> discussions about being able to work for Google and Facebook at the same time, now that everyone's WFH anyway. At the end of the day you get $x per hour and

> discussions about being able to work for Google and Facebook at the same time, now that everyone's WFH anyway. At the end of the day you get $x per hour and your hours are limited. This is true whether you you're in-office or remote. So no, you can't be a full time employee of both companies. > And if the employer can't tell if that's the case, surely that's a problem in any case? What's the difference if the extra time is spent on another job or watching Netflix? That's a problem of your time not being utilised well. The sudden move to remote this year means that this has happened at a lot of companies and they haven't been able to respond well quickly enough. But to think that you can keep that Netflix time slot indefinitely, or that you can fill it with a second FAANG job is absurd. Don't assume that your employer is dumb. If you can spend only half of your time on the job and brag about it online, what's stopping your company from laying off half of your team? I also imagine that these kinds of discussions are infuriating to the people who were already remote pre-COVID and were working the hours they are supposed to. They had a great thing going on but if suddenly everyone else moves to remote and a bunch of people are slacking off, remote work suddenly look less viable from an employer's point of view, not more. > WFH revolution It's not a revolution. It's an involuntary experiment, and we don't know what the results will be and which companies and employees it will work well for.