Microsoft is letting employees work from home permanently • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft is letting employees work from home permanently

#251

Post by ghaff » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 8:31 PM UTC

davidf560 wrote: post #247

deegles wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a big assumption that SV wages are inflated given the value that sector has generated for the economy. Facebook made around $600k in profits per employee . I will agree that they are inflated relative to other professions, but that just means for them the earnings gap is even greater. ( https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/01/21/if-worker-pay-... ) https://insights.dice.com/2019/07/10/how-much-tech-companies.…

Software developers simply do not get offered pay anything close to SV wages pretty much anywhere else in the US (maybe NYC? not sure on that one) - as far as I can tell. It's not really in dispute that SV software wages are significantly higher than elsewhere in the country, is it? Now, we all know there's many reasons for that, including competition and housing costs. My point is that salaries are so much lower alm…

My understanding is that Google, say, does not offer half its Mountain View salary in Cambridge though I'm sure there's a difference.

A couple of things are being conflated.

SV housing costs are astronomical so some companies pay inflated salaries to at least somewhat compensate.

Certain large tech companies are willing to outbid essentially everyone else to get the people that (they think) are the best.

Re: Microsoft is letting employees work from home permanently

#252

Post by _qulr » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 8:33 PM UTC

pault wrote: post #248

_qulr wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's some data from the Stack Overflow 2020 developer survey: https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2020#developer-pro... Only 17% of professional developers surveyed were age 40+. That vastly disproportionate with the age demographics of the overall human population.

You're assuming that the ratio is disproportionate because people are being pushed out of the industry against their will. Some people get burned out, some people retire early, and some transition into management or start their own company. The industry has grown exponentially in the 20-40 years those people have been working. If the industry now is 10x the size it was in 2000 (arbitrary number), then 40 year old dev…

> Some people get burned out

I'd say if management routinely burns out programmers and prevents them from having long careers, that in itself is a form of age discrimination.

> If the industry now is 10x the size it was in 2000 (arbitrary number), then 40 year old developers should be 10% of the workforce, even discounting any other factors.

IMO this seems to be an ageist assumption. If an industry is growing, why should the newcomers to the industry be overwhelmingly young? Why shouldn't "older" people join in large numbers too, especially if there's a lot of money to be made? I personally switched careers and didn't get my first tech job until I was over 35.

> I have never had so much clout during job hunting than I do now, with 20 years of on the job experience.

What do you make of the pervasive "quiz show" style job interviews that favor recent CS grads and discount job experience?

In any case, I'd say there's more empirical support for my position than the claim I was arguing against, that people work 80 hours per week and then retire early because they "value their time". Just not their current time, only their time later in life (if they live that long), I guess.

Re: Microsoft is letting employees work from home permanently

#253

Post by ghaff » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 8:36 PM UTC

davidf560 wrote: post #250

qes wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe this is overly simplistic... eventually the COL in SV will start to equalize with other places in the country like Chicago, won't it? Chicago with an actual winter will likely never have the demand that California with it's year-round outdoor weather will have. If costs were completely identical, would you rather live in Illinois or the Bay? How many other people you know would say the Bay?

Believe it or not, I have no interest in living in the bay area - even if the costs were the same. I personally would like somewhere that didn't get quite so cold in the winter but still has 4 seasons. I can honestly tell you that out of all the people I know, I can't think of a single one who would move to the bay area even if the costs were the same. Weather isn't everything.

The Bay area is nice and I certainly understand the attraction when I visit. And I probably wouldn't want to live in Chicago; winters are especially brutal in the upper Midwest, there aren't "real" mountains, and I have no connection to the area. But I have no problems with winter generally and I doubt I would move to the Bay Area even if you took money off the table. Silicon Valley is meh and SF is nice to visit but has a lot of problems. Santa Cruz mountains maybe--if one ignores the wildfire problem.

Re: Microsoft is letting employees work from home permanently

#254

Post by nullsense » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 9:00 PM UTC

nec4b wrote: post #243

ghaff wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, I think the concern is whether it's a gender role that women are being forced into as opposed to something that they really are choosing voluntarily. Those two things can be hard to separate though. During the current pandemic, the data I've seen suggests that women are disproportionately dropping out of the workforce for childcare and other reasons. Of course if someone has to drop out of the workforce i…

Do you think taking care of children is a low status work that people have to do and not want to do? Do you think there is something wrong with a woman preferring raising children instead of pursuing a boring career?

>Do you think taking care of children is a low status work that people have to do and not want to do?

I know my wife certainly feels that way.

Re: Microsoft is letting employees work from home permanently

#255

Post by balfirevic » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

marketingPro wrote: post #77

I like globalism, I think it's good for most humans. However I can't help to think that quickly US workers will be replaced with our lower cost English speaking alternatives. The only advantage that US workers have, is that up until now, programmers and Engineers have been managing/teaching/leading their counterparts. This is the skill employers are paying the big $$ for. However, this stops now, no new generation of…

> The only advantage that US workers have, is that up until now, programmers and Engineers have been managing/teaching/leading their counterparts.

Non-US engineers don't manage/teach/lead?

Re: Microsoft is letting employees work from home permanently

#256

Post by Viliam1234 » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 9:36 PM UTC

nwienert wrote: post #215

apexalpha wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're getting downvoted, but you're right. Traditional family values still resonate in these numbers and many people blame women working part-time for a gender imbalance at the top of companies. So that gender imbalance is definitely on the agenda. Whether you think these numbers are concerning depends on your political stance.

If women on average prefer to work less hours isn’t the concerning thing the people who seem to want to force them to work more? Especially when it’s oftentimes men that call this a “problem”? It seems unless you have some data showing their preference is to work more but they are limited by something externally forced on them, and you’d need data not opinion, you shouldn’t be concern-trolling. Women buy more dresses…

> If women on average prefer to work less hours

But do they prefer it more than men? Maybe we should be more careful about this assumption.

I am a man, and I would prefer to work less hours. Unfortunately, my options are mostly limited to full-time or nothing.

Here is how it works: suppose that both me and my wife are at a job interview, and we both say that we want a part-time job. The obvious question is "why?"

If either of us answers honestly: "because I have life and hobbies and friends, and half of the market salary for my skill range is enough to pay my bills, so I see no reason to spend most of my awake time in an office", with such attitude we are obviously not going to get the job. You are supposed to pretend that working to make someone else even richer is the highest calling in your life, more important than your family or friends or dreams or whatever, not just something you have to do to pay your bills.

Luckily, my wife has a socially acceptable excuse. I don't. Therefore, she will get the part-time job, and I will get the choice to either work full-time or try my luck elsewhere. This is not about our preferences. This is about what is socially acceptable for each of us.

In the past I tried repeatedly to get a part-time job, but it was nearly impossible. (The best deal I got was working 4 days a week for 50% of my market salary. Even that was a rare exception.) When I respond to job offers mentioning "both full-time and part-time positions available" and I mention I am interested in the part-time one, I am usually told that those are only meant for women.

So I keep working full-time, because that's the only option I got. And now people will use my "revealed preference" as a proof that this is what I really wanted. Eh.

Re: Microsoft is letting employees work from home permanently

#257

Post by balfirevic » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 9:39 PM UTC

0xffff2 wrote: post #220

jjav wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It always seemed weird to me that people make such high salaries in tech but just don't value time as the main commodity of our lives. It's not about valuing it, the problem is that finding jobs which allow part-time work is just about impossible. I'd give anything for a job where I can work 40% time for 40% salary, but those don't exist. My wife has managed to arrange 80% time for 80% pay at the G of FAANG for a c…

Stories like this remind me that maybe my low-six-figure salary in the bay area isn't that bad after all. I may be dramatically underpaid by FANNG standards, but I'm never asked to work overtime and I'm free to take PTO whenever I want.

I'm not from the US so I wouldn't know first hand, but I've read plenty of comments on HN from people who claim to be working for FAANG and just work normal 40 hour work weeks.

Re: Microsoft is letting employees work from home permanently

#258

Post by names_are_hard » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 9:44 PM UTC

nwienert wrote: post #215

apexalpha wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're getting downvoted, but you're right. Traditional family values still resonate in these numbers and many people blame women working part-time for a gender imbalance at the top of companies. So that gender imbalance is definitely on the agenda. Whether you think these numbers are concerning depends on your political stance.

If women on average prefer to work less hours isn’t the concerning thing the people who seem to want to force them to work more? Especially when it’s oftentimes men that call this a “problem”? It seems unless you have some data showing their preference is to work more but they are limited by something externally forced on them, and you’d need data not opinion, you shouldn’t be concern-trolling. Women buy more dresses…

What if men feel it's a problem because they also want to work part time but feel social pressure to be successful breadwinner? They are frustrated that they will be judged for making the same choices women make without as much social stigma.

I'm sure there are many reasons men are this as a problem, because there are many men. Just pointing out that it doesn't have to be some misguided savior complex.

Re: Microsoft is letting employees work from home permanently

#259

Post by nec4b » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #245

nec4b wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think taking care of children is a low status work that people have to do and not want to do? Do you think there is something wrong with a woman preferring raising children instead of pursuing a boring career?

Not at all. However, the fact that they're now doing so during a pandemic whereas they weren't before suggests that it's not entirely voluntary.

I think the choice of working or staying at home is mostly a function of economics. Before the pandemic usually both partners had to work for a family to have a sufficient living standard. And now if one is forced to stay at home it makes sense for the partner with smaller income to stay at home. When you talk in terms of fairness you implicitly imply child care is somewhat less desirable than a career and are signaling to women or men who choose such path that they made a wrong choice.

Re: Microsoft is letting employees work from home permanently

#260

Post by nec4b » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 10:24 PM UTC

nullsense wrote: post #254

nec4b wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think taking care of children is a low status work that people have to do and not want to do? Do you think there is something wrong with a woman preferring raising children instead of pursuing a boring career?

>Do you think taking care of children is a low status work that people have to do and not want to do? I know my wife certainly feels that way.

As long as she excepts that other women might have different feelings about the matter, she is completely entitled to her own. I just find it weird that when women prefer a career over raising children it is considered normal and when they prefer raising children it is viewed with suspicion (they must have been forced). Can't both preferences be equally valid and normal?