5 ms·

> I'm not trying to be facetious - you seriously can't provide your own meals and snacks working from home? Of course I can but I just don't want to. This isn'

by cletus 6y ago

> I'm not trying to be facetious - you seriously can't provide your own meals and snacks working from home? Of course I can but I just don't want to. This isn't about being cheap or lazy (although I'm guilty of both to varying degrees). The biggest benefit of having a catered office is the lack of having to make a decision about what to eat. I'll just eat what they're serving that day. I'm a big believer in decision fatigue [1]. Don't make me make decisions about things I don't care about and what I have for lunch is one of those. For years I worked in offices where I either had to bring in my own lunch (never gonna happen) or I had to go out and buy it. I'm fine with the cost of it. I'm not fine with choosing where to go and what to order when I get there. I'll end up finding something I like and just getting it every day until I get sick of it because that's let cognitive load than having something different every day. That's why I like a catered office. > Or you could move to a cheaper location and have a nice home office. I live in NYC because I want to live in NYC. I chose the job because it's in NYC where I wanted to live. On a side note, I think this is the fundamental difference with the Bay Area. hardly anyone wants to live in the Bay Area. They want to work for [Google|FB|Apple|...] and to do that they need to live in the Bay Area. Most other places people have decided they want to live there and then look for work options. So yeah, I could buy a big house Georgia but... why would I want to? [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-fr...

pb7 6y ago
>They want to work for [Google|FB|Apple|...] and to do that they need to live in the Bay Area. This doesn't check out. All of those companies have large offices elsewhere. I agree with your take that you work in NYC because you want to live in NYC so that's where you work but your bias is showing that you can't consider that people feel similarly about the Bay Area. As one data point, I chose San Francisco when I had the guaranteed option to work for the same exact company with proportional pay (stupid high relatively speaking) in my hometown. People with options move where their quality of life is maximized -- that's the beauty of having options.
- sammnaser 6y ago
  In my experience it's been extremely competitive to get a spot in the non Bay Area offices within FAANG. The New York and Seattle offices are generally highly sought after, and there are typically many, many less teams operating outside the Bay Area. You don't exactly get to choose, especially coming into a more junior position.
  - pb7 6y ago
    I think it's a pure numbers game. Smaller offices will have fewer open positions so there will be relatively more flow to the big offices and HQ. There also needs to be critical mass for a team to develop in a new location so you can't just be the first person on a team for a product that's centered somewhere else unless you're a very senior person. It's a bit less flexible and expansion tends to happen in waves.
newfeatureok 6y ago
So you don’t want remote first to become popular because you’re not capable of making decisions and want the company to make them for you?
- pb7 6y ago
  Take it easy. He brings up a valid point about decision fatigue and the reason why these perks became popular. It's not that people making $100,000s can't make these decisions or that they can't afford paying for lunch -- it's just an extra thing that they don't have to worry about when working in a centralized location. I think it's a weak argument for preventing remote work but it is a valid one.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Agreed and will further observe that cletus isn't even trying to prevent remote work. At most they're saying that it's not something they're interested in doing permanently.
  - newfeatureok 6y ago
    Do you understand how privileged you sound? What percentage of employees do you think have free lunch from their employer?
    - pb7 6y ago
      What difference does it make if we're comparing apples to apples? I don't think a company that offers free lunch deciding whether to go fully remote or not has any effect on another that doesn't offer free lunch. Privilege or not doesn't make my opinion any more or less invalid.
      - newfeatureok 6y ago
        My point is that "decision fatigue" is not a valid point to begin with since most people don't deal with such issues therefore it's not really relevant in the grand schemes of remote-first discussions.
landryraccoon 6y ago
> I live in NYC because I want to live in NYC. It doesn't make NYC sound very appealing if working from your home in NYC is hellish. Working from my home in the Bay is actually quite nice. The best part is getting an hour of my day back because I don't have to commute to work. That 1 hour commute probably added more stress to my day than any other hour.
- pb7 6y ago
  I love my home in SF and have been deeply enjoying the COVID-induced work from home life. Many people don't invest in making their home comfortable and enjoyable to be in and it shows when it comes to these types of conversations.
  - alteria 6y ago
    True, but it also is the case that younger folk/non-devs are more likely to live in smaller spaces with housemates. Speaking personally, I made some optimizations, but there's only so much that can be done with the fixed amount of space that I share with others.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tarsinge 6y ago
> So yeah, I could buy a big house Georgia but... why would I want to? Because living in a big city with lot of options for food (and maybe other enjoyable and interesting things) give you decision fatigue?
dmode 6y ago
This is a bad take. SF didn't have any tech industry before the last decade, and yet still had the second highest population density. Majority of people live in SF and Bay Area, because they want to live there

by cletus 6y ago

pb7 6y ago

>They want to work for [Google|FB|Apple|...] and to do that they need to live in the Bay Area. This doesn't check out. All of those companies have large offices elsewhere. I agree with your take that you work in NYC because you want to live in NYC so that's where you work but your bias is showing that you can't consider that people feel similarly about the Bay Area. As one data point, I chose San Francisco when I had the guaranteed option to work for the same exact company with proportional pay (stupid high relatively speaking) in my hometown. People with options move where their quality of life is maximized -- that's the beauty of having options.

sammnaser 6y ago
In my experience it's been extremely competitive to get a spot in the non Bay Area offices within FAANG. The New York and Seattle offices are generally highly sought after, and there are typically many, many less teams operating outside the Bay Area. You don't exactly get to choose, especially coming into a more junior position.
- pb7 6y ago
  I think it's a pure numbers game. Smaller offices will have fewer open positions so there will be relatively more flow to the big offices and HQ. There also needs to be critical mass for a team to develop in a new location so you can't just be the first person on a team for a product that's centered somewhere else unless you're a very senior person. It's a bit less flexible and expansion tends to happen in waves.

newfeatureok 6y ago

So you don’t want remote first to become popular because you’re not capable of making decisions and want the company to make them for you?

pb7 6y ago
Take it easy. He brings up a valid point about decision fatigue and the reason why these perks became popular. It's not that people making $100,000s can't make these decisions or that they can't afford paying for lunch -- it's just an extra thing that they don't have to worry about when working in a centralized location. I think it's a weak argument for preventing remote work but it is a valid one.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Agreed and will further observe that cletus isn't even trying to prevent remote work. At most they're saying that it's not something they're interested in doing permanently.
- newfeatureok 6y ago
  Do you understand how privileged you sound? What percentage of employees do you think have free lunch from their employer?
  - pb7 6y ago
    What difference does it make if we're comparing apples to apples? I don't think a company that offers free lunch deciding whether to go fully remote or not has any effect on another that doesn't offer free lunch. Privilege or not doesn't make my opinion any more or less invalid.
    - newfeatureok 6y ago
      My point is that "decision fatigue" is not a valid point to begin with since most people don't deal with such issues therefore it's not really relevant in the grand schemes of remote-first discussions.

landryraccoon 6y ago

> I live in NYC because I want to live in NYC. It doesn't make NYC sound very appealing if working from your home in NYC is hellish. Working from my home in the Bay is actually quite nice. The best part is getting an hour of my day back because I don't have to commute to work. That 1 hour commute probably added more stress to my day than any other hour.

pb7 6y ago
I love my home in SF and have been deeply enjoying the COVID-induced work from home life. Many people don't invest in making their home comfortable and enjoyable to be in and it shows when it comes to these types of conversations.
- alteria 6y ago
  True, but it also is the case that younger folk/non-devs are more likely to live in smaller spaces with housemates. Speaking personally, I made some optimizations, but there's only so much that can be done with the fixed amount of space that I share with others.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tarsinge 6y ago

> So yeah, I could buy a big house Georgia but... why would I want to? Because living in a big city with lot of options for food (and maybe other enjoyable and interesting things) give you decision fatigue?

dmode 6y ago

This is a bad take. SF didn't have any tech industry before the last decade, and yet still had the second highest population density. Majority of people live in SF and Bay Area, because they want to live there