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

Apple asks staff to return to office 3 days a week starting in early September

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple asks staff to return to office 3 days a week starting in early September

#951

Post by kevstev »

jseban wrote: post #803
Nbox9 wrote: post #51

I work for another company that is going to do a partial return to office. I will be looking at options for companies that offer full in person office (or 90% in person office) after things settle down. I have worked full remote for a total of 5 years of my career, and I believe working in the office is a competitive advantage. * Overhearing hallway conversations (and joining them) helps spawn invocation. * I often d…

Yeah and also to mention the elephant in the room: people work much more when they are stuck in a room with others, and have eyes on them. And they work way less if they are at home and nobody is watching. This is just the truth, regardless of how little it applies to myself, of course! I'm also annoyed by the amount of housework/cooking/preparation/cleaning I have to do when I'm at home all day, when half of that ha…

I disagree there- I mean I work way more hours when I wfh than when I am in the office because I can tolerate it because I don't have a family at home who I am far from. I come down and see the wife when I get coffee and that is my "hallway" conversation and my dog is always next to me, and I never worry about her getting lonely. If anything, having to walk the dog helps pull me away from the computer when I otherwise would not.

I am not sure how cleaning changes at all, and doing laundry, which used to be very difficult to fit in, is so much easier. I can understand why food prep would be more onerous to most, but I enjoy cooking and if I don't really want to I live in a city, I have plenty of options all around me.

Re: Apple asks staff to return to office 3 days a week starting in early September

#952

Post by Aditya_Garg »

eplanit wrote: post #818
londons_explore wrote: post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way to reduce carbon footprint is to put a zero on the price of gasoline, diesel, natural gas and all other forms of carbon-based fuel. A 900% tax should do just fine. Just nobody is brave enough to do it, because it would be political suicide. Even if you gave the money back to the people in the form of tax breaks and social programmes, it would still be political suicide.

900% of 0 = 0.

By put a 0, OP means add a zero (3.95 -> 39.5). Not make gas free.

Re: Apple asks staff to return to office 3 days a week starting in early September

#953

Post by panopticon »

freyr wrote: post #575
panopticon wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> makes me wonder why anyone (especially more numerate people) would tolerate not working remotely Honest question: are there a substantial number of remote companies paying bay area FAANG salaries? You put in any decent time at these places and your total comp is at least $300-500k/yr. You'd have to move somewhere really cheap for the math to work out in favor of that remote gig if you're leaving $100-300k on the ta…

Can you get a nice house in a good neighborhood near the office on $300k/year in the Bay Area these days? A lot of people in the Bay Area make a lot less. There are just so many markets in the US where you’ll find a much nicer house in a better neighborhood for a fraction of the cost. If you already own a house in the Bay Area, you’re set. But otherwise, the paycheck begins to look a bit like an illusion.

My question was about FAANG-level salaries specifically though. You're probably not going to be able to buy a house near the office on that salary, no. But renting is still a viable option.

To provide an anecdote: my wife and I moved to the Bay Area from Kansas City and housing as a portion of after-tax income increased from 16% to 24% renting a smaller single-family house with the same bedroom count (significantly smaller yard though), but my income is over 3x higher out here. I might not be building equity by owning a home, but I have invested most of the additional income and am way ahead of my salaried homeowning friends in the midwest on net worth. Plus we get to spend most of our weekends in the mountains.

tl;dr: It really depends on your income, lifestyle, and priorities whether it adds up in the end.

Re: Apple asks staff to return to office 3 days a week starting in early September

#954

Post by stronglikedan »

elzbardico wrote: post #927
matt-attack wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s because diversity and inclusion pretty much means “blacks” and “women” fullstop. I was recently hiring a developer and my massive media company insisted I ensure my recruiter is giving me diverse candidates. I selected an individual who is apparently Spanish Jewish. Some very rare tribe of Jews from Spain. Was that considered diverse? Nope. Needs to be black.

Not that I agree with those mandates too much, but I can see the logic: A group needs to have a story of oppression in your local community to be considered for that. Diversity is a somewhat misleading word here, the aim is equality for historically disfavored groups.

We've had equality (equal opportunity). Now the aim is, unfortunately, equity (equal outcomes, regardless of merit).

Re: Apple asks staff to return to office 3 days a week starting in early September

#955

Post by e12e »

bpodgursky wrote: post #464
dcolkitt wrote: post #384

What I find really disconcerting is that the senior leaders in the tech industry have been talking for years about increasing gender inclusivity. Yet very few major tech companies seem to be wholeheartedly embracing full remote, despite it being by far the most effective way to encourage more women to join the industry. Research shows that women are 50% more likely to prefer full remote than men[1]. For better or wor…

"Gender inclusivity" at tech companies is really a completely different axis than "motherhood or fatherhood friendly". "Parent" is not a protected class (at least, not on Twitter), and it's really not the goal of any FAANG company to encourage their workers to have families. It requires much harder tradeoffs than being "gender diverse".

I think one way to look at the inability/unwillingness for FAANG companies to have any reasonable parental leave policy, is that it's the kind of thing that needs to be regulated by (federal) law.

Looking from Norway, it's rediculus to see companies not managing to give a year of parental leave, or something simple like on-campus child care.

Re: Apple asks staff to return to office 3 days a week starting in early September

#956

Post by SomeHacker44 »

heavyset_go wrote: post #196
Nbox9 wrote: post #51

I work for another company that is going to do a partial return to office. I will be looking at options for companies that offer full in person office (or 90% in person office) after things settle down. I have worked full remote for a total of 5 years of my career, and I believe working in the office is a competitive advantage. * Overhearing hallway conversations (and joining them) helps spawn invocation. * I often d…

> I save money by spending less on food, drinks, and electricity. For those of us who have to commute, it's not exactly the norm to be saving money while commuting. Commutes are responsible for a 10% drop in hourly wages[1], and the median commute time results in spending 10 full days commuting a year. The average commuter in one of the largest metro areas in the country will spend over 13 full days commuting a year:…

I commute at least 2 hours each day I go to the office. If the MTA is running smoothly. I would estimate I spend closer to 20 days commuting each year. Plus $1,800, which pales in comparison to the TVM of hundreds of hours commuting.

I will not be happy to return to the office.

Re: Apple asks staff to return to office 3 days a week starting in early September

#957

Post by hnaccount141 »

buzzert wrote: post #234
slavapestov wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work my job for the paycheck, which includes those RSUs of great value. It’s a fine job, but if I didn’t need the money, I would quit. What kind of commitments should I be making and why?

In this particular case, by commitments I mean fully commit to in-person collaboration. This doesn't mean sitting and working at your office desk instead of your home desk, it means actually making an effort to collaborate with other people. Sometimes in a spontaneous way, sometimes in a planned way. Collaboration is done better in person. I believe anyone who disagrees with that is actually only disagreeing for self…

> Collaboration is done better in person. I believe anyone who disagrees with that is actually only disagreeing for selfish reasons (i.e., they want to continue WFH), or they go through mental gymnastics to justify it in their head.

Please consider that your experience is not always representative of everybody else's experience. Just because someone doesn't feel the same way as you doesn't mean they're lying to themself or others.

Re: Apple asks staff to return to office 3 days a week starting in early September

#958

Post by passivate »

rubicon33 wrote: post #251
Nbox9 wrote: post #51

I work for another company that is going to do a partial return to office. I will be looking at options for companies that offer full in person office (or 90% in person office) after things settle down. I have worked full remote for a total of 5 years of my career, and I believe working in the office is a competitive advantage. * Overhearing hallway conversations (and joining them) helps spawn invocation. * I often d…

This is what most of the newcomers to WFH don't understand: There is a big different between WFH for a few months where EVERYONE else is also WFH ... and WFH for YEARS where some, or most, of the others are in office. The latter is years upon years of feeling disconnected, left out, and sidelined. The vast majority of companies even if they allow remote are not remote first. Remote first involves actual structural an…

Yeah, fully agree. I worked at a fully remote company and it self-selects for the kind of person who enjoys being alone. It completely sucks as we are social creatures who enjoy the extra physical connection/camaraderie that is impossible to achieve with remote work.

Re: Apple asks staff to return to office 3 days a week starting in early September

#959

Post by dcolkitt »

aikinai wrote: post #784
dcolkitt wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are many people in the current working generation that avoided the soul-sucking suburban commute from the start. Very few of those people have kids. Unless you're making L8 comp, raising a few kids within bicycle commute the major tech campuses is financially unobtainable. The cost of a backyard, good schools, and safe streets is astronomical in tier one urban cores.

Is tier one only Silicon Valley? There are plenty of people raising kids with short commutes in the Seattle area; you don’t even need a FANG salary. And Seattle’s still on the high end; people can also live in places like Austin, Portland, Boulder, etc. And that’s all just in the US. It’s even more obtainable in other countries with better urban planning.

Out of curiosity, have you looked at the housing market in Seattle since the post-pandemic real estate boom? I did a quick smoke test with the following family/commute friendly criteria:

* 2000 square foot house * 7500 square foot lot for backyard * 7/10 or higher GreatSchools * Built after 1980 (older houses have much higher lead content which is terrible for young children) * 3 bedrooms/2 bathrooms * 30 minute commute to Amazon or Microsoft HQ

I couldn't find a single home under a million. Central Austin is pretty similar, and Boulder is even worse. Portland's slightly more affordable, but homicides in Portland have also quintupled from last year, so families aren't exactly running there.[1]

By comparison I can find a house meeting those criteria in Gainesville, FL for under $400k. That's why remote is such a better deal than commuting for people with families.

[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/anarchists-and-an-in...

Re: Apple asks staff to return to office 3 days a week starting in early September

#960

Post by rsj_hn »

buzzert wrote: post #234
slavapestov wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work my job for the paycheck, which includes those RSUs of great value. It’s a fine job, but if I didn’t need the money, I would quit. What kind of commitments should I be making and why?

In this particular case, by commitments I mean fully commit to in-person collaboration. This doesn't mean sitting and working at your office desk instead of your home desk, it means actually making an effort to collaborate with other people. Sometimes in a spontaneous way, sometimes in a planned way. Collaboration is done better in person. I believe anyone who disagrees with that is actually only disagreeing for self…

That word "collaboration" is used to cover everything from pair-programming to reviewing someone else's proposal. Some things are better done in person, some things are better done at arms length. Moreover people assume that things like "hallways conversations" or "overhearing" are an unmitigated good when in reality they can be incredibly distracting and disruptive. So again this boils down to a cost benefit analysis, and the balance of evidence is that employers have made offices, especially open offices, so distracting that it is almost impossible to do focused work. Then they add to that people constantly scrolling on slack, and praise "communication" as if this is something in deficit rather than extreme, often toxic, surplus.

One can imagine a completely different office setup where developers work behind closed doors, there are two days in the week when no one is allowed to hold a meeting, people's times arent being wasted with a constant stream of broadcast messages, and in that environment removing the chance hallway encounter or in-person meeting might be a net harm. But I would say that in the current environment the vast majority of workplaces would see an overall bump in productivity if they reduced the amount of communication and increased the amount of focused work. That managers can't understand this is part of the reason why they create these huge open offices and spend $$ on broadcast communications mediums.

Post reply on HN