to see whether companies can make a hybrid model work reliably. I tend to think that combining remote with on-site leads to worse results, because it’s easy to leave the remote people out of the loop.

That's what the theory says, but my experience disagrees. I find that when the remote workers have to be kept in the loop or the work doesn't get done/get done properly, then managers make sure they are always up to date.

I've not found that to be true in my career. Where remote work is the exception, rather than the rule, the remote employees are frequently in the dark, and often simply fail to work out. Managers can only do so much when you're missing the critical water cooler/hallway/impromptu meetings.

I've worked in remote-only environments, and (effectively) local-only, both of which worked pretty well. Local-first/remote-rarely hasn't worked.

I've not worked in anything close to 50-50, though, so perhaps that has a better shot at succeeding.

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

#197

Post by jonas21 »

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…

Or for that matter, why wouldn't folks decide to live farther away from work to maximize their compensation? I think a lot of people wouldn't mind spending a few hours each day on the train for a 40% raise.

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

#198

Post by seedless-sensat »

isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote: post #129
actually_a_dog wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I cycle into my office every day, 1h round-trip. It certainly increases my quality of life and I'm glad I had the choice (not requirement) to return

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

#199

Post by noisy_boy »

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.

Why did you assume that the person is managing money? They could be a front office developer or support person - having been there, it is indeed stressful when the application is down and angry traders are shouting because they are losing money.

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

#200

Post by aerosmile »

thwarted wrote: post #167
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…

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…

It appears that most people are considering the following two scenarios:

1. most employers will pay the same regardless of where I live, and my job security will be the same as before.

2. most employers will pay a bit less if I work remotely, but that's worth it to me since I can pay less for rent and have a higher quality of life. And yes, my job security will be the same as before.

It shocks me that people are not considering the following scenario:

3. most employers will realize that a person living 100 miles away represents the same value to my company as one that lives 5,000 miles away. The latter, of course, is far cheaper, more motivated, and far less likely to cause any problems since they also have far fewer protections. And no, they are not any less talented.

So far, the pandemic has been all about the workforce side of the story. We're about to find out what the employer side of the story looks like. I personally don't mind a future where everyone in this world get equal access to job opportunities, but I don't think that most people advocating for remote work are quite as aware of the long-term ramifications on the US workforce.

Post reply on HN