5 ms·

There 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 entir

There 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 ago
Yes, 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    I 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 ago
  From 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.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    It's the opposite for me.
  - badpun 9y ago
    I have similar experiences. Try to have a design whiteboarding session remotely...
Shorel 9y ago
Yes, but once a week face-to-face is enough. It definitely doesn't need to be everyday.

Clubber 9y ago

Yes, 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
From 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.
- Clubber 9y ago
  It's the opposite for me.
- badpun 9y ago
  I have similar experiences. Try to have a design whiteboarding session remotely...

Shorel 9y ago

Yes, but once a week face-to-face is enough. It definitely doesn't need to be everyday.