4 ms·

I've worked remote, and it's ok, but it's not the same thing as being in the office. It's not the same thing as having a bunch of local companies to choose from

by davidw 7y ago

I've worked remote, and it's ok, but it's not the same thing as being in the office. It's not the same thing as having a bunch of local companies to choose from. Or from the company's point of view, it's nice to have a lot of local workers. And then there's stuff like high quality universities, and of course venture capital.

CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
> It's not the same thing as having a bunch of local companies to choose from. What is the intrinsic advantage to having "local companies" to choose from in a world where every company you'd want to work for also offered remote positions? > Or from the company's point of view, it's nice to have a lot of local workers. Same question for that perspective, except I do have a few ideas of a cynical answer to that question from the company's perspective.
- filoleg 7y ago
  >What is the intrinsic advantage to having "local companies" to choose from in a world where every company you'd want to work for also offered remote positions? The advantage is that on the path in-between now and the perfect future where all companies are remote-first( that we are not sure will ever happen), you will not be at a significant disadvantage when it comes to job prospects. I don't think that many people would be willing to heavily limit their job prospects (not even taking into account all the other advantages that come with living in a densely populated coastal city) while waiting for that "bright all-remote future" that may never come.
  - CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
    As a short-term strategic move, sure. That's pragmatic. But given a ceteris paribus comparison of the two, my question is what is inherently superior about the onsite position over the remote position?
onemoresoop 7y ago
How about remote offices or remote subdivisions? It always worked out, why wouldn't it work out now?
- davidw 7y ago
  Remote offices seem like a good compromise once a company is big enough. There are still coordination issues though, I would imagine.

by davidw 7y ago

CiPHPerCoder 7y ago

> It's not the same thing as having a bunch of local companies to choose from. What is the intrinsic advantage to having "local companies" to choose from in a world where every company you'd want to work for also offered remote positions? > Or from the company's point of view, it's nice to have a lot of local workers. Same question for that perspective, except I do have a few ideas of a cynical answer to that question from the company's perspective.

filoleg 7y ago
>What is the intrinsic advantage to having "local companies" to choose from in a world where every company you'd want to work for also offered remote positions? The advantage is that on the path in-between now and the perfect future where all companies are remote-first( that we are not sure will ever happen), you will not be at a significant disadvantage when it comes to job prospects. I don't think that many people would be willing to heavily limit their job prospects (not even taking into account all the other advantages that come with living in a densely populated coastal city) while waiting for that "bright all-remote future" that may never come.
- CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
  As a short-term strategic move, sure. That's pragmatic. But given a ceteris paribus comparison of the two, my question is what is inherently superior about the onsite position over the remote position?

onemoresoop 7y ago

How about remote offices or remote subdivisions? It always worked out, why wouldn't it work out now?

davidw 7y ago
Remote offices seem like a good compromise once a company is big enough. There are still coordination issues though, I would imagine.