Why is remote work seen as a gift?

> But there seems to be this returning perspective in the tech industry that remote work isn’t a fairly standard work practice, but is instead something that is a gift to employees. A privilege to be earned. A perk to bestow upon the most deserving.

It was always seen this way, right? Thus perspectives like Tim Ferris' "Four Hour Workweek" that revolved primarily around getting to work remote as a top priority.

> Did we adapt? Absolutely. Arguably, we thrived. Companies suddenly had access to a talent pool that was always there, but they were ignorant of. No longer did they have to limit themselves to people who lived near the office, or have to offer hefty relocation packages. Real estate expenses fell through the floor.

When I put my rational hat on, this is how I feel. Suddenly your talent pool expanded to not just a bunch of new people, but a bunch of new people at vastly different local salary rates. Personally, I think it's unethical to lower pay to match regional rates, but this reason alone made me think the era of the SF engineer had come to an abrupt halt as covid forced companies to accidentally discover massively productive engineering pools in places like India and the Philippines. Tell as many stories as you like about the time you had a bad remote engineer in India, one can't deny the pool is simply massive and for every one "ten-x engineer" in SF there's five hundred in India, just have to find them.

Anyway my buddy in NYC was telling me a bunch of companies were suddenly discovering they were able to maintain revenue while cutting out multi million dollar real estate expenses for their manhattan offices stacked with little snackies and bubbly water. Seemed obvious to me. There you go, that's a couple salaries right there, now you can hire even more remote workers. Why weren't we always doing this?

Then there's the simple ethical arguments around decreased pollution from decreased pointless commuting, increased mental health benefits from not having to sit in traffic mad for 120 minutes a day every single day, losing hours of your day to the commute, whatever else.

Now let me put my hat on that lets me get into the mind of a not very good manager or business leader that's successful less for sharp mindedness and more for winning a lottery of one form or the other and thus having access to more capital: I don't trust my workers, I need to see with my own eyes that they're working for all the hours I pay them to work, I don't realize that it makes more sense to understand our relationship as one of product output for salary rather than an arbitrary idea of time for money (I, as a non engineer, have no idea how long it takes to build things, but I demand 8 hours every day anyway). I don't trust those engineers out in India, I can't see them, where's my money going? Also, guess what buddy, when I was your age I took the train to work every day and didn't buy a coffee cause that's just how I remember us doing things, so suck it up and you should too! Improving technology should only be used if I, the least familiar with these technologies, can think of a way to generate profit off of them.

I know I'm quite cynical but this has been my experience sometimes. Most times though I've found companies to be quite adaptable and take the lessons learned as a gift: woah nice, we don't have to pay for an office? Why didn't we think of this sooner?? Everyone's remote and thus documentation is suddenly a lot more important to fill in the gaps that used to involve juniors tapping seniors on the shoulder? Woah, our business and knowledge base is so much more sustainable now, awesome! Keep doing more of that!

Yes this! Under say school age there is no hope. Daycare can help but is another cost.

I find it kind of amusing (and annoying) that employers like to play the salaray game as it fits their needs.

I got interviewed a few times, and some stated that they cannot pay the salary I was asking, because i don't live in a high-density, high-cost-for-living area, while others argued that they have to respect their local salaries, which are below what I would expect in my area. I'm yet to meet the employer that can truthfully deduct the cost-for-living from the compensation they are offering. It should be about the value I bring to the company, not where I live.

Also, from my personal point of view, it's the time I'm saving for myself, not the money. Electricity is quite expensive nowadays, and my standing desk and audio/video equipment also wasn't payed by my employer.

What annoys me the most is that there are still companies out there stating that remote is "complicated". It's different, and you need to adjust your processes, but it's not "complicated".

//edit: fixed typos and added a/v equipment to my ramblings

To an extent, sure, but this is wildly variable based on personal circumstance.

I know plenty of people working 2 jobs and simply don't have time to find a replacement for one. With wages at record lows, that also means if they lose one for any reason, it's not like a little breaky break while they find another, it means something on their extremely narrow budget gets the axe for that week or whatever. Usually healthcare, sometimes food. Sometimes rent, at which point if you don't have a friend's couch to crash on, you're homeless, and then it's astronomically harder to find a job. You are well and truly fucked.

So not everyone is "free to leave the job."

BTW I don't know the OP but the word I was going to drop in was not prison, it was slavery.

Edit: to clarify wages at record lows, I mean for the people working minimum wage or around there. Inflation and cost of living combined to make their real buying power lower than ever.

Because part of what your job pays for is your inconvenience.

Reducing your inconvenience and keeping your pay the same is a gift.

You even regain time and money you'd have lost on commute.

So these things should be considered when negotiating.