4 ms·

As a Googler who wants to work remote, in my personal opinion I think this makes a ton of sense. Focus on providing offices in major urban areas for people who

As a Googler who wants to work remote, in my personal opinion I think this makes a ton of sense. Focus on providing offices in major urban areas for people who want an urban lifestyle, and then offer remote work for people who don't. NYC isn't for me personally, but I absolutely see the appeal for others, and I can see why Google would want to expand proportionally there.

option 5y ago
I think G already has an office in NYC, don’t they? To me this means that they expect more in-person presence there over time, not less.
chii 5y ago
> then offer remote work for people who don't. the problem is that offering remote work as an isolated option isn't feasible, because the cost of living when remote is lower (presumably), and thus, either they must be paid lower, or the office-working colleagues must be paid more to adjust for said cost of living. I feel there would be social friction caused by this market-force mechanism.
- mikewarot 5y ago
  The value the worker provides to google doesn't vary with location. If someone wants to live in an overpriced urban area, that's their choice. Why should google have to subsidize it? It shouldn't matter where in the United States you live, NYC, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, or some forsaken place like Indiana, etc.. If you get your work done, you should have the same responsibilities and benefits.
  - WaxProlix 5y ago
    Salary already isn't directly proportional to value added, so I'm not sure where that idea comes from.
    - sangnoir 5y ago
      IMO, it affirms the "rugged individualism" mythos, and has a sprinkling of the fundamental attribution error. Salaries are mostly controlled by market forces, opening up to remote work will result in a larger supply of potential employees, to include those who were previously not considered, but are good enough, and are willing to accept less than current Bay Area/coastal salaries.
      - kesselvon 5y ago
        Thinking salaries are governed by market forces is a fundamental attribution error
        sangnoir 5y ago
        Then why does having simultaneous competing offers result always result in a higher salary? Typically higher than the "maximum" figure originally signaled
- lmm 5y ago
  Pay differences are already a source of major social friction, but companies find ways to mitigate or avoid the problem. Why would this be any different?

option 5y ago

I think G already has an office in NYC, don’t they? To me this means that they expect more in-person presence there over time, not less.

chii 5y ago

> then offer remote work for people who don't. the problem is that offering remote work as an isolated option isn't feasible, because the cost of living when remote is lower (presumably), and thus, either they must be paid lower, or the office-working colleagues must be paid more to adjust for said cost of living. I feel there would be social friction caused by this market-force mechanism.

mikewarot 5y ago
The value the worker provides to google doesn't vary with location. If someone wants to live in an overpriced urban area, that's their choice. Why should google have to subsidize it? It shouldn't matter where in the United States you live, NYC, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, or some forsaken place like Indiana, etc.. If you get your work done, you should have the same responsibilities and benefits.
- WaxProlix 5y ago
  Salary already isn't directly proportional to value added, so I'm not sure where that idea comes from.
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    IMO, it affirms the "rugged individualism" mythos, and has a sprinkling of the fundamental attribution error. Salaries are mostly controlled by market forces, opening up to remote work will result in a larger supply of potential employees, to include those who were previously not considered, but are good enough, and are willing to accept less than current Bay Area/coastal salaries.
    - kesselvon 5y ago
      Thinking salaries are governed by market forces is a fundamental attribution error
      - sangnoir 5y ago
        Then why does having simultaneous competing offers result always result in a higher salary? Typically higher than the "maximum" figure originally signaled
lmm 5y ago
Pay differences are already a source of major social friction, but companies find ways to mitigate or avoid the problem. Why would this be any different?