10 ms·

Thought: - Companies that now realised that remote schemes works for them, will push for that scheme to remain, with the aim of reducing their fixed costs (off

• DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  > I'm sure that there are other unintended consequences, such as higher rents, but who knows. For Amazon's reputation for internal cost-cutting (such as displaying the pricing on computer peripherals in vending-machines in their SLU offices), Amazon makes me scratch my head for building-up their HQ in one of the most expensive cities to buy land in the world - ditto Facebook in Menlo Park. Why didn't Amazon choose Kent or Auburn instead - or Facebook building in the north-east of the Bay rather than the hyper-expensive south-west? Given Facebook's propensity to attract and hire young twentysomethings then surely their exact location in the Bay Area is immaterial (similarly, Amazon attracts a lot of ex-MSFT folk from the Seattle Eastside). It is a mystery. But that explains the higher-rents!
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • marcinzm 6y ago
    >Given Facebook's propensity to attract and hire young twentysomethings then surely their exact location in the Bay Area is immaterial Twenty somethings are the exact group of people who don't want to live in a socially dead place. And except for recent college grads even twenty somethings will have significant others who won't want to suddenly move to somewhere else. It's why startups keep being created in SF which has the worst costs out there.
    • DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      But the Bay Area is a big place and I consider the whole area to be socially alive. I fully understand wanting to stay in the Bay Area - but there's a big difference in land-value between being situated around Mountain View and San Francisco vs. the east-side of the Bay). What I don't understand is why the east-side of the Bay seems overlooked or even neglected lately (even more-so considering Berkeley's history).
      • neutronicus 6y ago
        > I consider the whole area to be socially alive. Ha. A lot of twenty-somethings are not so open-minded. Disparaging nearby neighborhoods as socially dead or otherwise undesirable is practically a pastime for young city folk (especially if they're dating!)
      • ghaff 6y ago
        Berkeley itself is as expensive and hard to build in as just about anyplace in the Bay Area.
      • MiroF 6y ago
        South Bay was probably the cheapest place to buy land at the time, it's only so expensive because now so many companies are headquartered there. I'm still not convinced that east bay is cheaper than south bay now, despite your assertion. Berkeley is hardly cheap (more expensive than Seattle, for instance)
      • nharmonia 6y ago
        As a twenty something who lived for free in Fremont for 3 months last year, I'd shell out the extra cash to live in SF/anywhere else next time. Maybe having access to a car would have changed my view?
  • mrep 6y ago
    Seattle wasn't as expensive back in the day and if I recall correctly, Bezos actually chose to move to seattle and start Amazon there for cost reasons (I think taxes were a big part of that). Moving an entire headquarters is expensive and did you forget about the HQ2 plan to expand elsewhere?
    • srle 6y ago
      Seattle is still cheap for what it is tbh, a bunch of my friends have moved there and I feel like I’m getting completely fucking robbed by staying in Toronto (shouts out to covid hitting pandemic status just as I was preparing to job hunt). Lower housings costs, significantly higher salary, much lower taxes, and better weather along with more interesting/nicer outdoorsy stuff makes Seattle probably my #1 choice for where I’d like to live right now.
  • MiroF 6y ago
    Because SF & Seattle are some of the best labor markets for tech talent in the world? How is this a mystery?
    • DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      The metro-areas, yes - but there are many neighbourhoods, suburbs, exurbs and submetropolitan areas with the same level of access to the talented locals but with approaching an order-of-magnitude less land-value.
      • MiroF 6y ago
        > but there are many neighbourhoods, suburbs, exurbs and submetropolitan areas with the same level of access to the talented locals but with approaching an order-of-magnitude less land-value. Which in the Bay is that true of?
      • jlj 6y ago
        Amazon's Bellevue footprint across to the lake from Seattle is expanding. New development in Seattle mostly stopped since 2018, while some existing projects are still being built and coming online. https://www.geekwire.com/2020/amazon-bring-15000-employees-bellevue-rapid-expansion-seattle-area-city-continues/amp/ https://www.geekwire.com/2020/amazon-bring-15000-employees-b...
• sdfx 6y ago
  A trend that started already in a lot of companies a couple of years ago and will only be accelerated by Covid. Many places do overbook desks in offices right now and have flex-tables without fixed assigned workers. Seems fair to think about compensating employees for the costs that are being pushed to their side.
  • mcv 6y ago
    True. When my team was just starting out, we couldn't find a place where we could sit together, because company policy was that they only needed 0.7 desk per employee. Many teams did have their own space, so we had nothing.
  • manigandham 6y ago
    What cost? If anything the employee now saves time and money from the commute alone.
    • papeda 6y ago
      I'd guess there are plenty of people in high-rent areas who'd need larger and more expensive living quarters to work from home long-term.
      • code_duck 6y ago
        If they previously chose those areas for convenient location in regards their work, now they're free to move anywhere they'd like.
        • deleted 6y ago
          [deleted]
        • WalterGR 6y ago
          “Free”? Do you have absolutely no attachments to where you live? People have social support networks - friends, families, places that they go to, classes they’re taking. Children who go to schools and have friends there and go to parks for play dates and birthdays. Those are just one or two of the social costs. How much does it cost in real money to relocate a family of 3 or 4? People who live close to work in an expensive area have traded money for time. Higher salary; shorter commute. They may not have the resources to move. IMO, that’s a strange definition of free.
• CaptainZapp 6y ago
  > I'm sure that there are other unintended consequences, such as higher rents, but who knows. That's not that easy. While Switzerland doesn't do rent control per se and there can be regional differences depending on scarcity of real estate for rent a landlord is rather restricted in raising rent once a contract is signed. The only reasons why a rent can be raised are: - Additional investments into an apartment, but the raise needs to be in proportion to the investment - The bench mark mortgage rate goes up (on the other hand the rent needs to be lowered when the bench mark rate goes down, which is rarely the case nowadays, with a benchmark of 1.25%) - Inflation to a certain amount, but quite restricted Else than that rents can't just be raised. All that said and while I see where the decision is coming from I think it's a bit ludicrous and I don't think that many employees will actually try to get this benefit. To begin with: labor laws are more flexible than rental contract law. So there's always a threat of losing your job if you try to push it. But there's - at least in my opinion - an ethical edge. I, for one, felt highly privileged to be able to work from home and not being dependent on public transport during rush hour. In addition my employer invested a lot to get the infrastructure for thousands of people up to scratch in a very short time. My ethical compass would feel it's wrong to squeeze additional benefits from an arrangement, which potentially safes my life and from which I feel that my management puts a lot of trust in me and my colleagues.
  • sgc 6y ago
    Curiosity questions: Do you know the specifics on the inflation based increases? Is it a common practice for landlords to have these increases?
    • CaptainZapp 6y ago
      I hope your German is up to scratch :) [1] Basically: It's based on a consumer price index with the starting point of May 2000 (100%) and which is published every few years. A landlord can apply a maximum of 40% of the index increase in rent-increase, since the last time rent was adjusted. This is based on his equity investment into the object. Does this make sense? [1] https://www.mieterverband.ch/mv/mietrecht-beratung/ratgeber-mietrecht/glossar.html#Teuerung https://www.mieterverband.ch/mv/mietrecht-beratung/ratgeber-... edit: slight clarification
• zitterbewegung 6y ago
  This hinges on that companies and people have a positive net benefit for each person that will exceed the amount taxed. Working from home eliminates transportation costs and time and for companies the need to buy real estate for people and all of the equipment.
• 0817527930 6y ago
  > - This eliminates a big chunk of fixed costs... as most are shifted to the employees. Signal apparently has a co-working space subsidy for remote employees which I think is a great idea.
• techslave 6y ago
  > This eliminates a big chunk of fixed costs... as most are shifted to the employees. That’s an unfair treatment. Most if not all of those are sunk costs for the remote employee.
• nickik 6y ago
  Your making this a bigger deal then it is. As a company you have quite good control and knowledge over that cost. If I want a new desk and have the company pay for it, I can just come with a 10k bill. The company can lay out a bunch of avg prices for certain things and that's that. It not like everybody has some unique equipment. I basically need a chair, a desk, a laptop and maybe a monitor. Those cost are easy controlled. Expense systems are already in place for basically all companies as well.
  • jbay808 6y ago
    And an extra 30 square feet of apartment space?
    • nickik 6y ago
      Its like with all expenses, set an upper limit and require documentation. Or make it fixed bonus for everybody.
• Phylter 6y ago
  It already reduces the cost to employees by removing the transportation cost. They should encourage it because it benefits all those involved including the environment. I don't know why they would make it more difficult.
  • rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago
    Really? My employer pays half my transportation cost, which is required by law (at least where I live). Actually, they continue to pay and let me come by bike (which they approve) so I earn money evert month just by going to the office. Oh, now that I'm WFH due to Covid, they just pay me for going from the bed room to the living room.
  • Aeolun 6y ago
    > It already reduces the cost to employees by removing the transportation cost. My transportation costs were already being reimbursed. Now that I need no transportation any more, they can give me that money as rent support.
• dehrmann 6y ago
  > Companies that now realised that remote schemes works for them It's way too soon to call this. We're at the point where it doesn't not not-work.
• mschuster91 6y ago
  > This eliminates a big chunk of fixed costs... as most are shifted to the employees On the other hand, employees suddenly gain a lot of free time, especially those on enormous commutes. But even for small-ish commutes and 1 day/wk in the physical office the numbers are significant - at 30min one way travel, 4 days HO give you 4 h of extra time - or 10% of their workweek. Fully remote with 1h one way travel? 10 hours or over a whole work day's equivalent of time. On top of that employees gain other positive results like saving hard money on their car / public transport ticket and, especially for introverts or people with back issues, a large uptick in life quality as they don't have to stand in overcrowded subway cars or stuck in stop-n-go traffic jams. The fair solution would be for employers to pay a fair share of rent and decent regulations-conforming equipment (chairs!) for those working from home - and giving a raise to those who physically have to come to the office, e.g. to deal with paperwork.
  • perl4ever 6y ago
    I wasn't enthusiastic initially about working from home, and my actual travel time was about 10 minutes each way, which is about my tolerance for commuting. But the thing I like most about WFH is that it feels like I've gained a lot of time. I may only drive for 10 minutes, but it takes 5 minutes to pack up, 10 minutes to walk to my car, 10 minutes to drive, 5 minutes to...it feels like I have more than an hour additional free time every day.
• mac01021 6y ago
  My personal expenses are decidedly lower when I work from home. So I don't see how it can be said that they are shifting their costs onto me.
  • tekno45 6y ago
    Disruptions to these are now your responsibility to fix and your pay check is now dependent on them.
    • mac01021 6y ago
      I suppose that's a fair point, though if there is a problem with my house I can work from the library or the supermarket, etc, just as easily.
• ksec 6y ago
  >I'm sure that there are other unintended consequences Since WFH will require decent internet connection I surely hope one of those consequences is all landlord have an incentive to install Fibre Optics Internet connection. And not relying on junky Cables or DSLs.