7 ms·

> the reason that people are often attracted to remote-working is precisely because their experience and environment fail on some or many of the ideals you list

> the reason that people are often attracted to remote-working is precisely because their experience and environment fail on some or many of the ideals you list. Disagree. They want to live someplace that doesn't have the highly paid jobs that, say a city or tech center would have. A San Francisco salary with a Modesto cost of living. Or they want to do the digital nomad thing. Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible.

thinkmassive 7y ago
> Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible. I’ve worked at many companies who spent a huge budget on the office, but I was never offered my own office with a door. Anything less is far from optimal.
- mabbo 7y ago
  When I was an intern at Microsoft in 2009, I had my own office with a door. A month into the summer, a teammate (another intern) moved in to share it, but we still kept the door closed and basically stayed out of each other's way (she was pretty awesome though, wish I'd stayed in touch). Productivity was incredible. And if I got stuck, it was more worth my time to stay put a few minutes at least trying to solve it on my own than to bug anyone else. As a full time dev in one of the world's most valuable companies, I don't even have a cubical wall between me and my teammates. If anyone wants to speak, we all get interrupted. I did not know how good I had it back then.
  - the_watcher 7y ago
    Even rooms of 4-5 people with a door would be an improvement on an open office if those environments bother you.
ryanianian 7y ago
> Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible. The "open office" has been repeatedly studied and proven sub-optimal on many aspects that impact both employees and companies. Yet companies continue to design new offices with these designs. I would love a fully-remote gig mostly because it would be respite from the open-office.
- geggam 7y ago
  Fully remote requires a huge amount of discipline to not end up working 16 hr days 6-7 days a week. I do agree open offices kill productivity but a blend of remote and onsite is best IMO. disclaimer : I currently travel mon - thurs to be onsite everyweek
  - leesec 7y ago
    >Fully remote requires a huge amount of discipline to not end up working 16 hr days 6-7 days a week. For you perhaps, I for one certainly do not have a problem Not Working All The Time.
    - geggam 7y ago
      I can see that. Different people work differently.
  - ryanianian 7y ago
    The opposite can sometimes be true. I work remotely about 1 day a week. Some days I get in about 4 hours of real work and others it's in the 12-16 range. In any case it's a different environment and requires some self-awareness to be effective.
  - harlanji 7y ago
    After 9 coding jobs and a year or three in labor and service work at each end, I much prefer fixed schedules. On-site is best, tho I think taking away time flexibility could actually be a boon and help make remote work tolerable. Working for minimum wage now as a green waiter with people juggling 2-3 jobs and/or kids and a marriage in the Bay Area, more than any office colleague, I observe that fixed schedules work. The gig people I interact with are far more stressed than my colleagues. Apparently tangental perhaps, I think this case helps isolate factors of logistics well when contrasting the more common cases; and I think it’s a wise way to go, and am building a life to support that type of engagements. Thanks for sharing.
    - 7y ago
hrktb 7y ago
> Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible. I kindly disagree. Open spaces are more prevalent than ever. Dowtowns where office space are plenty are hell to commute. In general I think companies want bullet points “we’re a great place to work” perks to recrute new people, but overall comfort or ease to work doesn’t seem to have gone up IMO.
- geekbird 7y ago
  Yeah, I see all these companies with open plan hell pits claiming to be a "Great place to work!", and I have to say "Compared to what, a sweatshop in the third world?" The commutes are awful, the parking is expensive or non-existent, the office is noisy and crowded, the culture is repressive, the compensation is below market, but they all claim to be voted "Best workplace" or "Top ten place to work" or some such.
ssharp 7y ago
I'd still prefer remote of an office fully optimized for what I'd want in an office. For me, remote just works so much better. I can live where I want, I can work hours that work best for me, I can spend time with my family rather than commuting. Another benefit of remote work is that a company that's 100% remote has to spend time thinking through and improving communications and culture in ways that are optional for other companies.
- chosenbreed37 7y ago
  > Another benefit of remote work is that a company that's 100% remote has to spend time thinking through and improving communications and culture in ways that are optional for other companies. A really good point
- donretag 7y ago
  "I can work hours that work best for me" I have been working remote for years, and one reasons why companies hire me over a much cheaper resource in other countries is that I am US-based working US hours. If I started working crazy non-standard hours, I will no longer be employed.
- geekbird 7y ago
  Plus, the company saves by not having to pay for more office space, parking, cafeteria, yadda, yadda. Instead of cramming people into an open office like battery hens to save money on high SF office rents, people can work remotely, commute less, and save the company money on offices. The cost of communication software is far less than even the skimpiest open office rent and build out.
scarface74 7y ago
Hypothetically, if the going rate of a developer in San Francisco is $250K and that's what I have to pay to hire someone locally, but I can hire someone from anywhere in the country, if I know the going rate in Modesto is $120K, why wouldn't I offer them $140K? They would gladly accept it. Companies also don't offer San Francisco salaries to people living in India even if they are equally qualified.
- lostmymind66 7y ago
  This is a good point. If everyone is working remotely, you will need to compete on salary with everyone in the world, not just in your area. Which might mean you can't afford rent.
- ody4242 7y ago
  Why though?
  - fardin1368 7y ago
    > Why though? Cuz they don't need to!
  - jkukul 7y ago
    Gitlab gives few reasons in their handbook [1]. The obvious one is: "If we start paying everyone the highest wage our compensation costs would increase greatly, we can hire fewer people, and we would get less results." [1] https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-compensation/#why-we-pay-local-rates https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-c...
    - bluGill 7y ago
      So why doesn't GitLab fire all their high cost of living employees and replace them with someone cheaper?
      - travisjungroth 7y ago
amyjess 7y ago
> Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible. Sorry, but most companies nowadays use open offices, which are absolutely anathema to me. Here's the thing: I absolutely want to work in a cube farm. I want to work in a traditional office environment with individual cubicles in a suburban office park. Unfortunately, there are very few companies like that anymore. I like my current company. I like it a lot. We're a B2B telecom in the northern suburbs of Dallas with cubicles as far as the eye can see. I'm happy here. But if I ever end up leaving (which isn't going to happen anytime soon, because I'm happy here), then my next job is probably going to be remote, because I seriously doubt I'll find another non-remote job that matches my criteria. Sadly, the kind of company I prefer working at is a dying breed, and I'd rather work remote than work in a trendy open office environment that caters to millennials (hell, I'm technically a millennial, but everything to do with millennial culture makes me cringe).
- Raidion 7y ago
  I don't think "most companies" use open offices. I think it varies. I do agree with you, when I graduated from college, I explicitly didn't want to be in a cube farm. Graduating me was an idiot, and I very much do want to be in a cube farm. Also, I don't think lumping "millennial" as the cause of open offices is the correct reason. I feel like it's initially attractive for a lot of college grads, but it's generally opposed by people with experience. If you're at a place that doesn't have the working conditions you like, it's because they don't (or can't) value you enough to provide those conditions. I'm a millennial as well, but have only worked in an open office once, and that was when I was younger and had less experience.
- repolfx 7y ago
  What is it you like about cube farms so much? Individual offices I understand completely. Cubes? Seems like a very cheapskate version of a real office. I've never worked in one though, so I guess I can't quite understand it.
  - isostatic 7y ago
    Better than open offices and hotdesking?
loco5niner 7y ago
> Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible. Ha! Not my company. Why can't it be both? I want remote work because our office environment is horrible and my company isn't likely to change that AND I don't want to commute (after my company moved it's offices).
ergothus 7y ago
> Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible. My last 3 companies over the last 7 years (I'm new to one of them) have: * open offices (2 of the 3) or short-wall cubicles. That latter actually had a noise meter to try and flag when people were too loud...but they had to make it mobile so it could be wheeled around to the area that was currently the most complained about. * A constant battle to find open conference rooms. All 3 changed offices while I was there, and promised more meeting room space in the new office. All 3 quickly found it wasn't enough. I don't doubt that the companies are trying to make the open office space as nice as they can, but you can only polish a turd so much - they are still committing to the open office spaces.
the_watcher 7y ago
They make parts of it as optimal as possible (free food, nice facilities, readily available supplies). They do not bend over backwards to make the actual work environment optimal, as evidenced by all of the open office plans.

thinkmassive 7y ago

> Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible. I’ve worked at many companies who spent a huge budget on the office, but I was never offered my own office with a door. Anything less is far from optimal.

mabbo 7y ago
When I was an intern at Microsoft in 2009, I had my own office with a door. A month into the summer, a teammate (another intern) moved in to share it, but we still kept the door closed and basically stayed out of each other's way (she was pretty awesome though, wish I'd stayed in touch). Productivity was incredible. And if I got stuck, it was more worth my time to stay put a few minutes at least trying to solve it on my own than to bug anyone else. As a full time dev in one of the world's most valuable companies, I don't even have a cubical wall between me and my teammates. If anyone wants to speak, we all get interrupted. I did not know how good I had it back then.
- the_watcher 7y ago
  Even rooms of 4-5 people with a door would be an improvement on an open office if those environments bother you.

ryanianian 7y ago

> Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible. The "open office" has been repeatedly studied and proven sub-optimal on many aspects that impact both employees and companies. Yet companies continue to design new offices with these designs. I would love a fully-remote gig mostly because it would be respite from the open-office.

geggam 7y ago
Fully remote requires a huge amount of discipline to not end up working 16 hr days 6-7 days a week. I do agree open offices kill productivity but a blend of remote and onsite is best IMO. disclaimer : I currently travel mon - thurs to be onsite everyweek
- leesec 7y ago
  >Fully remote requires a huge amount of discipline to not end up working 16 hr days 6-7 days a week. For you perhaps, I for one certainly do not have a problem Not Working All The Time.
  - geggam 7y ago
    I can see that. Different people work differently.
- ryanianian 7y ago
  The opposite can sometimes be true. I work remotely about 1 day a week. Some days I get in about 4 hours of real work and others it's in the 12-16 range. In any case it's a different environment and requires some self-awareness to be effective.
- harlanji 7y ago
  After 9 coding jobs and a year or three in labor and service work at each end, I much prefer fixed schedules. On-site is best, tho I think taking away time flexibility could actually be a boon and help make remote work tolerable. Working for minimum wage now as a green waiter with people juggling 2-3 jobs and/or kids and a marriage in the Bay Area, more than any office colleague, I observe that fixed schedules work. The gig people I interact with are far more stressed than my colleagues. Apparently tangental perhaps, I think this case helps isolate factors of logistics well when contrasting the more common cases; and I think it’s a wise way to go, and am building a life to support that type of engagements. Thanks for sharing.
  - 7y ago

hrktb 7y ago

> Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible. I kindly disagree. Open spaces are more prevalent than ever. Dowtowns where office space are plenty are hell to commute. In general I think companies want bullet points “we’re a great place to work” perks to recrute new people, but overall comfort or ease to work doesn’t seem to have gone up IMO.

geekbird 7y ago
Yeah, I see all these companies with open plan hell pits claiming to be a "Great place to work!", and I have to say "Compared to what, a sweatshop in the third world?" The commutes are awful, the parking is expensive or non-existent, the office is noisy and crowded, the culture is repressive, the compensation is below market, but they all claim to be voted "Best workplace" or "Top ten place to work" or some such.

ssharp 7y ago

I'd still prefer remote of an office fully optimized for what I'd want in an office. For me, remote just works so much better. I can live where I want, I can work hours that work best for me, I can spend time with my family rather than commuting. Another benefit of remote work is that a company that's 100% remote has to spend time thinking through and improving communications and culture in ways that are optional for other companies.

chosenbreed37 7y ago
> Another benefit of remote work is that a company that's 100% remote has to spend time thinking through and improving communications and culture in ways that are optional for other companies. A really good point
donretag 7y ago
"I can work hours that work best for me" I have been working remote for years, and one reasons why companies hire me over a much cheaper resource in other countries is that I am US-based working US hours. If I started working crazy non-standard hours, I will no longer be employed.
geekbird 7y ago
Plus, the company saves by not having to pay for more office space, parking, cafeteria, yadda, yadda. Instead of cramming people into an open office like battery hens to save money on high SF office rents, people can work remotely, commute less, and save the company money on offices. The cost of communication software is far less than even the skimpiest open office rent and build out.

scarface74 7y ago

Hypothetically, if the going rate of a developer in San Francisco is $250K and that's what I have to pay to hire someone locally, but I can hire someone from anywhere in the country, if I know the going rate in Modesto is $120K, why wouldn't I offer them $140K? They would gladly accept it. Companies also don't offer San Francisco salaries to people living in India even if they are equally qualified.

lostmymind66 7y ago
This is a good point. If everyone is working remotely, you will need to compete on salary with everyone in the world, not just in your area. Which might mean you can't afford rent.
ody4242 7y ago
Why though?
- fardin1368 7y ago
  > Why though? Cuz they don't need to!
- jkukul 7y ago
  Gitlab gives few reasons in their handbook [1]. The obvious one is: "If we start paying everyone the highest wage our compensation costs would increase greatly, we can hire fewer people, and we would get less results." [1] https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-compensation/#why-we-pay-local-rates https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-c...
  - bluGill 7y ago
    So why doesn't GitLab fire all their high cost of living employees and replace them with someone cheaper?
    - travisjungroth 7y ago

amyjess 7y ago

> Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible. Sorry, but most companies nowadays use open offices, which are absolutely anathema to me. Here's the thing: I absolutely want to work in a cube farm. I want to work in a traditional office environment with individual cubicles in a suburban office park. Unfortunately, there are very few companies like that anymore. I like my current company. I like it a lot. We're a B2B telecom in the northern suburbs of Dallas with cubicles as far as the eye can see. I'm happy here. But if I ever end up leaving (which isn't going to happen anytime soon, because I'm happy here), then my next job is probably going to be remote, because I seriously doubt I'll find another non-remote job that matches my criteria. Sadly, the kind of company I prefer working at is a dying breed, and I'd rather work remote than work in a trendy open office environment that caters to millennials (hell, I'm technically a millennial, but everything to do with millennial culture makes me cringe).

Raidion 7y ago
I don't think "most companies" use open offices. I think it varies. I do agree with you, when I graduated from college, I explicitly didn't want to be in a cube farm. Graduating me was an idiot, and I very much do want to be in a cube farm. Also, I don't think lumping "millennial" as the cause of open offices is the correct reason. I feel like it's initially attractive for a lot of college grads, but it's generally opposed by people with experience. If you're at a place that doesn't have the working conditions you like, it's because they don't (or can't) value you enough to provide those conditions. I'm a millennial as well, but have only worked in an open office once, and that was when I was younger and had less experience.
repolfx 7y ago
What is it you like about cube farms so much? Individual offices I understand completely. Cubes? Seems like a very cheapskate version of a real office. I've never worked in one though, so I guess I can't quite understand it.
- isostatic 7y ago
  Better than open offices and hotdesking?

loco5niner 7y ago

> Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible. Ha! Not my company. Why can't it be both? I want remote work because our office environment is horrible and my company isn't likely to change that AND I don't want to commute (after my company moved it's offices).

ergothus 7y ago

> Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible. My last 3 companies over the last 7 years (I'm new to one of them) have: * open offices (2 of the 3) or short-wall cubicles. That latter actually had a noise meter to try and flag when people were too loud...but they had to make it mobile so it could be wheeled around to the area that was currently the most complained about. * A constant battle to find open conference rooms. All 3 changed offices while I was there, and promised more meeting room space in the new office. All 3 quickly found it wasn't enough. I don't doubt that the companies are trying to make the open office space as nice as they can, but you can only polish a turd so much - they are still committing to the open office spaces.

the_watcher 7y ago

They make parts of it as optimal as possible (free food, nice facilities, readily available supplies). They do not bend over backwards to make the actual work environment optimal, as evidenced by all of the open office plans.