3 ms·
All of this could be solved if most companies embraced remote workers. I mean how old fashioned does it seem for a tech company to require most employees to mov
by Clubber 9y ago
All of this could be solved if most companies embraced remote workers. I mean how old fashioned does it seem for a tech company to require most employees to move everything they own so they could waste weeks of the year driving back and forth to a building and mostly sit by themselves not talking to anyone the vast majority of every day?
In 100 years, it will seem as silly as archaic as making your own clothes rather than buying them.
- doctorless 9y agoThere is value in face-to-face conversation, and while software solutions like Google Hangouts help bridge the gap to some extent, they don't eliminate it entirely. There may be some advantages to yield with VR, but even at its current state, it can't replicate the real world. It's likely we'll start to see direct neural interfaces before we actually have means to replicate the face-to-face aspect that remote work sorely misses out on.
- Clubber 9y agoYes, there is value, but IMO, it's nowhere near what it costs directly in dollars not only the employer, but all the employees. I mean they are essentially doubling everyone's salary in the big SV companies, just so they can meet "face-to-face," on rare occasions.
- doctorless 9y agoI definitely agree there is a negative ROI in areas like SV, but I would argue rather than trying to solve the problem with remote work, tech companies should seek cheaper cities. There are states with major metro areas that are in desperate need of new industry, like Kansas, where Wichita’s economy is hurting due to the aircraft industry’s shakeups.
- Clubber 9y agoI would say for the company, there is a negative ROI regardless of location; but it would be nice to see companies build or rent work centers and whatnot rather than force all national employees into a single location. Of course that costs more AND yields less available face-to-face communication in that it limits that communication to employees in the satellite office. Without remoting, for the entire organization, it gets a lot more expensive and most of the cost is deferred to the employees who have to do the moving and the transportation and the time loss, etc.
- usaar333 9y agoFrom my experience, remote work can easily be less than half as productive as non-remote work (if done over many weeks). I doubt every valley company is wrong in trying to maximize same office time.
- Shorel 9y agoYes, but once a week face-to-face is enough. It definitely doesn't need to be everyday.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- TulliusCicero 9y agoCompanies could already save money this way, since they could pay people less than bay area salaries. So ask yourself: why aren't they? Do they just hate money? Are Google and Apple logistically incompetent companies?