7 ms·

I think the points about challenges or switching and the likely future of heterogeneous office/remote balances are all strong. Where this lost me was on this c

by bfdm 6y ago

I think the points about challenges or switching and the likely future of heterogeneous office/remote balances are all strong. Where this lost me was on this claim about salaries: > I suspect the multipliers companies use to determine wage per city will even out to the efficient frontier of wage to cost of living as employees allocate themselves to the optimal locations. I think this is a temporary situation until there is a critical mass of remote roles/companies. If I live in a lower COL region but looking at remote roles I'm not competing with people near me, and the employers are not competing with employers near me. I'm competing with people who can do the work I do, and the employer is competing with all other remote-capable companies. I think the only shape of this that might work is treating the target time zone as a single market. Assuming comparable skills, a worker in Boston, Atlanta, NYC, Toronto, Nassau or Bogota shouldn't have wide compensation differences. It's possible that this leads to a net reduction in salary for many, as big companies "figuring out" remote might make formerly-painful offshoring more workable and attractively inexpensive.

andrejserafim 6y ago
I agree with you, but this is predicated on there being a healthy demand-supply ratio. My personal expectation is that there is a lot of developers out there and at least at non-junior levels the differentiating factor is skill, experience and timezone, as you say.
satysin 6y ago
As someone who has worked remotely (from home) for many years now I find this whole enlightenment employers and employees are having right now quite interesting/entertaining. However one thing that I dislike is this talk, mostly started by Facebook as far as I can tell, about reducing salaries for employees who move to cheaper places to live. Sorry but that is BULLSHIT. When I take on work I have my fixed daily rate that I charge whether I am working from Paris, SF, London or the Welsh Highlands. My employer is paying for my time, expertise, knowledge, experience and delivery quality. I am not worth more or less because of where I work. This is typical of employers trying to maintain that dominant position over the employee because suddenly they have been forced to adapt to this changing world and they don't like. My wife works a normal office job for a big, global company. Like most others they had to adapt to 100% WFH with a few days notice and after some teething problems it is working exceptionally well. This realisation has upset a lot of middle managers and "old school" types who live for the office. However the facts don't lie. Meetings still happen. Everything has been delivered on time. All of the things middle managers say require being in the office continue to happen with an issue. It is almost as if all of these middle managers and old school thinkers are suddenly scared everyone will see through their bullshit and that flexibility works best for everyone. Now I feel this evidence gives employees a lot of leverage to push for more flexibility in where they work. This upsets the employer/employee dynamic. It may well be much easier for an employee to find another job for a better salary at a company the other side of the country and that is a risk for the employer. Sure you can say "yes but now that employee is competing with people all over the country as well!" and that us true. However it is easier for an employee to change job than it is for an employer to recruit and get a new employee up to speed. This gives the employee a much better deal hence this bullshit display of "we're still the ones with power damnit!" from companies needing to change but being scared shitless about the advantages that gives all their employees. As I said at the beginning I have been a remote worker for a number of years now and for me it is perfect. I can (and do) pop into the office when needed but I get to live in a nicer, cheaper area with more space and an overall nicer environment. Where I live suddenly wasn't restricted to "how long will it take me to get to work from here?" and that is fucking freedom. I fully appreciate I am not like everyone else. There are people who need an office. That's fine, nobody is saying ditch all the offices and we all work from home. Just that it should be an option rather than being forced into a single location for no quantifiable reason. For all the crap companies talk about the environment, quality of life, etc. there needs to be a serious change to how we work. Forgetting everything else, just reducing the number of cars on the road every day for a pointless commute to the office would be worth it from an environmental standpoint.
- fermienrico 6y ago
  > I am not worth more or less because of where I work. You're worth less now because the job applicant pool just became worldwide instead of just where you work.
  - satysin 6y ago
    Possible. Also possible I am worth more as now I am not restricted to the employment options within ~1 hour of where I live. For example to companies willing and able to pay more. I found I was the latter which was one of the reasons I decided to go all in on working remotely.
  - JSavageOne 6y ago
    If he's already working remotely, then presumably he was already competing with the worldwide applicant pool.
    - ikeyany 6y ago
      He was competing with the worldwide applicant pool that was willing to work remotely. That pool just increased in size, considerably.
      - satysin 6y ago
        Kind of. The positions I take were obviously already remote so anyone wanting/willing to work remotely could have applied as well. Being remote had nothing to do with the current pandemic. Also if someone dislikes working remotely they won’t look for such jobs in the future. Of course there are those that never really thought about it as an option that are new to this crazy new world but I welcome them all. The more the better in my opinion as it normalises the whole idea which many seem to be very against. Obviously I am biased towards remote work due to the life changing effect it had for me. I was never happy in an office every day. Sometimes was fine but not every day for no good reason. I get back two days of time a month just from time saved commuting. That’s 24 days a year saved.

by bfdm 6y ago

andrejserafim 6y ago

I agree with you, but this is predicated on there being a healthy demand-supply ratio. My personal expectation is that there is a lot of developers out there and at least at non-junior levels the differentiating factor is skill, experience and timezone, as you say.

satysin 6y ago

As someone who has worked remotely (from home) for many years now I find this whole enlightenment employers and employees are having right now quite interesting/entertaining. However one thing that I dislike is this talk, mostly started by Facebook as far as I can tell, about reducing salaries for employees who move to cheaper places to live. Sorry but that is BULLSHIT. When I take on work I have my fixed daily rate that I charge whether I am working from Paris, SF, London or the Welsh Highlands. My employer is paying for my time, expertise, knowledge, experience and delivery quality. I am not worth more or less because of where I work. This is typical of employers trying to maintain that dominant position over the employee because suddenly they have been forced to adapt to this changing world and they don't like. My wife works a normal office job for a big, global company. Like most others they had to adapt to 100% WFH with a few days notice and after some teething problems it is working exceptionally well. This realisation has upset a lot of middle managers and "old school" types who live for the office. However the facts don't lie. Meetings still happen. Everything has been delivered on time. All of the things middle managers say require being in the office continue to happen with an issue. It is almost as if all of these middle managers and old school thinkers are suddenly scared everyone will see through their bullshit and that flexibility works best for everyone. Now I feel this evidence gives employees a lot of leverage to push for more flexibility in where they work. This upsets the employer/employee dynamic. It may well be much easier for an employee to find another job for a better salary at a company the other side of the country and that is a risk for the employer. Sure you can say "yes but now that employee is competing with people all over the country as well!" and that us true. However it is easier for an employee to change job than it is for an employer to recruit and get a new employee up to speed. This gives the employee a much better deal hence this bullshit display of "we're still the ones with power damnit!" from companies needing to change but being scared shitless about the advantages that gives all their employees. As I said at the beginning I have been a remote worker for a number of years now and for me it is perfect. I can (and do) pop into the office when needed but I get to live in a nicer, cheaper area with more space and an overall nicer environment. Where I live suddenly wasn't restricted to "how long will it take me to get to work from here?" and that is fucking freedom. I fully appreciate I am not like everyone else. There are people who need an office. That's fine, nobody is saying ditch all the offices and we all work from home. Just that it should be an option rather than being forced into a single location for no quantifiable reason. For all the crap companies talk about the environment, quality of life, etc. there needs to be a serious change to how we work. Forgetting everything else, just reducing the number of cars on the road every day for a pointless commute to the office would be worth it from an environmental standpoint.

fermienrico 6y ago
> I am not worth more or less because of where I work. You're worth less now because the job applicant pool just became worldwide instead of just where you work.
- satysin 6y ago
  Possible. Also possible I am worth more as now I am not restricted to the employment options within ~1 hour of where I live. For example to companies willing and able to pay more. I found I was the latter which was one of the reasons I decided to go all in on working remotely.
- JSavageOne 6y ago
  If he's already working remotely, then presumably he was already competing with the worldwide applicant pool.
  - ikeyany 6y ago
    He was competing with the worldwide applicant pool that was willing to work remotely. That pool just increased in size, considerably.
    - satysin 6y ago
      Kind of. The positions I take were obviously already remote so anyone wanting/willing to work remotely could have applied as well. Being remote had nothing to do with the current pandemic. Also if someone dislikes working remotely they won’t look for such jobs in the future. Of course there are those that never really thought about it as an option that are new to this crazy new world but I welcome them all. The more the better in my opinion as it normalises the whole idea which many seem to be very against. Obviously I am biased towards remote work due to the life changing effect it had for me. I was never happy in an office every day. Sometimes was fine but not every day for no good reason. I get back two days of time a month just from time saved commuting. That’s 24 days a year saved.