5 ms·

Been doing a few interviews recently and the narrative I’m hearing is different. Most companies want to go back to the office because of “company culture”, and

Been doing a few interviews recently and the narrative I’m hearing is different. Most companies want to go back to the office because of “company culture”, and are very happy I’m still in the Bay Area. Personally I miss going to the office and seeing my coworkers and friends in person. If WFH works for you that’s fine, but it’s not for everyone.

kodah 6y ago
I think this attitude will be okay as long as: - people get equal access to important projects - businesses do not try to cut the pay of remote workers - in office folks work to be inclusive of their remote counterparts I now have a multi-office hybrid team and these are the things I'm focusing on.
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
  > businesses do not try to cut the pay of remote workers This sounds great in theory, but in practice I feel like it actually encourages and even rewards those that choose not to come in to the office. Which might not be inherently bad, but I don't think companies should be expected to do that if those aren't the things they want to reward.
- bradlys 6y ago
  Pay will be cut. It’s definitely the norm for any companies that are allowing WFH for new hires. I have yet to interview with a company that offers a truly competitive SV TC while allowing the employee to be remote forever. Most every says, “you need to choose where you will be based as your pay is dictated on that, remote pays less than in-person in our SV office”. If you think you’re gonna get $400k+ tc in BFE, you’re mistaken. There are much cheaper people in Romania available to do that. Honestly, I’d prefer full remote and full in person teams. I hate dealing with remote workers when the majority is in office and I hate being remote when the majority are in office. I’ve had to deal with both before and it’s always bad. I’d be cool with remote teams but I pray we don’t have to mix. It’s such a huge drain to accommodate both styles in one team.
  - kodah 6y ago
    > If you think you’re gonna get $400k+ tc in BFE, you’re mistaken I'd like to solve the use case where a dev in Oklahoma makes $80k or a dev in Texas makes just above six figures while doing the same work. Maybe that helps clarify the problem. I can't accept that the delta is just for COLA and commute to work. > I’ve had to deal with both before and it’s always bad. I’d be cool with remote teams but I pray we don’t have to mix. It’s such a huge drain to accommodate both styles in one team. It works okay, as long as you don't have any grossly strong personalities on your team.
    - dilyevsky 6y ago
      According to realtor.com median house price in OC is fifth of that in the bay so that sounds like a good deal (if you like living there).
      - kodah 6y ago
        That sounds like a fantastic argument until you realize that this thinking allows Silicon Valley developers to move widely while a dev that retires in Oklahoma can go very few places, if anywhere, due to the delta.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      > I'd like to solve the use case where a dev in Oklahoma makes $80k or a dev in Texas makes just above six figures while doing the same work. Maybe that helps clarify the problem. I can't accept that the delta is just for COLA and commute to work. The delta is because $80k is the best option an OK resident has (or the best option the person selling money thinks the OK resident has, and same for TX resident at $100k. If the OK resident accepts $80k, then this shows the person selling money was correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand Employers are selling money, employees are selling labor, if they agree to a price then both parties have agreed to what they think their best option is at that time.
- varispeed 6y ago
  > businesses do not try to cut the pay of remote workers This is what I don't understand - company essentially gets a worker + office in one package and they think this is of lesser value than a worker in their office?
- stirlo 6y ago
  > businesses do not try to cut the pay of remote workers Until businesses provide free transport to work and pay employees for their commute time I'd say it's reasonable to offer lower pay for remote work than on-premise work. This doesn't have to involve cutting pay but could rather take the form of a commuting subsidy or an on-premise bonus. The lack of a commute is a real tangible benefit and should be included in any compensation package.
  - mminer237 6y ago
    Employees might get a benefit by not having to commute, but that isn't a cost the company has to pay. Just because people may find a pay cut worth it, doesn't justify companies cutting wages without a need just because they can, in my opinion.
  - seneca 6y ago
    On the other side of the coin, a fully-remote employee incurs the cost of maintaining a workspace. That's more square footage they have to buy or rent, then cool etc. That's a recurring monthly cost that company doesn't have to pay.

kodah 6y ago

I think this attitude will be okay as long as: - people get equal access to important projects - businesses do not try to cut the pay of remote workers - in office folks work to be inclusive of their remote counterparts I now have a multi-office hybrid team and these are the things I'm focusing on.

buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
> businesses do not try to cut the pay of remote workers This sounds great in theory, but in practice I feel like it actually encourages and even rewards those that choose not to come in to the office. Which might not be inherently bad, but I don't think companies should be expected to do that if those aren't the things they want to reward.
bradlys 6y ago
Pay will be cut. It’s definitely the norm for any companies that are allowing WFH for new hires. I have yet to interview with a company that offers a truly competitive SV TC while allowing the employee to be remote forever. Most every says, “you need to choose where you will be based as your pay is dictated on that, remote pays less than in-person in our SV office”. If you think you’re gonna get $400k+ tc in BFE, you’re mistaken. There are much cheaper people in Romania available to do that. Honestly, I’d prefer full remote and full in person teams. I hate dealing with remote workers when the majority is in office and I hate being remote when the majority are in office. I’ve had to deal with both before and it’s always bad. I’d be cool with remote teams but I pray we don’t have to mix. It’s such a huge drain to accommodate both styles in one team.
- kodah 6y ago
  > If you think you’re gonna get $400k+ tc in BFE, you’re mistaken I'd like to solve the use case where a dev in Oklahoma makes $80k or a dev in Texas makes just above six figures while doing the same work. Maybe that helps clarify the problem. I can't accept that the delta is just for COLA and commute to work. > I’ve had to deal with both before and it’s always bad. I’d be cool with remote teams but I pray we don’t have to mix. It’s such a huge drain to accommodate both styles in one team. It works okay, as long as you don't have any grossly strong personalities on your team.
  - dilyevsky 6y ago
    According to realtor.com median house price in OC is fifth of that in the bay so that sounds like a good deal (if you like living there).
    - kodah 6y ago
      That sounds like a fantastic argument until you realize that this thinking allows Silicon Valley developers to move widely while a dev that retires in Oklahoma can go very few places, if anywhere, due to the delta.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    > I'd like to solve the use case where a dev in Oklahoma makes $80k or a dev in Texas makes just above six figures while doing the same work. Maybe that helps clarify the problem. I can't accept that the delta is just for COLA and commute to work. The delta is because $80k is the best option an OK resident has (or the best option the person selling money thinks the OK resident has, and same for TX resident at $100k. If the OK resident accepts $80k, then this shows the person selling money was correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand Employers are selling money, employees are selling labor, if they agree to a price then both parties have agreed to what they think their best option is at that time.
varispeed 6y ago
> businesses do not try to cut the pay of remote workers This is what I don't understand - company essentially gets a worker + office in one package and they think this is of lesser value than a worker in their office?
stirlo 6y ago
> businesses do not try to cut the pay of remote workers Until businesses provide free transport to work and pay employees for their commute time I'd say it's reasonable to offer lower pay for remote work than on-premise work. This doesn't have to involve cutting pay but could rather take the form of a commuting subsidy or an on-premise bonus. The lack of a commute is a real tangible benefit and should be included in any compensation package.
- mminer237 6y ago
  Employees might get a benefit by not having to commute, but that isn't a cost the company has to pay. Just because people may find a pay cut worth it, doesn't justify companies cutting wages without a need just because they can, in my opinion.
- seneca 6y ago
  On the other side of the coin, a fully-remote employee incurs the cost of maintaining a workspace. That's more square footage they have to buy or rent, then cool etc. That's a recurring monthly cost that company doesn't have to pay.