4 ms·

This is an important issue. My own experience is limited to New York City, so I can only comment intelligently on what I've seen here. Over the last 18 months I

This is an important issue. My own experience is limited to New York City, so I can only comment intelligently on what I've seen here. Over the last 18 months I spoke to 30 entrepreneurs about this issue, and I've tried to synthesize what I have learned. I've posted some of this information previously in various comments, in particular, that many entrepreneurs seem to put a value on vague and intangible (but apparently important) aspects of in-person work. Like I said in an earlier comment, I've had clients who offered mid level software engineers an extra $30k a year to come into the office. I've also summarized all of this in a blog post. For anyone interested, see "What work can be done from home? What work needs to be done at an office?" http://www.smashcompany.com/business/what-work-can-be-done-from-home-what-work-needs-to-be-done-at-an-office http://www.smashcompany.com/business/what-work-can-be-done-f...

barry-cotter 5y ago
Dude, post this as its own submission.
- Thrymr 5y ago
  He did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30914179 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30914179
koide 5y ago
That's a good argument, but I didn't see the "we want the best people we can get with what we want to pay regardless of where they are." Which is what some companies do, they hire from all over the world and pay them in the same range. Why should companies hire only from the US if there are as good or better people elsewhere? You're looking at it from the cost reduction perspective, but work shouldn't be something you save money on, but invest it the best you can to get the best product. In summary, looks like the CEO and CTO of your sample companies don't know how to collaborate remotely. Which is natural because it's not intuitive. And if you don't know and don't want to learn, or happen to be at a niche not amenable to remote collaboration, sure, stay at an office.
- lkrubner 5y ago
  I did sort of touch on this in the essay when I wrote: "If these experts insist “I’m only willing to educate you on a Zoom call, I’ll educate you via video” then I have the option of hiring any expert in the world, I don’t need to hire an expert in the USA. If I need to educate myself on a set of technologies, so as to evaluate competing software architectures, then I would prefer to meet with experts in-person, but if for some reason I had to rely on communication via Zoom or Slack, there is no reason for me to hire someone in the USA. In such cases, the only reason I would hire a remote worker in the USA is if they were the greatest expert in the world on a subject that I wanted to learn. " But I go into much greater detail in my book. I devote a whole chapter to this in my book.
  - koide 5y ago
    The flaw in that reasoning is it assumes that anyone is able to get the greatest expert in the world. Reality for most companies who hire remotely is that they just try to get the best person they can find within their time, monetary and other constraints. Many times they hire from the US. They can't access actual world class talent, who is very busy and can be really expensive (or isn't readily discoverable). Or even if they can, they can't fill their staff just with them.

barry-cotter 5y ago

Dude, post this as its own submission.

Thrymr 5y ago
He did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30914179 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30914179

koide 5y ago

That's a good argument, but I didn't see the "we want the best people we can get with what we want to pay regardless of where they are." Which is what some companies do, they hire from all over the world and pay them in the same range. Why should companies hire only from the US if there are as good or better people elsewhere? You're looking at it from the cost reduction perspective, but work shouldn't be something you save money on, but invest it the best you can to get the best product. In summary, looks like the CEO and CTO of your sample companies don't know how to collaborate remotely. Which is natural because it's not intuitive. And if you don't know and don't want to learn, or happen to be at a niche not amenable to remote collaboration, sure, stay at an office.

lkrubner 5y ago
I did sort of touch on this in the essay when I wrote: "If these experts insist “I’m only willing to educate you on a Zoom call, I’ll educate you via video” then I have the option of hiring any expert in the world, I don’t need to hire an expert in the USA. If I need to educate myself on a set of technologies, so as to evaluate competing software architectures, then I would prefer to meet with experts in-person, but if for some reason I had to rely on communication via Zoom or Slack, there is no reason for me to hire someone in the USA. In such cases, the only reason I would hire a remote worker in the USA is if they were the greatest expert in the world on a subject that I wanted to learn. " But I go into much greater detail in my book. I devote a whole chapter to this in my book.
- koide 5y ago
  The flaw in that reasoning is it assumes that anyone is able to get the greatest expert in the world. Reality for most companies who hire remotely is that they just try to get the best person they can find within their time, monetary and other constraints. Many times they hire from the US. They can't access actual world class talent, who is very busy and can be really expensive (or isn't readily discoverable). Or even if they can, they can't fill their staff just with them.