3 ms·

I agree with all of that, honestly. What I think is going to change is the belief by the company that WFH is undesirable. Most companies, even those that allow

I agree with all of that, honestly. What I think is going to change is the belief by the company that WFH is undesirable. Most companies, even those that allow remote work, would prefer that everyone be in the office. There are tons of companies (my own included) that discouraged WFH policies, but given that we've been 100% remote for the last 3-4 weeks and the sky hasn't fallen, I can see a lot of companies (and a lot of employees!) warming up to the idea that WFH is not only palatable, but even a good idea and a nice perk for attracting new employees. My company would never have allowed this many people to WFH in a pre-COVID world, but I can definitely see that changing in the future. Yes, there are very good reasons that people can and should work in an office. Absolutely. I 100% agree with you. But I think that businesses will start to realize that there are just as good alternatives to a lot of those reasons -- and especially if, as I mentioned, someone can crack the virtual social problem. If it's as easy to hop on a video call and sort something out (virtual whiteboarding?!) in a minute or two, then that's just as, if not more, efficient than being in an office. If we can virtually socialize similarly to how we do in an office, have water cooler moments similarly, hold meetings similarly... then a lot of those reasons fall away. To be clear, I'm not saying that businesses will move to 100% remote. That's obviously not going to happen no matter what for 99% of companies. But I think the idea of WFH is going to become much, much, much more palatable and desirable to both companies and employees out of this.

bruce511 7y ago
Be careful what you wish for. Once an employer discovers your job can be done remotely, it's only a small step to discover it can be done cheaper by someone living somewhere else... Of course some jobs are a hybrid, where you only come to the office a couple times a week (which then limits the savings to the business anyway) but for the genuine 100‰ work from home expect serious job insecurity. Live in LA? Wfh to beat the traffic? Well someone living in Ohio,or elsewhere can do the same work for less money. Live in Ohio? There's someone in Canada that can do it for less...
- Jemaclus 7y ago
  I think that's the future, whether we want it or not... We've already been seeing that with respect to call centers and outsourcing tech stuff for decades. It's only a matter of time before we become a truly globalized economy where any white-collar job can be done regardless of location. I think a more interesting dynamic that would arise out of this is how compensation works. Right now, someone in San Francisco makes a bajillion times what someone doing the same work in Kalamazoo makes. If businesses can seamlessly hire someone in Kalamazoo for a fraction of the price, why wouldn't they? They would! and should! But then what happens to the person in the San Francisco Bay Area? Not just the person, but what happens to the entire area? Will all the techies in SF start moving to cheaper places to live? Or will they try and stay in SF? What will happen to housing prices or food prices? Will gentrification start reversing itself? This sort of leads into an off-topic conversation, but I'll mention it because I'm personally fascinated by it. Right now, I get paid X dollars per year because the business has decided that I generate more than that in revenue somehow, and some value of that $X is due to my geographic location (San Francisco). If I were able to work remotely and then decide I don't want to live in SF any longer and move to, say, Jackson, Mississippi, then what would happen to my pay? The company would likely try and cut my pay as a "cost of living" adjustment. But that's absurd, right? I was worth X dollars/yr in SF, and I'm still worth X dollars/yr regardless of whether I'm in an office in SF or in a cabin in Alaska or a coffeeshop in Vietnam. I have counterparts in an office on the other side of the country that make half what I make for the same work, all because they live in a particular geographic area. But that's dumb. We generate the same amount of revenue from the company (theoretically) regardless of our geographic area. But because they live in a place with a lower COL, they get paid less and the company makes more off of them. The whole idea is absurd in a number of levels. I digress, but to turn this back to your point: if this suddenly does happen, what happens to "COL adjustments"? Are they still a thing? Wouldn't I be able to say that I'm worth X dollars whether I'm based in Iowa City vs NYC? Wouldn't everyone be able to do that? Is it a foregone conclusion that it's a race to the bottom, or would wages and jobs stabilize into some sort of equilibrium? Maybe $500k salaries go away, but they wouldn't necessarily fall down to $50k salaries, and in fact might stabilize somewhere closer to $150k, and that's more than enough for most people in the USA to live decently. (I made up those numbers totally out of my ass, but it's the point that matters, not the numbers.) Anyway... interesting things to think about.

bruce511 7y ago

Be careful what you wish for. Once an employer discovers your job can be done remotely, it's only a small step to discover it can be done cheaper by someone living somewhere else... Of course some jobs are a hybrid, where you only come to the office a couple times a week (which then limits the savings to the business anyway) but for the genuine 100‰ work from home expect serious job insecurity. Live in LA? Wfh to beat the traffic? Well someone living in Ohio,or elsewhere can do the same work for less money. Live in Ohio? There's someone in Canada that can do it for less...

Jemaclus 7y ago
I think that's the future, whether we want it or not... We've already been seeing that with respect to call centers and outsourcing tech stuff for decades. It's only a matter of time before we become a truly globalized economy where any white-collar job can be done regardless of location. I think a more interesting dynamic that would arise out of this is how compensation works. Right now, someone in San Francisco makes a bajillion times what someone doing the same work in Kalamazoo makes. If businesses can seamlessly hire someone in Kalamazoo for a fraction of the price, why wouldn't they? They would! and should! But then what happens to the person in the San Francisco Bay Area? Not just the person, but what happens to the entire area? Will all the techies in SF start moving to cheaper places to live? Or will they try and stay in SF? What will happen to housing prices or food prices? Will gentrification start reversing itself? This sort of leads into an off-topic conversation, but I'll mention it because I'm personally fascinated by it. Right now, I get paid X dollars per year because the business has decided that I generate more than that in revenue somehow, and some value of that $X is due to my geographic location (San Francisco). If I were able to work remotely and then decide I don't want to live in SF any longer and move to, say, Jackson, Mississippi, then what would happen to my pay? The company would likely try and cut my pay as a "cost of living" adjustment. But that's absurd, right? I was worth X dollars/yr in SF, and I'm still worth X dollars/yr regardless of whether I'm in an office in SF or in a cabin in Alaska or a coffeeshop in Vietnam. I have counterparts in an office on the other side of the country that make half what I make for the same work, all because they live in a particular geographic area. But that's dumb. We generate the same amount of revenue from the company (theoretically) regardless of our geographic area. But because they live in a place with a lower COL, they get paid less and the company makes more off of them. The whole idea is absurd in a number of levels. I digress, but to turn this back to your point: if this suddenly does happen, what happens to "COL adjustments"? Are they still a thing? Wouldn't I be able to say that I'm worth X dollars whether I'm based in Iowa City vs NYC? Wouldn't everyone be able to do that? Is it a foregone conclusion that it's a race to the bottom, or would wages and jobs stabilize into some sort of equilibrium? Maybe $500k salaries go away, but they wouldn't necessarily fall down to $50k salaries, and in fact might stabilize somewhere closer to $150k, and that's more than enough for most people in the USA to live decently. (I made up those numbers totally out of my ass, but it's the point that matters, not the numbers.) Anyway... interesting things to think about.