5 ms·

I think I may be in the minority, but I don't think people are thinking of the consequences of this telecommuting push. I like the fact that there is a place w

by droz 15y ago

I think I may be in the minority, but I don't think people are thinking of the consequences of this telecommuting push. I like the fact that there is a place where I do work and where I live. I do not want these two places to be the same. Much for the same reason people don't put a television in the bedroom. The bedroom is for sleeping, the living room is for TV. I find that with the remote people I need to work with, I'm working around their schedule of when they will be around. It is difficult to communicate over IM, IRC, telephone and Skype (doesn't feel a fluid as face-to-face interaction). If everyone starts becoming remote, then what's the point of having an office? If enough companies come to the same conclusion, what's the point in owning a building (from the eyes of a real estate guy). And ultimately, what's the point of having big office parks and so on and on. That's a lot of land and lot of capital at stake if this ever actually took off. If a company asked me to be remote, I'd tell them I'm going to start looking for other employment options.

cagey 15y ago
> Much for the same reason people don't put a television in the bedroom. ? I think having a TV in _every_ room is most consumers' dream come true.
jacques_chester 15y ago
> If everyone starts becoming remote, then what's the point of having an office? If enough companies come to the same conclusion, what's the point in owning a building (from the eyes of a real estate guy). And ultimately, what's the point of having big office parks and so on and on. That's a lot of land and lot of capital at stake if this ever actually took off. It'll be put to other uses. That's how capitalism works my friend. What do you think happened to all those old factories and warehouses in big cities? People live in them now.
- bruce511 15y ago
  yes. And more to the point what happened to the people who used to _work_ in them? 'Cause those jobs are now being done outside the US by people prepared to work for far less. If decentralizing is an option then the US border certainly isn't a barrier. Understand that a telecomuting job is the easiest job to offshore. At the end of the day if you never come in to the office you might as well be living in India. Cause then we'd have to pay you less. Oh wait, there's some super-keen, super bright chap in India who'll do your work for a tenth of the price? hmm let me think about that for a while.
  - jacques_chester 15y ago
    If they're going to outsource you, they'll outsource you. Whether you come to the office or telecommute won't make a huge difference to the decision when you're looking at wage differences of 5x-20x. In fact, a telecommuter is cheaper than onsite -- much lower overheads. Employees in the office mean renting office space, getting insurance, paying for utilities ... overhead which can add up to a lot of money quite quickly. If they're at home you can pay them more and still come out ahead.
    - bruce511 15y ago
      "If they're going to outsource you, they'll outsource you. Whether you come to the office or telecommute won't make a huge difference to the decision when you're looking at wage differences of 5x-20x." I disagree. Many companies wouldn't outsource because the shift from having workers-in-house to workers-remote is a big one. I _know_ I can get staff in India or China much cheaper than here, but there are enormous benefits (perceived or real) to the employer for having people in the office. The point I'm making is that when a worker presents such a terrific argument for tele-computing, they're also presenting a terrific argument for out-sourcing. Now personally I'm not a big fan of tele-commuting. We've had some remote workers in the past, and it didn't work out. Communication is the key of course, but at the end of the day, for better or worse, it simply didn't work out. Now we operate far more like a flexitime system, people come in every day, but there's a lot of flexibility with regard to hours. But my root point here is that the same arguments for and against telecommuting are the same arguments for and against outsourcing. The one begets the other. Outsourcing is just telecommuting with "cheaper" added.
      - danssig 15y ago
        >I _know_ I can get staff in India or China much cheaper than here No you can't. If you could more companies would be doing it. You get what you pay for. When you get cheap outsourced labor in India you're getting people with no experience and insanely high turn over rate. If you want people from India with more experience you'll find them out west somewhere making a better salary. The market rate is the market rate. If you suddenly switched all programmers to being remote then the guys in India would initially be getting offered so many jobs that they'd have to push their prices up in response. You're making the classic mistake of assuming cost = what it costs me + some profit %. It doesn't, it's about perceived value and nothing else.

by droz 15y ago

cagey 15y ago

> Much for the same reason people don't put a television in the bedroom. ? I think having a TV in _every_ room is most consumers' dream come true.

jacques_chester 15y ago

> If everyone starts becoming remote, then what's the point of having an office? If enough companies come to the same conclusion, what's the point in owning a building (from the eyes of a real estate guy). And ultimately, what's the point of having big office parks and so on and on. That's a lot of land and lot of capital at stake if this ever actually took off. It'll be put to other uses. That's how capitalism works my friend. What do you think happened to all those old factories and warehouses in big cities? People live in them now.

bruce511 15y ago
yes. And more to the point what happened to the people who used to _work_ in them? 'Cause those jobs are now being done outside the US by people prepared to work for far less. If decentralizing is an option then the US border certainly isn't a barrier. Understand that a telecomuting job is the easiest job to offshore. At the end of the day if you never come in to the office you might as well be living in India. Cause then we'd have to pay you less. Oh wait, there's some super-keen, super bright chap in India who'll do your work for a tenth of the price? hmm let me think about that for a while.
- jacques_chester 15y ago
  If they're going to outsource you, they'll outsource you. Whether you come to the office or telecommute won't make a huge difference to the decision when you're looking at wage differences of 5x-20x. In fact, a telecommuter is cheaper than onsite -- much lower overheads. Employees in the office mean renting office space, getting insurance, paying for utilities ... overhead which can add up to a lot of money quite quickly. If they're at home you can pay them more and still come out ahead.
  - bruce511 15y ago
    "If they're going to outsource you, they'll outsource you. Whether you come to the office or telecommute won't make a huge difference to the decision when you're looking at wage differences of 5x-20x." I disagree. Many companies wouldn't outsource because the shift from having workers-in-house to workers-remote is a big one. I _know_ I can get staff in India or China much cheaper than here, but there are enormous benefits (perceived or real) to the employer for having people in the office. The point I'm making is that when a worker presents such a terrific argument for tele-computing, they're also presenting a terrific argument for out-sourcing. Now personally I'm not a big fan of tele-commuting. We've had some remote workers in the past, and it didn't work out. Communication is the key of course, but at the end of the day, for better or worse, it simply didn't work out. Now we operate far more like a flexitime system, people come in every day, but there's a lot of flexibility with regard to hours. But my root point here is that the same arguments for and against telecommuting are the same arguments for and against outsourcing. The one begets the other. Outsourcing is just telecommuting with "cheaper" added.
    - danssig 15y ago
      >I _know_ I can get staff in India or China much cheaper than here No you can't. If you could more companies would be doing it. You get what you pay for. When you get cheap outsourced labor in India you're getting people with no experience and insanely high turn over rate. If you want people from India with more experience you'll find them out west somewhere making a better salary. The market rate is the market rate. If you suddenly switched all programmers to being remote then the guys in India would initially be getting offered so many jobs that they'd have to push their prices up in response. You're making the classic mistake of assuming cost = what it costs me + some profit %. It doesn't, it's about perceived value and nothing else.