3 ms·

You could say the same about being in the office, or not. If the work can get done remotely who cares about coming into the office. Companies that are capable

by PKop 4y ago

You could say the same about being in the office, or not. If the work can get done remotely who cares about coming into the office. Companies that are capable of succeeding with remote workers are going to have an advantage as they will have less real estate costs, and they can get value out of paying for both a wider geographic worker pool, and they won't necessarily have to pay them big-city rates if those workers will accept slightly less nominal (which translates to more real if they have lower cost of living). Not possible in all circumstances but those that do it will benefit.

phpisthebest 4y ago
>>Companies that are capable of succeeding with remote workers are going to have an advantage as they will have less real estate costs, COVID did not change the economic metrics on that, so I am not sure why this is a continual talking about for justification of WFH in these "new times" There have always been full time WFH organizations, and there have always been non-WFH organizations. I dont see this having a huge impact on if an organization stays WFH post covid or not. >>and they can get value out of paying for both a wider geographic worker pool Yea... no. Companies tried that and found out real fast the problems with legal liability, and tax jurisdictions this is why you are seeing even companies that stayed Full time WFH post-covid have started to limit where they can hire from to only states / nations where they have business in already, already have Tax ID's already know and comply with the local employment laws.
- PKop 4y ago
  >COVID did not change the economic metrics on that I disagree with this assertion completely. You are commenting on an article that illustrates the fallout from COVID having economic consequences that companies are working through. Inflation, higher rates, over-hiring, and I would add over-investment in expensive prime real estate. There have been plenty of reports about companies having to deal with new problems with higher rates necessitating cost cutting. One of which is re-assessing the need for huge amounts of expensive real estate. Facebook and Amazon come to mind in this regard. Others may follow. The change here is we may be enterning a new economic cycle unlike the last 10 or so years of extremely low interest rates and huge VC money as well as companies running stock buyback and stock compensation schemes to paper over low or no profitability. You can claim the next few years will be like the last few years, I simply disagree with this. So in this light, WFH may be a variable in equation of lowering costs. >started to limit where they can hire from to only states / nations where they have business in already Ok, but the dynamic I describe can still be achieved by limiting workforce to US. You can still have a wider pool of workers who want to stay located in lower costs states near their hometowns and families and not need large footprints of expensive real estate.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    I think you are taking the missteps of perpetually online companies like Amazon and Facebook and conflating that too much with the wider economy. Did the tech sector screw up, yes... That is nothing new for them... the local psychic has a better track record at predicting the future than the Tech Sector Do I believe the problems in the tech sector are indicative to the wider economy. No. NYC, Silicon Valley, and other Extremely "Hot" cities may have an outsized downturn, and a commercial collapse but I know people that live in those places do not like to admit it we here in "Fly Over Country" do exist, and have huge amounts of economic output. increasingly so based on the Investments in Ohio, Michigan, Texas, and other states. The economic shift may be less WFH and more Shifting to other regions of the US as CA, and NY collapse
    - PKop 4y ago
      I'm not talking necessarily about the wider economy, rather only "Companies that are capable of succeeding with remote workers" as I stated, regardless of the label you want to apply to them. But certainly tech/software companies primarily. So let's constrain our point of contention simply to these companies. The larger players have an outsized position in hiring, and a few cities have an outsized position in being the location where these companies and employees operate and live, so the trends in these companies and these locations is meaningful. Even if there's a hybrid strategy where more companies locate in midwest/lower costs areas and they have some remote workers, my claim is there will be less real estate footprint than before covid and more WFH employees. And that this combination, even if just marginal, will be a net benefit for these companies vs themselves before pandemic if they didn't have this strategy before and going forward vs those that don't do it/are intransigent on remote work.
    - pm90 4y ago
      Fly over country does not have the same economic output as the big cities. It’s why most people flock to the big cities. Cities are economic powerhouses at the forefront of innovation and culture.

by PKop 4y ago

phpisthebest 4y ago

>>Companies that are capable of succeeding with remote workers are going to have an advantage as they will have less real estate costs, COVID did not change the economic metrics on that, so I am not sure why this is a continual talking about for justification of WFH in these "new times" There have always been full time WFH organizations, and there have always been non-WFH organizations. I dont see this having a huge impact on if an organization stays WFH post covid or not. >>and they can get value out of paying for both a wider geographic worker pool Yea... no. Companies tried that and found out real fast the problems with legal liability, and tax jurisdictions this is why you are seeing even companies that stayed Full time WFH post-covid have started to limit where they can hire from to only states / nations where they have business in already, already have Tax ID's already know and comply with the local employment laws.

PKop 4y ago
>COVID did not change the economic metrics on that I disagree with this assertion completely. You are commenting on an article that illustrates the fallout from COVID having economic consequences that companies are working through. Inflation, higher rates, over-hiring, and I would add over-investment in expensive prime real estate. There have been plenty of reports about companies having to deal with new problems with higher rates necessitating cost cutting. One of which is re-assessing the need for huge amounts of expensive real estate. Facebook and Amazon come to mind in this regard. Others may follow. The change here is we may be enterning a new economic cycle unlike the last 10 or so years of extremely low interest rates and huge VC money as well as companies running stock buyback and stock compensation schemes to paper over low or no profitability. You can claim the next few years will be like the last few years, I simply disagree with this. So in this light, WFH may be a variable in equation of lowering costs. >started to limit where they can hire from to only states / nations where they have business in already Ok, but the dynamic I describe can still be achieved by limiting workforce to US. You can still have a wider pool of workers who want to stay located in lower costs states near their hometowns and families and not need large footprints of expensive real estate.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  I think you are taking the missteps of perpetually online companies like Amazon and Facebook and conflating that too much with the wider economy. Did the tech sector screw up, yes... That is nothing new for them... the local psychic has a better track record at predicting the future than the Tech Sector Do I believe the problems in the tech sector are indicative to the wider economy. No. NYC, Silicon Valley, and other Extremely "Hot" cities may have an outsized downturn, and a commercial collapse but I know people that live in those places do not like to admit it we here in "Fly Over Country" do exist, and have huge amounts of economic output. increasingly so based on the Investments in Ohio, Michigan, Texas, and other states. The economic shift may be less WFH and more Shifting to other regions of the US as CA, and NY collapse
  - PKop 4y ago
    I'm not talking necessarily about the wider economy, rather only "Companies that are capable of succeeding with remote workers" as I stated, regardless of the label you want to apply to them. But certainly tech/software companies primarily. So let's constrain our point of contention simply to these companies. The larger players have an outsized position in hiring, and a few cities have an outsized position in being the location where these companies and employees operate and live, so the trends in these companies and these locations is meaningful. Even if there's a hybrid strategy where more companies locate in midwest/lower costs areas and they have some remote workers, my claim is there will be less real estate footprint than before covid and more WFH employees. And that this combination, even if just marginal, will be a net benefit for these companies vs themselves before pandemic if they didn't have this strategy before and going forward vs those that don't do it/are intransigent on remote work.
  - pm90 4y ago
    Fly over country does not have the same economic output as the big cities. It’s why most people flock to the big cities. Cities are economic powerhouses at the forefront of innovation and culture.