3 ms·
This can indeed work well for some people, but for others it's the worst compromise. It means they can't benefit from moving to a lower CoL area or nearer to fa
by matthewmacleod 5y ago
This can indeed work well for some people, but for others it's the worst compromise. It means they can't benefit from moving to a lower CoL area or nearer to family etc., because they still have to be within a reasonable commute distance. But at the same time, it can mean they still have to keep the necessary equipment and space setup for remote working at home, may no longer have a permanent desk/office, lose the benefit of reduced-cost season tickets for public transport etc.
It's hard to come up with something that's going to work for everyone.
- mrkstu 5y agoI just took a job that specifically allowed remote but I'm flying onsite a (work) week a month. To me that is a great compromise, especially since I don't have to pay for the flights/hotel/car.
- anonporridge 5y agoA different, similar compromise is 1 full week in the office once a month or two. That's fairly easy to manage if you still want to live in a LCOL area, with a minimum 3 nights in a hotel. Coordinate with your team and project stakeholders to all converge on the same week where you can collaborate and plan more efficiently. Then break and work remotely to actually execute. Many small businesses won't even need to maintain a consistent workplace. They could cycle the meetups in more flexible co-working spaces as needed. Larger megacorps could still justify maintaining their own space that ends up being designed for more modularity and flexibility.
- Johnny555 5y agoMake it 3 days once a quarter and you've got a deal. Leaving my wife home alone for a week every month to take care of the household by herself is not really feasible, I'd need to live close enough to commute if I were going to do that, so that kind of eliminates the chance to live far away when it's cheaper.