7 ms·

This is the mindset I really don’t understand though. Sure your company can say “we’re all remote” today, but they can just as easily say “everyone has to come

This is the mindset I really don’t understand though. Sure your company can say “we’re all remote” today, but they can just as easily say “everyone has to come back” in six months. Or “everyone doesn’t have to, but those who don’t are the first laid off next time”. I’ve been fully remote since March, so I’ve been weighing this for awhile”

ianferrel 6y ago
Realistically, the vast majority of companies aren't going to issue an edict like that. They're going to find a way to work with their employees. If you have employees who have been working productively remotely for a year, it's probably better to find a way to keep them happy and working than to have to find a new employee.
- ad-hominem 6y ago
  Except yahoo famously did exactly this, despite it being obviously stupid even at the time, without the benefit of hindsight.
toomuchtodo 6y ago
Many companies have publicly stated they will allow permanent work from home [1]. Many others have said so privately to their workers. As more companies adopt this, this provides more options to those who relocate and whose employer tries to pull them back. Keep a long runway in an emergency fund, keep your professional network warm, always be ready to bounce if your employer tries to change your quality of life for the worse (mandatory return to an office somewhere, for example). (Disclosure: This is how I operate, and have worked from home for over 7 years.) [1] https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/companies-switching-remote-work-long-term/ https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/companies-switching-remot... ("27 Companies That Have Switched to Long-Term Remote Work")
- baby 6y ago
  And a bunch of others said they would go full remote for a year. So that’s enough to make people move (including me). We’ll see in a year.
- 8ytecoder 6y ago
  I spoke to a recruiter at a company that publicly said they'll allow permanent WFH. He said it's on a case by case basis and you still need manager approval. It's guaranteed only till next Summer. Companies can something public with if and buts and caveats added internally.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    There are always outliers. Importantly, the trend is clear.
    - baskire 6y ago
      Is it? the trend I’ve seen is wfh not work remote. Wfh still means going to the office 1-2 days a week.
- stouset 6y ago
  And when you decide to leave your current company? Certainly I believe that remote work was already on the way to becoming more and more accepted, but by moving out you're still limiting your employment prospects to those companies that decide not to focus more on in-person roles. Maybe that will still work out in the long-run, but I still think there's significant long-term financial benefit in maximizing your number of potential employers. Plus, if you're expecting to move back to San Francisco at some point, right now is the time to do it while prices are through the floor. You're far better off moving in right now at a 35% discount—which is permanent given rent control—than trying to come back in another year when COVID-19 is (hopefully) over and people are flooding back in.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    > And when you decide to leave your current company? You apply at companies with remote roles. I haven't lived in SF though, and would never do so, so I can't speak to solving for timing the market there.
brogrammernot 6y ago
As another poster said, companies aren’t going to risk lose talent in troves if they enact a work from office policy. When you got major companies like Twitter, google, Facebook, and others already saying WFH is a permanent option that’s put pressure on others to figure out how to make it work. Talent is needed at many, many companies and if the talent is a.) needed and b.) good enough the company will make “exceptions” to the rule. Enough companies make enough exceptions and it’s a mainstay policy. Overall, the other part is that companies that now offer remote work as a permanent option may not have to pay SF salaries so that’s a bonus to the company. It’ll go both ways, the company can say I’m not requiring you to live in high COL area and we have an office in X city, we pay 10% above the market average of ~35-40 cities so they’re still competitive on pay (assumption being that most companies move to this model, FAANG may overpay still but that’s always been the case) so now what do you do?
- ryandrake 6y ago
  As someone who has worked both in the Bay Area and outside of it, I moved here because of the job market, not because of the salary. I would take a salary cut any day to move away, but I want to stay with my current company AND keep access to the SF Bay Area job market. Literally the only thing keeping me from listing my house right now and moving to a different area is that not enough Bay Area companies have committed to permanent WFH yet. Once that happens, I'm gone.
  - kilbuz 6y ago
    Where are you thinking of moving? I live here for more than the job, so just wondering what other cities are on the radar.
    - dataminded 6y ago
      Come to Detroit. It's still REALLY cheap and the tech job market was #2 in the US for growth.
    - ryandrake 6y ago
      Depends on the exact WFH environment. If companies go with permanent full remote option, then I'd pick an area with zero or low state income taxes, warm weather, and cheap housing. Las Vegas area, South Florida. Texas is interesting but I don't know much about the cities there, having never lived or visited. If companies look like they're aligning on more of a hybrid model where you can WFH but they expect you to show your face in the office every so often, then I'd have to stick to $CA$ and maybe head out somewhere on US-50 between Folsom and Placerville, or maybe way up I-5 somewhere towards Shasta.
kaikai 6y ago
For engineers, at least, were used to finding new jobs fairly quickly and easily. It’s not worth it to live in a bad situation for an unknown amount of time because you might need to find a new job sometime in the future otherwise.
newbie2020 6y ago
Young people are extremely agile. When I was in my 20s, I could decide to move today, and by out of my apartment and into the new one by Saturday. Except for my queen mattress, I could probably still do that. Same will probably happen upon the return to SF
coredog64 6y ago
There’s a lot more flexibility being pondered, with only one or two days in the office instead of 5. It’s easier to consider moving to the East Bay, Modesto, Gilroy or whatever if you only have to get to the office once or twice a week. Depending on rent, a hotel and flight could even open up much of the west coast.
dudul 6y ago
I think this ship has sailed. When even FAANGs start doing full time remote who would be crazy enough to go back to on-site only?
- dan_quixote 6y ago
  Unless upper management goes full-time remote, then power (and ambitious employees) will always consolidate.
  - baskire 6y ago
    ^ ever work with someone in a remote office. I’ve always seen their careers take a hit. Same for remote employees. It’s great when you have a family with kids and you’re less career focused. But I noticed my comp increased almost 2x their’s over the same timeframe.
    - onecommentman 6y ago
      The eternal choice between career and quality of life. What is nice about WFH is the expanded options for improved quality of life. If the commitment is there for WFH to become an option for all, corporations will promote one or more WFH VPs to send the message that it’s OK, as occurred for women and minorities. I’d guess they’d choose rising stars with personal commitments that make WFH the obvious humane and moral choice.
    - Pokepokalypse 6y ago
      It's absolutely true that the home-office staff always get the best projects, be in-contact and visible to the executive staff, and are last on the list when layoff-time comes. This is also true when you're at a home office, and you get acquired, and it becomes a remote office. Your career gets fucked. I've had it happen to me over and over again; and it's very different when you work at the headquarters. It's my biggest worry about 'permanent WFH'. It's that I'll end up being like the remote-office nightmare all over again.

ianferrel 6y ago

Realistically, the vast majority of companies aren't going to issue an edict like that. They're going to find a way to work with their employees. If you have employees who have been working productively remotely for a year, it's probably better to find a way to keep them happy and working than to have to find a new employee.

ad-hominem 6y ago
Except yahoo famously did exactly this, despite it being obviously stupid even at the time, without the benefit of hindsight.

toomuchtodo 6y ago

Many companies have publicly stated they will allow permanent work from home [1]. Many others have said so privately to their workers. As more companies adopt this, this provides more options to those who relocate and whose employer tries to pull them back. Keep a long runway in an emergency fund, keep your professional network warm, always be ready to bounce if your employer tries to change your quality of life for the worse (mandatory return to an office somewhere, for example). (Disclosure: This is how I operate, and have worked from home for over 7 years.) [1] https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/companies-switching-remote-work-long-term/ https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/companies-switching-remot... ("27 Companies That Have Switched to Long-Term Remote Work")

baby 6y ago
And a bunch of others said they would go full remote for a year. So that’s enough to make people move (including me). We’ll see in a year.
8ytecoder 6y ago
I spoke to a recruiter at a company that publicly said they'll allow permanent WFH. He said it's on a case by case basis and you still need manager approval. It's guaranteed only till next Summer. Companies can something public with if and buts and caveats added internally.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  There are always outliers. Importantly, the trend is clear.
  - baskire 6y ago
    Is it? the trend I’ve seen is wfh not work remote. Wfh still means going to the office 1-2 days a week.
stouset 6y ago
And when you decide to leave your current company? Certainly I believe that remote work was already on the way to becoming more and more accepted, but by moving out you're still limiting your employment prospects to those companies that decide not to focus more on in-person roles. Maybe that will still work out in the long-run, but I still think there's significant long-term financial benefit in maximizing your number of potential employers. Plus, if you're expecting to move back to San Francisco at some point, right now is the time to do it while prices are through the floor. You're far better off moving in right now at a 35% discount—which is permanent given rent control—than trying to come back in another year when COVID-19 is (hopefully) over and people are flooding back in.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  > And when you decide to leave your current company? You apply at companies with remote roles. I haven't lived in SF though, and would never do so, so I can't speak to solving for timing the market there.

brogrammernot 6y ago

As another poster said, companies aren’t going to risk lose talent in troves if they enact a work from office policy. When you got major companies like Twitter, google, Facebook, and others already saying WFH is a permanent option that’s put pressure on others to figure out how to make it work. Talent is needed at many, many companies and if the talent is a.) needed and b.) good enough the company will make “exceptions” to the rule. Enough companies make enough exceptions and it’s a mainstay policy. Overall, the other part is that companies that now offer remote work as a permanent option may not have to pay SF salaries so that’s a bonus to the company. It’ll go both ways, the company can say I’m not requiring you to live in high COL area and we have an office in X city, we pay 10% above the market average of ~35-40 cities so they’re still competitive on pay (assumption being that most companies move to this model, FAANG may overpay still but that’s always been the case) so now what do you do?

ryandrake 6y ago
As someone who has worked both in the Bay Area and outside of it, I moved here because of the job market, not because of the salary. I would take a salary cut any day to move away, but I want to stay with my current company AND keep access to the SF Bay Area job market. Literally the only thing keeping me from listing my house right now and moving to a different area is that not enough Bay Area companies have committed to permanent WFH yet. Once that happens, I'm gone.
- kilbuz 6y ago
  Where are you thinking of moving? I live here for more than the job, so just wondering what other cities are on the radar.
  - dataminded 6y ago
    Come to Detroit. It's still REALLY cheap and the tech job market was #2 in the US for growth.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    Depends on the exact WFH environment. If companies go with permanent full remote option, then I'd pick an area with zero or low state income taxes, warm weather, and cheap housing. Las Vegas area, South Florida. Texas is interesting but I don't know much about the cities there, having never lived or visited. If companies look like they're aligning on more of a hybrid model where you can WFH but they expect you to show your face in the office every so often, then I'd have to stick to $CA$ and maybe head out somewhere on US-50 between Folsom and Placerville, or maybe way up I-5 somewhere towards Shasta.

kaikai 6y ago

For engineers, at least, were used to finding new jobs fairly quickly and easily. It’s not worth it to live in a bad situation for an unknown amount of time because you might need to find a new job sometime in the future otherwise.

newbie2020 6y ago

Young people are extremely agile. When I was in my 20s, I could decide to move today, and by out of my apartment and into the new one by Saturday. Except for my queen mattress, I could probably still do that. Same will probably happen upon the return to SF

coredog64 6y ago

There’s a lot more flexibility being pondered, with only one or two days in the office instead of 5. It’s easier to consider moving to the East Bay, Modesto, Gilroy or whatever if you only have to get to the office once or twice a week. Depending on rent, a hotel and flight could even open up much of the west coast.

dudul 6y ago

I think this ship has sailed. When even FAANGs start doing full time remote who would be crazy enough to go back to on-site only?

dan_quixote 6y ago
Unless upper management goes full-time remote, then power (and ambitious employees) will always consolidate.
- baskire 6y ago
  ^ ever work with someone in a remote office. I’ve always seen their careers take a hit. Same for remote employees. It’s great when you have a family with kids and you’re less career focused. But I noticed my comp increased almost 2x their’s over the same timeframe.
  - onecommentman 6y ago
    The eternal choice between career and quality of life. What is nice about WFH is the expanded options for improved quality of life. If the commitment is there for WFH to become an option for all, corporations will promote one or more WFH VPs to send the message that it’s OK, as occurred for women and minorities. I’d guess they’d choose rising stars with personal commitments that make WFH the obvious humane and moral choice.
  - Pokepokalypse 6y ago
    It's absolutely true that the home-office staff always get the best projects, be in-contact and visible to the executive staff, and are last on the list when layoff-time comes. This is also true when you're at a home office, and you get acquired, and it becomes a remote office. Your career gets fucked. I've had it happen to me over and over again; and it's very different when you work at the headquarters. It's my biggest worry about 'permanent WFH'. It's that I'll end up being like the remote-office nightmare all over again.