3 ms·

> (On the beginning of home, personal computers) Employers bought their employees computers because computers made them more productive; then, once consumers we

by ethbr0 5y ago

> (On the beginning of home, personal computers) Employers bought their employees computers because computers made them more productive; then, once consumers were used to using computers at work, an ever increasing number of them wanted to buy a computer for their home as well. And, as the number of home computers increased, so did the market opportunity for developers of non-work applications like games. I think this is the nail on the head, and the drivers will be remote work + talent shortage. Medium to longer term, this is going to drive more people to relocate out of high cost of living areas and questionable quality of life. Once they're decamped to cheaper (and probably smaller) cities, the obvious question for both employee and employer is "How do I maximize the value of an employee?" Some fusion of technologies with the outcome of persistence seems like a very compelling answer. And, and I think this is underrated, suddenly you're buying productivity equipment and/or making home improvements. Which is a very different market, with a very different spending cap, than consumer gaming goods. F.ex. If someone offered a full persistence, comfortable, efficient, effective technical solution for $100k, would it be worth it at that price? What if it let you live in Boulder, CO (median home price $920k, high on liveable US city rankings) instead of SF, CA (median home price $1.5M)?

deltree7 5y ago
VR is also an excellent training tool for pre-defined tasks. The immersive part will make the learning more permanent, more kinesthetic and more real rather than reading a wall of text.
fragmede 5y ago
That $600k difference in home price is only $120k different if you're putting the standard 20% down-payment for a mortgage. Which is still a large delta, but still, slightly less. If we're talking about spending $100k for a efficient technical solution, we're down to a $20k difference (though if it's a $100k of the company's money vs $120k of mine, then that's a huge difference). Problem is, I don't see companies lining up to provide for new (or continuing) employee's moving costs, so the employee can move to a city where the company has little/no presence. The best workplaces were already looking at developer productivity prior to the pandemic, and there are material gains to be had from the company spending real time/effort on things. But that easily costs (the company) way more than $100k. Until we collectively - execs, management, ICs - gain enough experience with hybrid and all-remote work models (and even some post-pandemic all-in-person work models, which is different from pre-pandemic all-in-person work), we won't and can't know what maximizes the value of an employee (and anyone that tells you different is trying to sell you something - probably that remote work is unilaterally better, which it's not). The Monty Hall problem says that moving is the optimal thing to do, but ignores the real practical difficulties of moving to a completely new city. I'd love to live in Boulder, CO, except for all the hassles of actually moving beyond the physical relocation of my stuff from point A to point B, which is trivially solved with money.

by ethbr0 5y ago

deltree7 5y ago

VR is also an excellent training tool for pre-defined tasks. The immersive part will make the learning more permanent, more kinesthetic and more real rather than reading a wall of text.

fragmede 5y ago

That $600k difference in home price is only $120k different if you're putting the standard 20% down-payment for a mortgage. Which is still a large delta, but still, slightly less. If we're talking about spending $100k for a efficient technical solution, we're down to a $20k difference (though if it's a $100k of the company's money vs $120k of mine, then that's a huge difference). Problem is, I don't see companies lining up to provide for new (or continuing) employee's moving costs, so the employee can move to a city where the company has little/no presence. The best workplaces were already looking at developer productivity prior to the pandemic, and there are material gains to be had from the company spending real time/effort on things. But that easily costs (the company) way more than $100k. Until we collectively - execs, management, ICs - gain enough experience with hybrid and all-remote work models (and even some post-pandemic all-in-person work models, which is different from pre-pandemic all-in-person work), we won't and can't know what maximizes the value of an employee (and anyone that tells you different is trying to sell you something - probably that remote work is unilaterally better, which it's not). The Monty Hall problem says that moving is the optimal thing to do, but ignores the real practical difficulties of moving to a completely new city. I'd love to live in Boulder, CO, except for all the hassles of actually moving beyond the physical relocation of my stuff from point A to point B, which is trivially solved with money.