14 ms·

Workplace flexibility is the way to win the war for talent

305 points by Mz 9y ago

koliber 9y ago
I find this to be more and more important the more experienced I get. At some point, I had a poignant realization. I work to earn money. I then use the money to provide for myself & my family, to buy things and experiences, and to build a safety net. I do these things to have a relatively stressless, happy, and fulfilling life. If I just maximize for cash earned, I need to compensate for other things. I want to maximize free time and minimize commute. I have errands to run and things to do. Having flexible work, with a work from home option is worth more to me than making more money. Otherwise, I need to spend more on an apartment close to the office. A more expensive car can make a commute more bearable. I value peace and quiet, and city living is at odds with this. Reconciling all this while working a 9-5 at a central office in the city costs a lot of money. I currently work at 15Five, where "Embrace Freedom & Flexibility" is one of our core values. We actually are active in living this and our other core values. You can feel the effect directly. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this, and arrived at the same conclusion as this article.
- i_dont_know_ 9y ago
  Preach it :) There's also something to be said about attention and creativity in most coding/tech jobs. I could sit at my desk all day writing marginally efficient code, or I could take a 1-hour break to do something else, come back and write really exceptional code, but most work cultures frown on doing this regularly. If you're full (or mostly) remote, you can regulate this yourself
- GoToRO 9y ago
  I agree with you. The question then becomes: if you achieved this level of performance, isn't it better to work for yourself rather than work for somebody who all the time undervalues your performance? Isn't it better in the long run to build a product that might need minimum level of attention once it's done?
  - pm215 9y ago
    That would depend on whether the work you find happy, low stress and fulfilling overlaps much with the work you'd need to be doing to work for yourself. Personally I enjoy the software engineering part of my job, and have no desire to take on the business, sales and marketing work that I think would form a large part of working for myself.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    It is. But after preaching it for a decade, I realized that working for yourself implies to develop a certain skill set and embrace another set of constraints many people don't wish for them-self. There is a lot of comfort in being an employee.
    - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
      This is true, you replace one set of problems with some completely different ones. However, it does give you the ability to set your own priorities rather than them being handed down from management.
  - stult 9y ago
    That depends on your risk tolerance, though. Self-employment, especially the entrepreneurial kind, inherently has a higher risk of failure. Sure, you might win big and build a self-sustaining business that earns you a tidy living, but then again you might also go bankrupt and lose everything because you can't pay your bills.
    - BjoernKW 9y ago
      Is self-employment really so much riskier than sequential employment? With the latter if you're laid off you instantly lose all your income. As a self-employed consultant / freelancer if you lose a customer who quite likely still have other customers, which mitigates the overall risk.
      - bigmanwalter 9y ago
- whipoodle 9y ago
  I think the problem is, the money is one of the only things written down. There's no, gee we're really sorry but things got rough this month so we're only going to pay you 70%. (Of course you leave if that does happen.) But there's no guarantee on any of the intangibles. And whenever they need to save a buck, or even in ways that aren't fully appreciated, the good-workplace stuff can erode. After spending a while in this industry, I'd say places are more alike than different, and total compensation is a reasonable thing to maximize for.
  - SoMisanthrope 9y ago
    Coincidentally, this just popped up on HN https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/your-money/is-the-stuff-you-buy-over-20-years-worth-40000-hours-of-time.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/your-money/is-the-stuff-y... Brilliant thought exercise.
- gehwartzen 9y ago
  I agree. The only rational explanation I personally see for maximizing earnings at the expense of current life flexibility is to save/invest enough to retire earlier. But even then there are certain aspects of life that you can't catch up on later; being a part of your children growing up, establishing a strong bond with your spouse, remaining healthy by minimizing stress, etc
  - pc86 9y ago
    This makes sense if you're going to try to get a big payday early in your career - trying to build a unicorn startup in SV and cash out by 30. That sort of makes sense to me. But maximizing earnings by working 60+ hour weeks so you can retire at 55 instead of 65? That's a pretty high cost for not a lot of reward, as far as I can see.
    - bluGill 9y ago
      What do you want to do with your life? There is no single right answer to that question so you need to figure it out for yourself. Some of the answers require you to work 80+ hours a week (at a good job) while living in a tent so you can save every penny - when you finally retire at 68 you will just barely have enough money to enjoy the last 5 years of your life spending all the money you saved over the years. Some answers you save 50% of your income until you retire at 40 to live the life you choose. Some answers you save 10% until 65 working a 40 hour a week job. The first allows you have an expensive hobby (sail the world in a very nice yacht). The second means you have to enjoy not buying anything. The last is a reasonable compromise for most of us.
- matwood 9y ago
  Completely agree. I'll trade some salary for flexibility and control. I hate doing pointless work (hence control), and I like working remote and work very well at home. The odd thing is, I go to the office regularly, and it's enjoyable because it's my choice to go. At my current company we state it as "you're all adults, and that's how we treat you." We have hired some people who needed more structure and they had to move on. There is no judgement on people who left, not every position is right for every person.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  What this mindset and view doesn't take into account is the direct financial impact of these measures, and taxes are a lot more involved that people think. Take google catering your lunch every day and night. It might be costing google 25 U$S per meal to provide that to the employees. Would the employee, not having that option, spend 25 U$S a meal? No way. But do employees choose or prefer companies that cater lunch? Lets say google can offer an employee a double offer: either full benefits and salary of X, or NO benefits and salary of Y. What is your Y? In general I would always think that most people will take Y, precisely because most of the benefits are very costly. Y could be 30%. Now, there is a difference in taxes: that extra Y will get taxed at 30%, while googles benefit cost might even have tax deductions. So the gap between X and Y is blurred by rules that applied differently. If company benefits were not only deductible, but expenditure there were considered part of wages and taxed at that rate, they would quickly diminsh if not dissapear.
  - greenshackle2 9y ago
    This is very topical for me as I'm considering offers at a couple of companies this week and was trying to estimate Y for each, since they have pretty different benefits. One of them has catered breakfast and lunch. It sounds like a great perk but in Canada* in-kind benefits, including meals, are considered part of your salary, and are subject to income tax. I'm not sure how that plays out with daily catered meals; am I deemed to have received the benefit even if I eat out or bring leftovers? I could be paying taxes on food I haven't eaten. Probably not cheap food either. I'd prefer being paid in cash, and having the option to buy meal vouchers. That's true of most benefits - cash is always more flexible. There's also what it says about the culture: we offer free breakfast because we expect you to be at the office before your usual breakfast time. We offer free lunch because we don't expect you to have enough time to go out for lunch, or to pack a lunch the night before. *For federal income tax. YMMV on provincial tax. https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publications/publications/t4130-employers-guide-taxable-benefits-allowances/employers-guide-taxable-benefits-allowances.html#subsidized https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publi...
- SoMisanthrope 9y ago
  Read the book "Your Money or Your Life"... amazing what we trade, to keep a job.
xchaotic 9y ago
DHH from 37signals / basecamp agrees with that. I just wonder what happens when there is enough flexible companies offering similar terms. I guess it's back to square one then?
- baxtr 9y ago
  Sure. Then the next level will start and we will have achieved a great milestone. The way I see it though is that we are quite some time away from that point. (Unfortunately)
danieltillett 9y ago
There is another alternative which is the moneyball approach [1]. Identify those people overlooked because they don’t meet the current fashionable ideal and hire on the basis of what they can actually produce. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball
- sgift 9y ago
  First step would be to find a good way to evaluate peoples performance. Progress at that front seems to be ... very slow.
  - danieltillett 9y ago
    Measuring performance is not hard. What is hard is estimating future performance at the hiring stage. One area that could be worked on is dealing with “difficult” people. At the moment most managers are not really incentivised to hire for performance, but they are certainly incentivised at a personal level to hire people who do as they are told and don’t make waves. Most managers would prefer a 0.1x person who was pleasant to manage than a 10x person who made their life difficult.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      Measuring performance is very hard. Some very productive employees are great until they leave for another opportunity. Then team productivity grinds to a halt because they never optimized for maintainability or learnability of their code and systems. You could blame the 10X dev. But it's fair to say that there isn't much talk about how to quantify those kinds of concerns.
      - danieltillett 9y ago
        Well if you have not managed for the consequences of your 10x employee leaving then you have not managed very well.
      - majormajor 9y ago
wslh 9y ago
Flexibility was always our "secret" but even if we have people working remotely we prefer people who work at our offices. Few cabdidates are ready and responsible to work remotely. This is our experience. So our other flexibility method is time. Most developers work 6 hours per day and that works.
- 9to5isdead 9y ago
  Given someone who is ready and responsible to work remotely, which would you prefer, office based or remote based? I feel as though writing off remote work due to the performance of someone not able to work remotely is a bit unfair. I am full time remote, and the hours per day I can work range between a couple of hours and a dozen. So long as the work is done and the clients are happy, that's what matters. The main thing is self-discipline, having the self-discipline to get the work done and to provide top quality work. You have the flexibility to choose your best working space, working hours, and working style, so go and produce your best work.
  - amorphid 9y ago
    A big part of my interest in working remotely is how likely I am to find a replacement job. At this time, it is much easier to find a job if I am in person.
  - wslh 9y ago
    I prefer to work and interact with people face to face than work remotely. It is great that technology enabled us to work everywhere and have the flexibility to continue working outside the office but I feel alienated when I don't interact with people in a more human compatible way.
snarfy 9y ago
When they won't let me adjust my subs pay, this is about the only thing I can give them. I don't care what hours they work or where they work as long as they get their work done. They need to attend meetings but video conferencing is always used.
trevyn 9y ago
"If conversely you capped the salary of computer programmers, we would expect a flood of companies competing with every possible other amenity they were allowed to offer and managers being very very polite to computer programmers. (In fact this does happen with relatively better computer programmers, which tells us that something is bounding the salaries of top programmers underneath their purely financial equilibrium.)"
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Part of the cap is business models that weren't designed with higher developer salaries in mind (if there were even fully developed in the first place).
- stult 9y ago
  It's only their preferences that are bounding their salaries in those cases. At some point, a polite manager is worth more than X more in compensation. The type of person who becomes a top programmer tends to value being in an environment conducive to being a better programmer, because that's how you get to be among the best. So many naturally tend to value productivity enhancing perks more than comp at the upper end.
  - HelloNurse 9y ago
    >It's only their preferences that are bounding their salaries in those cases. At some point, a polite manager is worth more than X more in compensation. A good boss isn't a benefit that can be awarded or revoked by the company. Sometimes money isn't enough to induce employees to remain in a bad environment or leave a good environment for a bad one, but normally a decent manager is expected and taken for granted, and if salaries are "bounded" below market that employer is dead meat.
    - bruxis 9y ago
      I just want to note the caveat here that an extremely polite boss is by no means guaranteed to be a good boss.
- deleted 9y ago
audiolion 9y ago
This article seems loosely based on ideas from the Dropbox blogpost on open offices [0]. The connection being the mention of employers offering all kinds of perks and more office space or private space never is one of them, that it could be a useful perk to attract talent. [0] Is the open office layout dead? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15060623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15060623
SirLJ 9y ago
Once you cross into the 6 digit salary territory, free lunches and similar gimmicks are not going to cut it anymore... the only thing that keeps me in my current company is the working from home factor and all the perks it entitles like no traffic, home gym, after lunch naps, swimming at 17:00, etc
shearnie 9y ago
I'm currently working remote and took the job over an on-premises gig in the big smoke. It's a 200 pay cut per day. However factoring in expenses in fuel and parking and car wear, and the 10 hours of time lost commuting per week. I'm counter-intuitively better off by the equivalent 200 per day. Reason being my time spent NOT commuting is invested in my bootstrapped startup. If I had to commute, I was essentially earning money by sitting in traffic rather than coding, which had to be spent to an offshore developer while I'm in a car instead of at my machine. So that including expenses in commuting will erode my net income. Not to mention the stress and health and mental performance impact commuting does to you. Sitting in traffic, cognitively processing the driving, finding a car park, walking ten minutes from a car park to premises. My motivation and energy is sapped by the time I'm in the office. And more so by the time I get home. Prior to this I was doing the commute to make sure the boss sees me gig for a year and compared to now, the difference in performance I notice is remarkable.
- timje1 9y ago
  I can't remember the exact details, but I remember there being a British study that found that cutting an hour a day off your commute increases your happiness more than a ~30% payrise (figures misremembered). If you've gotten back two hours a day, that's a massive quality of life improvement!
akshay1938 9y ago
Rightly said
RealityNow 9y ago
This is why I never understood the obsession with working for the big prestigious corporations like Google and the unicorns. As far as I'm aware, they don't allow remote work and working from home without an excuse correct?
- ThePawnBreak 9y ago
  > This is why I never understood the obsession with working for the big prestigious corporations like Google and the unicorns. Money.
  - RealityNow 9y ago
    Factor in cost of living in the bay area and it's not quite as glamorous as it sounds
    - ulucs 9y ago
      Oh come on. Sure, as I live in Middle East my rent might be 450$/month but after you consider that I'm paid 5$/hr, I'd gladly take 60k/yr (which is very low end) even if my rent and other expenses quintupled
      - RealityNow 9y ago
        It's all relative. I'm just saying that someone who's talented enough to get a job at Google could probably land a cushy remote gig and live somewhere dirt cheap, saving more money and enjoying a higher quality of life.
        ThePawnBreak 9y ago
        At Google, it is completely not out of the ordinary to make 300k a year as a senior, or 200k after 2-3 years with the company. To get a remote job making that is orders of magnitude more difficult. Also, nobody wants to hire junior remote people, so if you go to MIT it's either 160k at Google or 40k remote. Maybe after 4 years at Google someone'll be willing to pay you 50% of what you make there, but you don't really want to move away after being in a place for 4 years to get a remote job and be completely depended on your employer. I'm from Eastern Europe and I tried to get a remote job before emigrating. I applied to dozens of places and could only get an interview at one company that was paying about 25k because Eastern Europe is cheap anyway. Was rejected for lack of experience. Got a job in Western Europe for 4x more. In addition, the are many many interesting things to work on at Google and smart people to learn from, whereas the few remote jobs that exist are mostly making CRUD is the web framework du jour. tl;dr There is almost no market for remote devs.
fogetti 9y ago
Give me clear goals which are measurable, and I will get things done either remotely or on-site. It doesn't matter which one. This is a win-win situation because my manager can track my progress based on the previously setup measurements. And to achieve this, location is irrelevant. Things usually start turning south when managers just simply demand speed. Or eagerness. Or dedication. Or other bullshit which has no relevance regarding any specific task. These are the cases which brilliantly show the lack of management skills. These are the kind of little men who demand you to be at the office all time. You can call them control freaks, or micro-management fetishists. It doesn't matter. These people just show one thing with their behaviour: that they don't trust their subordinates.
- bluGill 9y ago
  That is technically true, but you do NOT want clear goals though. Clear goals are for junior "code monkeys" who just do what they are told without any concern for if they are going the right thing. If you want input into your work and the feeling that you are actually doing the right thing you need to have the context around your goals. Your physical presence in the offices lets you take part in "water cooler" and "hallway" conversations with various people. Yes you can do some of that via email, forums, and the like. However the human factor of your presence changes the tone of the conversation. It isn't just you either, the other person(s) involved. When you have a short, critical, task that needs to be done fast, then staying home without a phone or email is the best way to get it done fast. However for anything else communication is an important part of your job and physical presence aids that. That isn't to say remote work cannot - it does. However there are real disadvantages to it that need to be considered.
  - fogetti 9y ago
    And what would be those disadvantages? You listed things which you think are supporting the arguments to be present in the office. But one argument which is supporting on-site presence, doesn't make it automatically an argument against working remotely. And you are basically trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say a word that I will do what I am told without concern. That's only your implication. Correct me if I am wrong, but you imply that because requirements are usually unclear: that means that clear goals are undesirable. Does that sound logical to you? Because to me that's a big no-no. I only saw people pushing this kind of mentality who like to fish in troubled waters and enjoy the mess to take advantage of it for their own sake (i.e. climbing corporate ladders). And let me highlight one thing: if I am supposed to clear things up and organize my work, than what is my manager supposed to do? In this world that you imagined there is no role for a manager IMO. And that would be pretty much fine with me. It's just far from reality. I won't subscribe to the idea that the office is a rainbow colored fairytale. I am coming from the exact opposite direction of thinking.
durgiston 9y ago
I personally don't get the love for working at home/remote. I HATE working at home. To me, home is home and work is work. I don't want to mix them, and I feel awful when I have to stay home all day, or don't get to interact casually with my coworkers. Its just so depressing to be alone all the time. That being said, a bad office environment is definitely a turn off, and at this point in my career free lunch and the ilk isn't that much of a perk anymore. I want reasonable hours, decent vacation and health-insurance, and a big income.
- joeax 9y ago
  I work with a guy just like you, and I think that's great. Some people are natural extroverts, and love the interactions and water cooler conversations that come with that personality type. Just don't drag me into the office just because that's your personal preference. I will be miserable and looking for a new job.
  - adrianmonk 9y ago
    It's not necessarily about introversion and extroversion. I'm a natural introvert, and I also have working at home. I want a strong, clear boundary between work and personal activities. It's not so much about being in an office; it's about being a place that isn't home.
    - joeax 9y ago
      You need a home office for your own sanity, this much is true. I found this out the first year when the kids were out of school. Many others I've talked to also found satisfaction in co-working centers.
- lagadu 9y ago
  I'm exactly like you. Home is strictly for non-work stuff: no work, no reading emails (not that I carry my work phone anyway), no nothing and I despise working from home. Yet I work remotely. I work remotely because I felt like moving to a sunny, cheap place where I get to live like a king and I just rent a desk at a co-working office where a couple of my friends work too. It's lovely, all the nice things about being in an office and all the nice things about working remotely.
joeax 9y ago
Hopefully, more employers are waking up to this reality. I'd bet there are thousands of devs out there willing to take a pay cut for the opportunity to work at home full time, some who have confided this to me personally. It actually makes financial sense too. The true cost of commuting: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the-true-cost-of-commuting/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the-true-cost-of-c...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gedrap 9y ago
Just treat adults as adults, show a little bit of trust. I don't like strict schedules, where you have to just sit through the required number of hours, or show up at some specific time for no reason (i.e. it does not affect other people). Don't force people to sit in a crammed open space office, all day every day, no matter the weather and other factors, because 'collaboration' or whatever. Commuting to the office when it is -20C definitely sucks. If someone wants to setup their ideal working environment at home - perfect, win win. Most of the time it doesn't even cost much. Sure, making it work requires some effort from both parties. But it's too often ruled out for no reason (or some BS reason). I made this switch and that's one of the best things that happened to my quality of life.
nradov 9y ago
While workplace flexibility is a good idea in general, this article is based on a false premise. Business isn't war, and there is little evidence that "talent" even exists as a specific quality. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myth http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myth
tweedledee 9y ago
If you can't find people of talent then you're not paying enough. I quit working because I couldn't get paid more than $300K working for someone else despite the fact that I make my employers way way more than that. I quit to do my own startup and made a ton of money. I'm now retired way too young. I'd love to go back to work because I like having a big impact on people's lives but now I'd need at least $500K to break even on taxes if I moved back to the US and no one is paying that for me.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- freshyill 9y ago
  You poor thing.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  Can you explain what is involved in "Having to make $500k, just to break even on taxes"? I can't wrap my head around it. Are you currently living somewhere that does not tax investment income?
  - tweedledee 9y ago
    I live in a Caribbean Tax haven which is zero tax. I'm comparing that to SF which is high tax.
dalbasal 9y ago
The problem with conversations like these..... If you're going to be talking about "HR issues" out in the open, you can only say certain things. Things people like. The "skeptics of completely virtual organizations" or opponents of flextime, increased holidays, work-life balance, on-site childcare, employee empowerment, higher pay.... they can't exactly blog about it and get an applause. But clearly, they still set the agenda. I want those things like everyone else does. I'm also pretty sympathetic to a lot of the arguments that they are good for business. But, we can't have a discussion when only one side speaks. I am somewhat skeptical about an existing large company virtualizing itself without major teething issues. I know very little about these thing, so who cares.. Anyway, where's the CEO blog on "why I make everyone work 9-5." or "never allow anyone to work from home." I know you're out there. Speak your piece!
- lliamander 9y ago
  Here's a good essay arguing that remote development interferes with the development of "deep context" needed to be a high-leverage software developer. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hard-thing-software-development-jesse-watson https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hard-thing-software-developme...
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  Anyway, where's the CEO blog on "why I make everyone work 9-5." or "never allow anyone to work from home." I know you're out there. Speak your piece! Here's Marissa Meyer doing exactly that [1]: To become the absolute best place to work, communication and collaboration will be important, so we need to be working side-by-side. That is why it is critical that we are all present in our offices. Some of the best decisions and insights come from hallway and cafeteria discussions, meeting new people, and impromptu team meetings. Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home. We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together. [1] http://allthingsd.com/20130222/physically-together-heres-the-internal-yahoo-no-work-from-home-memo-which-extends-beyond-remote-workers/ http://allthingsd.com/20130222/physically-together-heres-the... [2] https://www.fastcompany.com/3020930/yahoo-says-that-killing-working-from-home-is-turning-out-perfectly https://www.fastcompany.com/3020930/yahoo-says-that-killing-...
- 9y ago
gerbilly 9y ago
In most jobs you are being paid for a blend of: - Skills and abilities. - Availability. In workplaces where facetime is valued, they are maximizing availability. Sometimes this can be legitimate, since you do have to collaborate with others and be available to answer questions etc. However in my experience those workplaces which are obsessed with availability tend to be disorganized firefighting organizations that operate in an in 'all hands on deck' style.
pascalxus 9y ago
If there's such a huge war for talent, then why don't those employees have more bargaining power? Last I checked on glassdoor, salaries for SE are way below living costs in the bay area. And the vast majority of SE don't even have enough bargaining power to leave the bay area and work remotely. I strongly suspect, the "war for talent" is a huge myth, or perhaps, isolated to small specialties. I've worked for a company in the bay area that had huge growth and taken part in much of the hiring. We seemed to have more than enough talent available - so much so, we were actually turning some of it away. If anything, the problem was more - being able to recognize talent and hire it, rather than lack of supply.
- exolymph 9y ago
  Glassdoor is not a random sample.
Arelius 9y ago
Rad, where is our flexible work conference/meetup? I guess we'd want to do that remotely? Scheduling might still be difficult.
cseanmccoy 9y ago
I think rather than choosing one over the other a company has to find a balance. While working remotely offers employees flexibility whether it's the ability to manage different branches in different locations or as the article suggests a "reward," there's still value in human to human interaction. Digital means of communication offers instant service, it's mostly transparent, and there's limited chance of miscommunication or forgetting directives as the log of messages provides users with a written history of the conversation. At the same time, working collaboratively in an office of fellow employees yields to an established vernacular. Workers are acquainted with other workers styles, methods and tricks for business. There's more learning opportunities, I believe available for same place working, because a team of people are experiencing the same challenges in real time.
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
We're a 100% remote company, and you would probably not be surprised at the extreme level of push back we've gotten from VC's about that, to the point where it's the reason they won't invest. Now, that might be a BS excuse on their part, but in many cases I know it's not. There are many many benefits to being a remote company, but it does take a particular kind of person to make it work. The best people for remote tend to be older and more highly skilled in my experience.
vlokshin 9y ago
This is important but so difficult. I'm one of the co-founders at Turtle(dot)ai. We have no problem attracting amazing developers who want total remote flex and to work 10-30 hours per week across different projects. We absolutely have a hurdle with convincing most companies that output = output and that remote work is ok. Companies still put an unreasonable amount of value on butt-in-seat, 9-5 work. Why? How can we get hiring managers and companies past this? We try to convince with logic. We show what companies spend on hiring their own devs (20K+ hiring cost, 10-20K/mo salary). Startups tend to go hire-crazy after raising, but it's rare that they need to go 0 to 1 with full-time, local hiring. Going remote can save them a ton (on hourly and on not paying a salary for someone to twiddle their thumbs or show up before a boss does). Our "easy way out" is to find companies who are already remote friendly. I remain convinced that this is a cultural hurdle we'll get over, but I'd be a liar if I told you I had timing perfectly predicted.
pklausler 9y ago
It's not remote vs on-site for best performance from engineers, it's nice and quiet vs distracting. An open office jam-packed with noise makes remote work look way more attractive.
Corrado 9y ago
Thinking about it more carefully, I value working at different times or not even a contiguous time range. Sometimes I get up at 4AM and have all kinds of good ideas and am ready to go. In fact, I would probably get more done in 24 hours if I could break it up into 3-4 parts. This type of schedule is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve by going into the office. I really like being around (most of) my coworkers and would probably feel left out if I worked from home all the time. That's why I really like the flexibility to work from any location at any time. If only I could convince the bosses that me not being in my desk, or answering chat/email questions right away, was the best way for me to work I would be happy. Hmmm... now I know what to ask in my next job interview. :)
lemonycracket 9y ago
Demand only 100% remote jobs or quit and start your own consultancy

305 points by Mz 9y ago

I find this to be more and more important the more experienced I get. At some point, I had a poignant realization. I work to earn money. I then use the money to provide for myself & my family, to buy things and experiences, and to build a safety net. I do these things to have a relatively stressless, happy, and fulfilling life. If I just maximize for cash earned, I need to compensate for other things. I want to maximize free time and minimize commute. I have errands to run and things to do. Having flexible work, with a work from home option is worth more to me than making more money. Otherwise, I need to spend more on an apartment close to the office. A more expensive car can make a commute more bearable. I value peace and quiet, and city living is at odds with this. Reconciling all this while working a 9-5 at a central office in the city costs a lot of money. I currently work at 15Five, where "Embrace Freedom & Flexibility" is one of our core values. We actually are active in living this and our other core values. You can feel the effect directly. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this, and arrived at the same conclusion as this article.

i_dont_know_ 9y ago
Preach it :) There's also something to be said about attention and creativity in most coding/tech jobs. I could sit at my desk all day writing marginally efficient code, or I could take a 1-hour break to do something else, come back and write really exceptional code, but most work cultures frown on doing this regularly. If you're full (or mostly) remote, you can regulate this yourself
GoToRO 9y ago
I agree with you. The question then becomes: if you achieved this level of performance, isn't it better to work for yourself rather than work for somebody who all the time undervalues your performance? Isn't it better in the long run to build a product that might need minimum level of attention once it's done?
- pm215 9y ago
  That would depend on whether the work you find happy, low stress and fulfilling overlaps much with the work you'd need to be doing to work for yourself. Personally I enjoy the software engineering part of my job, and have no desire to take on the business, sales and marketing work that I think would form a large part of working for myself.
- sametmax 9y ago
  It is. But after preaching it for a decade, I realized that working for yourself implies to develop a certain skill set and embrace another set of constraints many people don't wish for them-self. There is a lot of comfort in being an employee.
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    This is true, you replace one set of problems with some completely different ones. However, it does give you the ability to set your own priorities rather than them being handed down from management.
- stult 9y ago
  That depends on your risk tolerance, though. Self-employment, especially the entrepreneurial kind, inherently has a higher risk of failure. Sure, you might win big and build a self-sustaining business that earns you a tidy living, but then again you might also go bankrupt and lose everything because you can't pay your bills.
  - BjoernKW 9y ago
    Is self-employment really so much riskier than sequential employment? With the latter if you're laid off you instantly lose all your income. As a self-employed consultant / freelancer if you lose a customer who quite likely still have other customers, which mitigates the overall risk.
    - bigmanwalter 9y ago
whipoodle 9y ago
I think the problem is, the money is one of the only things written down. There's no, gee we're really sorry but things got rough this month so we're only going to pay you 70%. (Of course you leave if that does happen.) But there's no guarantee on any of the intangibles. And whenever they need to save a buck, or even in ways that aren't fully appreciated, the good-workplace stuff can erode. After spending a while in this industry, I'd say places are more alike than different, and total compensation is a reasonable thing to maximize for.
- SoMisanthrope 9y ago
  Coincidentally, this just popped up on HN https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/your-money/is-the-stuff-you-buy-over-20-years-worth-40000-hours-of-time.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/your-money/is-the-stuff-y... Brilliant thought exercise.
gehwartzen 9y ago
I agree. The only rational explanation I personally see for maximizing earnings at the expense of current life flexibility is to save/invest enough to retire earlier. But even then there are certain aspects of life that you can't catch up on later; being a part of your children growing up, establishing a strong bond with your spouse, remaining healthy by minimizing stress, etc
- pc86 9y ago
  This makes sense if you're going to try to get a big payday early in your career - trying to build a unicorn startup in SV and cash out by 30. That sort of makes sense to me. But maximizing earnings by working 60+ hour weeks so you can retire at 55 instead of 65? That's a pretty high cost for not a lot of reward, as far as I can see.
  - bluGill 9y ago
    What do you want to do with your life? There is no single right answer to that question so you need to figure it out for yourself. Some of the answers require you to work 80+ hours a week (at a good job) while living in a tent so you can save every penny - when you finally retire at 68 you will just barely have enough money to enjoy the last 5 years of your life spending all the money you saved over the years. Some answers you save 50% of your income until you retire at 40 to live the life you choose. Some answers you save 10% until 65 working a 40 hour a week job. The first allows you have an expensive hobby (sail the world in a very nice yacht). The second means you have to enjoy not buying anything. The last is a reasonable compromise for most of us.
matwood 9y ago
Completely agree. I'll trade some salary for flexibility and control. I hate doing pointless work (hence control), and I like working remote and work very well at home. The odd thing is, I go to the office regularly, and it's enjoyable because it's my choice to go. At my current company we state it as "you're all adults, and that's how we treat you." We have hired some people who needed more structure and they had to move on. There is no judgement on people who left, not every position is right for every person.
conanbatt 9y ago
What this mindset and view doesn't take into account is the direct financial impact of these measures, and taxes are a lot more involved that people think. Take google catering your lunch every day and night. It might be costing google 25 U$S per meal to provide that to the employees. Would the employee, not having that option, spend 25 U$S a meal? No way. But do employees choose or prefer companies that cater lunch? Lets say google can offer an employee a double offer: either full benefits and salary of X, or NO benefits and salary of Y. What is your Y? In general I would always think that most people will take Y, precisely because most of the benefits are very costly. Y could be 30%. Now, there is a difference in taxes: that extra Y will get taxed at 30%, while googles benefit cost might even have tax deductions. So the gap between X and Y is blurred by rules that applied differently. If company benefits were not only deductible, but expenditure there were considered part of wages and taxed at that rate, they would quickly diminsh if not dissapear.
- greenshackle2 9y ago
  This is very topical for me as I'm considering offers at a couple of companies this week and was trying to estimate Y for each, since they have pretty different benefits. One of them has catered breakfast and lunch. It sounds like a great perk but in Canada* in-kind benefits, including meals, are considered part of your salary, and are subject to income tax. I'm not sure how that plays out with daily catered meals; am I deemed to have received the benefit even if I eat out or bring leftovers? I could be paying taxes on food I haven't eaten. Probably not cheap food either. I'd prefer being paid in cash, and having the option to buy meal vouchers. That's true of most benefits - cash is always more flexible. There's also what it says about the culture: we offer free breakfast because we expect you to be at the office before your usual breakfast time. We offer free lunch because we don't expect you to have enough time to go out for lunch, or to pack a lunch the night before. *For federal income tax. YMMV on provincial tax. https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publications/publications/t4130-employers-guide-taxable-benefits-allowances/employers-guide-taxable-benefits-allowances.html#subsidized https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publi...
SoMisanthrope 9y ago
Read the book "Your Money or Your Life"... amazing what we trade, to keep a job.

xchaotic 9y ago

DHH from 37signals / basecamp agrees with that. I just wonder what happens when there is enough flexible companies offering similar terms. I guess it's back to square one then?

baxtr 9y ago
Sure. Then the next level will start and we will have achieved a great milestone. The way I see it though is that we are quite some time away from that point. (Unfortunately)

danieltillett 9y ago

There is another alternative which is the moneyball approach [1]. Identify those people overlooked because they don’t meet the current fashionable ideal and hire on the basis of what they can actually produce. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball

sgift 9y ago
First step would be to find a good way to evaluate peoples performance. Progress at that front seems to be ... very slow.
- danieltillett 9y ago
  Measuring performance is not hard. What is hard is estimating future performance at the hiring stage. One area that could be worked on is dealing with “difficult” people. At the moment most managers are not really incentivised to hire for performance, but they are certainly incentivised at a personal level to hire people who do as they are told and don’t make waves. Most managers would prefer a 0.1x person who was pleasant to manage than a 10x person who made their life difficult.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Measuring performance is very hard. Some very productive employees are great until they leave for another opportunity. Then team productivity grinds to a halt because they never optimized for maintainability or learnability of their code and systems. You could blame the 10X dev. But it's fair to say that there isn't much talk about how to quantify those kinds of concerns.
    - danieltillett 9y ago
      Well if you have not managed for the consequences of your 10x employee leaving then you have not managed very well.
    - majormajor 9y ago

wslh 9y ago

Flexibility was always our "secret" but even if we have people working remotely we prefer people who work at our offices. Few cabdidates are ready and responsible to work remotely. This is our experience. So our other flexibility method is time. Most developers work 6 hours per day and that works.

9to5isdead 9y ago
Given someone who is ready and responsible to work remotely, which would you prefer, office based or remote based? I feel as though writing off remote work due to the performance of someone not able to work remotely is a bit unfair. I am full time remote, and the hours per day I can work range between a couple of hours and a dozen. So long as the work is done and the clients are happy, that's what matters. The main thing is self-discipline, having the self-discipline to get the work done and to provide top quality work. You have the flexibility to choose your best working space, working hours, and working style, so go and produce your best work.
- amorphid 9y ago
  A big part of my interest in working remotely is how likely I am to find a replacement job. At this time, it is much easier to find a job if I am in person.
- wslh 9y ago
  I prefer to work and interact with people face to face than work remotely. It is great that technology enabled us to work everywhere and have the flexibility to continue working outside the office but I feel alienated when I don't interact with people in a more human compatible way.

snarfy 9y ago

When they won't let me adjust my subs pay, this is about the only thing I can give them. I don't care what hours they work or where they work as long as they get their work done. They need to attend meetings but video conferencing is always used.

trevyn 9y ago

"If conversely you capped the salary of computer programmers, we would expect a flood of companies competing with every possible other amenity they were allowed to offer and managers being very very polite to computer programmers. (In fact this does happen with relatively better computer programmers, which tells us that something is bounding the salaries of top programmers underneath their purely financial equilibrium.)"

humanrebar 9y ago
Part of the cap is business models that weren't designed with higher developer salaries in mind (if there were even fully developed in the first place).
stult 9y ago
It's only their preferences that are bounding their salaries in those cases. At some point, a polite manager is worth more than X more in compensation. The type of person who becomes a top programmer tends to value being in an environment conducive to being a better programmer, because that's how you get to be among the best. So many naturally tend to value productivity enhancing perks more than comp at the upper end.
- HelloNurse 9y ago
  >It's only their preferences that are bounding their salaries in those cases. At some point, a polite manager is worth more than X more in compensation. A good boss isn't a benefit that can be awarded or revoked by the company. Sometimes money isn't enough to induce employees to remain in a bad environment or leave a good environment for a bad one, but normally a decent manager is expected and taken for granted, and if salaries are "bounded" below market that employer is dead meat.
  - bruxis 9y ago
    I just want to note the caveat here that an extremely polite boss is by no means guaranteed to be a good boss.
deleted 9y ago

audiolion 9y ago

This article seems loosely based on ideas from the Dropbox blogpost on open offices [0]. The connection being the mention of employers offering all kinds of perks and more office space or private space never is one of them, that it could be a useful perk to attract talent. [0] Is the open office layout dead? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15060623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15060623

SirLJ 9y ago

Once you cross into the 6 digit salary territory, free lunches and similar gimmicks are not going to cut it anymore... the only thing that keeps me in my current company is the working from home factor and all the perks it entitles like no traffic, home gym, after lunch naps, swimming at 17:00, etc

shearnie 9y ago

I'm currently working remote and took the job over an on-premises gig in the big smoke. It's a 200 pay cut per day. However factoring in expenses in fuel and parking and car wear, and the 10 hours of time lost commuting per week. I'm counter-intuitively better off by the equivalent 200 per day. Reason being my time spent NOT commuting is invested in my bootstrapped startup. If I had to commute, I was essentially earning money by sitting in traffic rather than coding, which had to be spent to an offshore developer while I'm in a car instead of at my machine. So that including expenses in commuting will erode my net income. Not to mention the stress and health and mental performance impact commuting does to you. Sitting in traffic, cognitively processing the driving, finding a car park, walking ten minutes from a car park to premises. My motivation and energy is sapped by the time I'm in the office. And more so by the time I get home. Prior to this I was doing the commute to make sure the boss sees me gig for a year and compared to now, the difference in performance I notice is remarkable.

timje1 9y ago
I can't remember the exact details, but I remember there being a British study that found that cutting an hour a day off your commute increases your happiness more than a ~30% payrise (figures misremembered). If you've gotten back two hours a day, that's a massive quality of life improvement!

akshay1938 9y ago

Rightly said

RealityNow 9y ago

This is why I never understood the obsession with working for the big prestigious corporations like Google and the unicorns. As far as I'm aware, they don't allow remote work and working from home without an excuse correct?

ThePawnBreak 9y ago
> This is why I never understood the obsession with working for the big prestigious corporations like Google and the unicorns. Money.
- RealityNow 9y ago
  Factor in cost of living in the bay area and it's not quite as glamorous as it sounds
  - ulucs 9y ago
    Oh come on. Sure, as I live in Middle East my rent might be 450$/month but after you consider that I'm paid 5$/hr, I'd gladly take 60k/yr (which is very low end) even if my rent and other expenses quintupled
    - RealityNow 9y ago
      It's all relative. I'm just saying that someone who's talented enough to get a job at Google could probably land a cushy remote gig and live somewhere dirt cheap, saving more money and enjoying a higher quality of life.
      - ThePawnBreak 9y ago
        At Google, it is completely not out of the ordinary to make 300k a year as a senior, or 200k after 2-3 years with the company. To get a remote job making that is orders of magnitude more difficult. Also, nobody wants to hire junior remote people, so if you go to MIT it's either 160k at Google or 40k remote. Maybe after 4 years at Google someone'll be willing to pay you 50% of what you make there, but you don't really want to move away after being in a place for 4 years to get a remote job and be completely depended on your employer. I'm from Eastern Europe and I tried to get a remote job before emigrating. I applied to dozens of places and could only get an interview at one company that was paying about 25k because Eastern Europe is cheap anyway. Was rejected for lack of experience. Got a job in Western Europe for 4x more. In addition, the are many many interesting things to work on at Google and smart people to learn from, whereas the few remote jobs that exist are mostly making CRUD is the web framework du jour. tl;dr There is almost no market for remote devs.

fogetti 9y ago

Give me clear goals which are measurable, and I will get things done either remotely or on-site. It doesn't matter which one. This is a win-win situation because my manager can track my progress based on the previously setup measurements. And to achieve this, location is irrelevant. Things usually start turning south when managers just simply demand speed. Or eagerness. Or dedication. Or other bullshit which has no relevance regarding any specific task. These are the cases which brilliantly show the lack of management skills. These are the kind of little men who demand you to be at the office all time. You can call them control freaks, or micro-management fetishists. It doesn't matter. These people just show one thing with their behaviour: that they don't trust their subordinates.

bluGill 9y ago
That is technically true, but you do NOT want clear goals though. Clear goals are for junior "code monkeys" who just do what they are told without any concern for if they are going the right thing. If you want input into your work and the feeling that you are actually doing the right thing you need to have the context around your goals. Your physical presence in the offices lets you take part in "water cooler" and "hallway" conversations with various people. Yes you can do some of that via email, forums, and the like. However the human factor of your presence changes the tone of the conversation. It isn't just you either, the other person(s) involved. When you have a short, critical, task that needs to be done fast, then staying home without a phone or email is the best way to get it done fast. However for anything else communication is an important part of your job and physical presence aids that. That isn't to say remote work cannot - it does. However there are real disadvantages to it that need to be considered.
- fogetti 9y ago
  And what would be those disadvantages? You listed things which you think are supporting the arguments to be present in the office. But one argument which is supporting on-site presence, doesn't make it automatically an argument against working remotely. And you are basically trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say a word that I will do what I am told without concern. That's only your implication. Correct me if I am wrong, but you imply that because requirements are usually unclear: that means that clear goals are undesirable. Does that sound logical to you? Because to me that's a big no-no. I only saw people pushing this kind of mentality who like to fish in troubled waters and enjoy the mess to take advantage of it for their own sake (i.e. climbing corporate ladders). And let me highlight one thing: if I am supposed to clear things up and organize my work, than what is my manager supposed to do? In this world that you imagined there is no role for a manager IMO. And that would be pretty much fine with me. It's just far from reality. I won't subscribe to the idea that the office is a rainbow colored fairytale. I am coming from the exact opposite direction of thinking.

durgiston 9y ago

I personally don't get the love for working at home/remote. I HATE working at home. To me, home is home and work is work. I don't want to mix them, and I feel awful when I have to stay home all day, or don't get to interact casually with my coworkers. Its just so depressing to be alone all the time. That being said, a bad office environment is definitely a turn off, and at this point in my career free lunch and the ilk isn't that much of a perk anymore. I want reasonable hours, decent vacation and health-insurance, and a big income.

joeax 9y ago
I work with a guy just like you, and I think that's great. Some people are natural extroverts, and love the interactions and water cooler conversations that come with that personality type. Just don't drag me into the office just because that's your personal preference. I will be miserable and looking for a new job.
- adrianmonk 9y ago
  It's not necessarily about introversion and extroversion. I'm a natural introvert, and I also have working at home. I want a strong, clear boundary between work and personal activities. It's not so much about being in an office; it's about being a place that isn't home.
  - joeax 9y ago
    You need a home office for your own sanity, this much is true. I found this out the first year when the kids were out of school. Many others I've talked to also found satisfaction in co-working centers.
lagadu 9y ago
I'm exactly like you. Home is strictly for non-work stuff: no work, no reading emails (not that I carry my work phone anyway), no nothing and I despise working from home. Yet I work remotely. I work remotely because I felt like moving to a sunny, cheap place where I get to live like a king and I just rent a desk at a co-working office where a couple of my friends work too. It's lovely, all the nice things about being in an office and all the nice things about working remotely.

joeax 9y ago

Hopefully, more employers are waking up to this reality. I'd bet there are thousands of devs out there willing to take a pay cut for the opportunity to work at home full time, some who have confided this to me personally. It actually makes financial sense too. The true cost of commuting: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the-true-cost-of-commuting/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the-true-cost-of-c...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

gedrap 9y ago

Just treat adults as adults, show a little bit of trust. I don't like strict schedules, where you have to just sit through the required number of hours, or show up at some specific time for no reason (i.e. it does not affect other people). Don't force people to sit in a crammed open space office, all day every day, no matter the weather and other factors, because 'collaboration' or whatever. Commuting to the office when it is -20C definitely sucks. If someone wants to setup their ideal working environment at home - perfect, win win. Most of the time it doesn't even cost much. Sure, making it work requires some effort from both parties. But it's too often ruled out for no reason (or some BS reason). I made this switch and that's one of the best things that happened to my quality of life.

nradov 9y ago

While workplace flexibility is a good idea in general, this article is based on a false premise. Business isn't war, and there is little evidence that "talent" even exists as a specific quality. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myth http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myth

tweedledee 9y ago

If you can't find people of talent then you're not paying enough. I quit working because I couldn't get paid more than $300K working for someone else despite the fact that I make my employers way way more than that. I quit to do my own startup and made a ton of money. I'm now retired way too young. I'd love to go back to work because I like having a big impact on people's lives but now I'd need at least $500K to break even on taxes if I moved back to the US and no one is paying that for me.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
freshyill 9y ago
You poor thing.
ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
Can you explain what is involved in "Having to make $500k, just to break even on taxes"? I can't wrap my head around it. Are you currently living somewhere that does not tax investment income?
- tweedledee 9y ago
  I live in a Caribbean Tax haven which is zero tax. I'm comparing that to SF which is high tax.

dalbasal 9y ago

The problem with conversations like these..... If you're going to be talking about "HR issues" out in the open, you can only say certain things. Things people like. The "skeptics of completely virtual organizations" or opponents of flextime, increased holidays, work-life balance, on-site childcare, employee empowerment, higher pay.... they can't exactly blog about it and get an applause. But clearly, they still set the agenda. I want those things like everyone else does. I'm also pretty sympathetic to a lot of the arguments that they are good for business. But, we can't have a discussion when only one side speaks. I am somewhat skeptical about an existing large company virtualizing itself without major teething issues. I know very little about these thing, so who cares.. Anyway, where's the CEO blog on "why I make everyone work 9-5." or "never allow anyone to work from home." I know you're out there. Speak your piece!

lliamander 9y ago
Here's a good essay arguing that remote development interferes with the development of "deep context" needed to be a high-leverage software developer. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hard-thing-software-development-jesse-watson https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hard-thing-software-developme...
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
Anyway, where's the CEO blog on "why I make everyone work 9-5." or "never allow anyone to work from home." I know you're out there. Speak your piece! Here's Marissa Meyer doing exactly that [1]: To become the absolute best place to work, communication and collaboration will be important, so we need to be working side-by-side. That is why it is critical that we are all present in our offices. Some of the best decisions and insights come from hallway and cafeteria discussions, meeting new people, and impromptu team meetings. Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home. We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together. [1] http://allthingsd.com/20130222/physically-together-heres-the-internal-yahoo-no-work-from-home-memo-which-extends-beyond-remote-workers/ http://allthingsd.com/20130222/physically-together-heres-the... [2] https://www.fastcompany.com/3020930/yahoo-says-that-killing-working-from-home-is-turning-out-perfectly https://www.fastcompany.com/3020930/yahoo-says-that-killing-...
9y ago

gerbilly 9y ago

In most jobs you are being paid for a blend of: - Skills and abilities. - Availability. In workplaces where facetime is valued, they are maximizing availability. Sometimes this can be legitimate, since you do have to collaborate with others and be available to answer questions etc. However in my experience those workplaces which are obsessed with availability tend to be disorganized firefighting organizations that operate in an in 'all hands on deck' style.

pascalxus 9y ago

If there's such a huge war for talent, then why don't those employees have more bargaining power? Last I checked on glassdoor, salaries for SE are way below living costs in the bay area. And the vast majority of SE don't even have enough bargaining power to leave the bay area and work remotely. I strongly suspect, the "war for talent" is a huge myth, or perhaps, isolated to small specialties. I've worked for a company in the bay area that had huge growth and taken part in much of the hiring. We seemed to have more than enough talent available - so much so, we were actually turning some of it away. If anything, the problem was more - being able to recognize talent and hire it, rather than lack of supply.

exolymph 9y ago
Glassdoor is not a random sample.

Arelius 9y ago

Rad, where is our flexible work conference/meetup? I guess we'd want to do that remotely? Scheduling might still be difficult.

cseanmccoy 9y ago

I think rather than choosing one over the other a company has to find a balance. While working remotely offers employees flexibility whether it's the ability to manage different branches in different locations or as the article suggests a "reward," there's still value in human to human interaction. Digital means of communication offers instant service, it's mostly transparent, and there's limited chance of miscommunication or forgetting directives as the log of messages provides users with a written history of the conversation. At the same time, working collaboratively in an office of fellow employees yields to an established vernacular. Workers are acquainted with other workers styles, methods and tricks for business. There's more learning opportunities, I believe available for same place working, because a team of people are experiencing the same challenges in real time.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

We're a 100% remote company, and you would probably not be surprised at the extreme level of push back we've gotten from VC's about that, to the point where it's the reason they won't invest. Now, that might be a BS excuse on their part, but in many cases I know it's not. There are many many benefits to being a remote company, but it does take a particular kind of person to make it work. The best people for remote tend to be older and more highly skilled in my experience.

vlokshin 9y ago

This is important but so difficult. I'm one of the co-founders at Turtle(dot)ai. We have no problem attracting amazing developers who want total remote flex and to work 10-30 hours per week across different projects. We absolutely have a hurdle with convincing most companies that output = output and that remote work is ok. Companies still put an unreasonable amount of value on butt-in-seat, 9-5 work. Why? How can we get hiring managers and companies past this? We try to convince with logic. We show what companies spend on hiring their own devs (20K+ hiring cost, 10-20K/mo salary). Startups tend to go hire-crazy after raising, but it's rare that they need to go 0 to 1 with full-time, local hiring. Going remote can save them a ton (on hourly and on not paying a salary for someone to twiddle their thumbs or show up before a boss does). Our "easy way out" is to find companies who are already remote friendly. I remain convinced that this is a cultural hurdle we'll get over, but I'd be a liar if I told you I had timing perfectly predicted.

pklausler 9y ago

It's not remote vs on-site for best performance from engineers, it's nice and quiet vs distracting. An open office jam-packed with noise makes remote work look way more attractive.

Corrado 9y ago

Thinking about it more carefully, I value working at different times or not even a contiguous time range. Sometimes I get up at 4AM and have all kinds of good ideas and am ready to go. In fact, I would probably get more done in 24 hours if I could break it up into 3-4 parts. This type of schedule is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve by going into the office. I really like being around (most of) my coworkers and would probably feel left out if I worked from home all the time. That's why I really like the flexibility to work from any location at any time. If only I could convince the bosses that me not being in my desk, or answering chat/email questions right away, was the best way for me to work I would be happy. Hmmm... now I know what to ask in my next job interview. :)

lemonycracket 9y ago

Demand only 100% remote jobs or quit and start your own consultancy