> "The people in SF aren't magical; people outside of SF can do the job just as well." We agree. But if there's expertise in SF that you can't get anywhere els

> "The people in SF aren't magical; people outside of SF can do the job just as well." We agree. But if there's expertise in SF that you can't get anywhere else, then you end up hiring from SF too. In my experience this is exactly what happens with companies working with remote workers, they only hire from SF or NYC or other expensive cities when they don't have a better choice. --- > "In my experience, fully remote teams are much better at communicating than mixed or onsite-only teams. Why do you think remote work brings poor communications?" I have more than 10 years of experience working remotely and sometimes I hate it. Functional remote teams are better at communicating, yes, but that's survivorship bias [1] in action ... the people themselves are better, due to the selection process. Communication skills can be honed of course, but the people have to have an inclination for it and they have to be capable of self management. I have no idea if better education and better processes can indeed make a difference, but I've seen people and companies failing hard at remote work and the companies that succeed in working remotely are those with a strong culture for it, a culture that's not easy to build. And their hiring process does tend to select for those capable to function well remotely. N.b. I know this is a total anecdote, sometimes I wish we used the scientific method in advancing this field, but alas we don't. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias