6 ms·

I could be convinced to commute to a satellite office that's not affected by rush hour traffic. There's a lot of real estate available in the burbs. These don

I could be convinced to commute to a satellite office that's not affected by rush hour traffic. There's a lot of real estate available in the burbs. These don't really exist though, and their expense far outweighs their benefits. The problem is that companies expect employees to be mobile when they are not. It's called putting down roots for a reason. Pulling kids out of school, buying a new house is very disruptive. ... or I can hook up my cable modem and work anywhere in the country... Corporate elites cannot have their cake and eat it too. Choose one: 1) Make housing affordable, and schooling more effective. Streamline the moving process through law and process improvements. Make transportation systems work better. Improve 2nd and 3rd tier cities social and political life. 2) Let people work from home. Suffer a 10-15% degredation in communications. 3) Have the entire industry force people to come to the office - have miserable workers. For me option 2 seems to be what will happen - you'll get a control loop where companies will hemorrhage their best workers if they force back to office.

lumost 4y ago
Barring a change in city costs. Engineers expected to commute into the office will demand progressively higher rates. I’m not working for a billion+ profit firm for less than it costs to live in my area.
mikeweiss 4y ago
Leaving family, friends, community and the place you know is higher on my list of disruptive than selling a house.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  "A lot of the lay-offs were senior technical staff like C++ senior engineers; seems more like a realignment to shift those jobs to cheaper subsidiaries like India, Pakistan, Mexico"
  - ibejoeb 4y ago
    What's the source of that quote? The article says exactly the opposite and makes no mention of offshoring.
    - mikhael28 4y ago
      Maybe its a disinformation bot, trying to rile up older men (senior C++ engineers) with nativist sentiment (how dare they relocate my job to Pakistan?). Seems reasonable to me, especially given the blatantly false statement.
Tangurena2 4y ago
My father was a chemical engineer. Back in the 60s & 70s, the company would pay to relocate our family to wherever they needed him (this included purchasing the house if we didn't sell it before the moving trucks showed up). That included several foreign countries. In my family's experience, that included England, Iran, Ireland & Saudi Arabia. During the 80s, his industry stopped relocating engineers. This corresponded to the end of "the Social Contract" where as long as you were loyal to your company, they had a job for you - for life. When you watch that "Greed is Good" speech from Gordon Gecko [0], notice that table of old farts at the front of the room: that's where they promote the loyal employees (into "executive vice presidencies") when there isn't enough room at the top of the pyramid (and also they're too incompetent to promote in actual line management [1]). By the 90s, companies stopped paying for relocation of anyone below managerial levels. And instead depended on workers being able to afford to relocate on their own $. This brings us to today's economy. Large companies, instead of laying older workers off, simply relocate their position to a new office. IBM (who used to be called "I've Been Moved") has a reputation for doing this to their US-based workforce especially when over age 40. If you can't afford to relocate? Great, that's now a "voluntary quit". If companies want employees to "move where the jobs are", they need to step up to the plate and start paying for relocation. And that includes buying upside-down homes. 0 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF_iorX_MAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF_iorX_MAw 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ibejoeb 4y ago
  If companies start buying upside-down homes, they're probably going to start holding them until they can at least wash out. I'd hate to see a trend of employers becoming landlords.
  - tracker1 4y ago
    I'm not sure that would be worse than the capital driven land-lord situation. I mean, in terms of renting out a house from a former employee until real estate improves enough to sell. Odds are it would be done via the same rental mgt companies that everyone else uses anyway. At least as long as the company isn't pushing to keep said properties longer than necessary.
akudha 4y ago
I work for a non profit. After two years or letting everyone at home, this month they're forcing people to come to office at least twice a week. Not only that, anyone going to work has to book a desk in advance, otherwise they'll be sitting on the floor with their computer on their laps. This makes no difference to me personally, as I am a thousand miles away in another state, so I lucked out. I am still working from home. None of this makes any sense whatsoever. I am totally expecting people to leave, just because they are forced to commute. This is one of the nicer places I have worked. I dread to image what it would be like, in some of the shittier jobs I have had. In my opinion, anyone who can work from home should do so. It frees up the traffic, makes office space more affordable for those businesses who do need space (dentist, restaurant etc) and in general win-win for everyone. All this talk of making "human connections" at work is just bullshit. Offices are just noisy, leads to office politics and meaningless meetings, cubicles are shitty, open office plans are shittier... Either that, or make sensible but much, much harder changes to housing, transporation etc. Since nobody seems ready to take on that work, the easier solution is to just let people work from home. It won't solve all problems, but it is a good start
- giancarlostoro 4y ago
  > otherwise they'll be sitting on the floor with their computer on their laps. Why bother showing up at that point.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    A one-sided sense of loyalty.
  - albatross13 4y ago
    Probably the same reason the people who still work at twitter show up, it's either some weird sense of loyalty or perhaps it helps them feel like part of the "those who grind" clique. I dunno man, people are weird.
    - JustSomeNobody 4y ago
pc86 4y ago
1 has nothing to do with "corporate elites," who do not control housing pricing or schooling by any reasonable measure. I don't accept the premise of 2 that there is any degradation in communications except from folks who are new to remote work. 3 will never happen because there are too many people who acknowledge the positives of remote work starting companies and in technical leadership of good companies. There will always be 100% remote and 100% remote+async companies from now on.
giancarlostoro 4y ago
> I could be convinced to commute to a satellite office that's not affected by rush hour traffic. This right here. If I could get to work and back in 5 minutes I wouldn't mind the commute, ever. Unfortunately everyone wants to have offices in some downtown area, instead of just near a major city in a quieter part of town, safe back-roads that wont bother anyone.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  This only works if they put the office in the quieter back-road section near you. Otherwise you're driving all the way across town. The last company I was with I talked with the owner and he was clear why they chose downtown - yes, it sucked, but it sucked pretty equally for everyone. Downtown is also the place with the most transit going to it - you're excluding anyone who doesn't/can't drive if you choose to build in a quiet section.
  - bcrosby95 4y ago
    It depends on the downtown. Where I live there's almost no transit to downtown and because of traffic, a 20 minute commute turns into an hour. If instead you have a few smaller offices in the burbs outside of downtown, you could save a lot of time for workers as they would be traveling counter-commute.
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      That's interesting - how large is the city you're in that has an hour commute but little transit? I don't understand the value of having a few smaller burb offices - does your entire team have to go to the one you're at (even if they are on opposite sides of the city, thus negating the advantage of it being close), or do they each go their own and then do remote calls to discuss things (thus negating the advantage of it being in office)?
    - cmh89 4y ago
      >If instead you have a few smaller offices in the burbs outside of downtown, you could save a lot of time for workers as they would be traveling counter-commute. This only applies to some people living in some areas. If you locate in the east side suburbs, people who live in the westside suburbs are going to have a helacious commute.
ibejoeb 4y ago
We also have to be more specific. What does "going to the office" mean? Does it mean I'm going to an actual office, where I have my equipment all set up how I like it and a tailored environment that helps me stay focused and productive? Or is a bullshit open floor with terrible lighting and everyone is sick all the time because you're sitting face to face for 10 hours with someone you don't even talk to? "The office" is a tool. It's like we've forgotten the reason for doing things. Software development is really not all that social. It's not akin as a factory or an orchestra or any of these other analogies that get tossed around.
tracker1 4y ago
It can depend... there's a few colocation/shared offices in the Phoenix area. I know of a couple in Chandler, Mesa and Peoria in particular. Though I have a gigabit connection at home that's pretty stable and have my workspace setup how I like it. Personally, I prefer an office space as I find the comradery is better. Being able to have lunch or general conversation is much more natural. Also, a commute that isn't too long (20-30m) is nice for ramping up on the way in and clearing the mind on the way home. All of that said, since going remote, I don't plan to go back. I really want to move to a more rural location that better aligns with what I want in lifestyle/community. Of course, internet connectivity becomes crucial, and the current interest rates prohibit that. I also don't think TFA is quite right on that being younger is the stronger reason for a higher chance of layoff. I think a lot of it comes down to experience and value provided from more experienced devs. It can definitely cut both ways and I have seen it in practice. I would suggest it's about perceived and actual value as well as a bit of office politics and agreeableness in the workplace that is more desired. I do think that the nicest thing about more remote work, is it is more regionally competitive. At the higher end of the talent pool, one is able to compete for jobs that are much better paying that would be available locally, while still being less expense for businesses rooted in tech hub cities. This comes at the cost of communications, which you mention, though I think it's more than a 15% degredation in some cases. My prior position it seemed to hold things up for days on communications at times, with an international team.
Olreich 4y ago
> Suffer a 10-15% degredation in communications. If your team is split across 3 timezones and 5 cities already, you're going to damage your communications even further by making everyone go into the office again.
mancerayder 4y ago
>Make housing affordable Make? Who is the subject doing the making here in this scenario?
jen20 4y ago
I very much feel the opposite way. If my company had offices downtown (where I live, because I like being able to walk to get a beer), I would go every day. But they don’t - they’re in a suburban sprawl, at minimum a 30 minute drive - more like an hour during rush hour. I would quit on the spot if there were ever an attempt to make me go to the office on a fixed schedule.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  I chose a home with good transit to downtown. If I have to drive to an industrial sector across town each day to get to work I probably won't even consider the position.
vanilla_nut 4y ago
> I could be convinced to commute to a satellite office that's not affected by rush hour traffic. There's a lot of real estate available in the burbs. Funny that you say this. I could only be convinced to come to an office if my employer satisfied the following conditions: - accessible in <20 minutes from a place with affordable rent via bike, walk, or public transit - no or minimal video meetings in the office; I'm not taking the time to come in to sit on the same video calls I could take at home. - either a lunch subsidy or reasonable in-house lunch prep options (more than just a refrigerator and a dirty shared microwave) It definitely feels like housing affordability is a huge wrench in these gears. Up until this year, I lived in major US cities, and rent prices still shock me when I look back in my old neighborhoods. Even the suburbs have spiked to the prices I used to pay for walkable neighborhoods. I'm pretty sure my first criteria can't be satisfied unless the US has some kind of massive market-wide housing price collapse.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  I’m lucky to have bought a duplex starter home for like $135k, 8 years ago before prices skyrocketed. It has off street parking and a garage so we can park and charge our two electric cars. The overall level of safety is high on the immediate area I live in, I don’t worry about break-ins. It’s in a walkable neighborhood a few blocks from a preschool and elementary school we send our kids to plus a park and little beach by the river/ocean. There are also nice neighborhood restaurants and cafe & ice cream parlor and library and community garden plus like consignment shops, etc. Tons of awesome neighborhood events around Halloween, Christmas, 4th of July, etc, plus a regular farmer’s market, etc… all this within east walking distance (even for kids). My work is 15 minutes by car, low stress commute overall. It has a beautiful common space with a nice kitchen. It doesn’t have a stove or a dishwasher, but the fridge and microwave are super nice, beautiful stone counters with a nice dish washing sink, place for sitting and eating, making coffee via electric kettle, etc. It’s part of our communal “maker space” so we can have great conversations while eating lunch and watching our 3D prints complete. Plus very affordable snack bar, and a cafeteria within walking distance. I also have my own office and lab space which aren’t beautiful, but are nice to have. Our house and yard are small and not super nice cosmetically, the income isn’t high for 3 kids and a spouse that has to stay home to take care of them, but every time I think about moving or taking a higher paid job, I realize how lucky this situation is. And how I could easily spend twice as much for a house only marginally better or three times as much for a larger and cosmetically better house in a non-walkable area.
TallGuyShort 4y ago
> The problem is that companies expect employees to be mobile when they are not I would add, many software companies expect employees to work in such a way that working remotely has to be viable anyway. My direct coworkers were split across multiple Bay Area offices. I had projects going on with other companies, some of them in Seattle. I was encouraged to attend and present at conferences in other cities. I dealt with teams distributed across Europe. Now, getting face to face time with all of these people is an important part of building relationships, but most of those meetings simply have to be online. I noticed that even though I had a home office, my boss virtually never saw me doing my most important work, because we were both in and out of meetings. I was willing to be dutiful employee who shows up to the office, and attends meetings in-person when I could, but invariably someone else in the meeting wouldn't or couldn't and we'd have to dial them in remotely anyway (ironically, this happen the most with a certain company who claims that they can't make remote work viable - their own employees would not attend meetings in person at their own employer's office). If you're already in that situation, why can't I live where I want? You already can't assess my productivity by looking at me at a desk. I already have to have a significant remote component to all meetings. When I really need to travel, I can travel. But day to day, you've already had to have the technology and processes to allow people to be distributed for a long time. Let me take advantage of it too.
Robotbeat 4y ago
We absolutely should make housing more affordable. The problem is we’ve built most middle class wealth on housing as a scarce and always-appreciating asset, and tons of peoples’ retirements are essentially counting on that continuing. We’re impoverishing the young to enrich the old, and there’s no easy way out.
- JustSomeNobody 4y ago
  Also, we don't build starter homes anymore. I monitor the city's development site and all of the home being built are 3+ BR. There are a few apartment complexes with 1,2,3 etc BR, but no starter homes. There was a 55+ retirement development that went in a couple years ago. About 150 homes. Every single one was 3+ BR. WTF!?
htag 4y ago
> I could be convinced to commute to a satellite office I tried this approach. I worked from a satellite with affordable housing, good schools. I had a <10 minute commute between my garage to my desk during peak traffic. I did not like it. Now, I would only entertain the idea of working out of a HQ. The satellite office provided many of the disadvantages of working in an office (open office floorplan, being forced into close proximity with that one annoying coworker, shared kitchen space) while being isolated from other teams and upper management. Those that worked at HQ saw more promotions, had better opportunities for internal mobility, and were taken more seriously inside the company. Going to HQ is fantastic for those career oriented. For everyone else WFH is the way.
TexanFeller 4y ago
> Let people work from home. Suffer a 10-15% degredation in communications. In my estimation you're grossly underestimating the degradation in communications.
- roguas 4y ago
  In my estimation he is not. I "remember" office for good and bad, for most of the time even when I communicated with folks next door/nearby i would still fallback to chat. Water cooler talks is what I miss actually, but if you meetup couple of times a year - you get the feel of those people. Also now that people got so used to streaming more, its often much easier to pair more effectively (if one person drives some stuff, the other person can do other checks etc.) I do not think 10-15% degradation is underestimated.
  - TexanFeller 4y ago
    > now that people got so used to streaming more, its often much easier to pair more effectively People keep saying this, but the experience of quickly pairing on something is one of the things I feel has degraded the most. I can't point to a single cause, it's more death by a million cuts, but I absolutely dread pairing with a junior to help them over screen share where I would normally be happy to help someone in person. I'm not exactly inexperienced at it either, I worked fully remote for a couple years a decade before the pandemic.

lumost 4y ago

Barring a change in city costs. Engineers expected to commute into the office will demand progressively higher rates. I’m not working for a billion+ profit firm for less than it costs to live in my area.

mikeweiss 4y ago

Leaving family, friends, community and the place you know is higher on my list of disruptive than selling a house.

mistrial9 4y ago
"A lot of the lay-offs were senior technical staff like C++ senior engineers; seems more like a realignment to shift those jobs to cheaper subsidiaries like India, Pakistan, Mexico"
- ibejoeb 4y ago
  What's the source of that quote? The article says exactly the opposite and makes no mention of offshoring.
  - mikhael28 4y ago
    Maybe its a disinformation bot, trying to rile up older men (senior C++ engineers) with nativist sentiment (how dare they relocate my job to Pakistan?). Seems reasonable to me, especially given the blatantly false statement.

Tangurena2 4y ago

My father was a chemical engineer. Back in the 60s & 70s, the company would pay to relocate our family to wherever they needed him (this included purchasing the house if we didn't sell it before the moving trucks showed up). That included several foreign countries. In my family's experience, that included England, Iran, Ireland & Saudi Arabia. During the 80s, his industry stopped relocating engineers. This corresponded to the end of "the Social Contract" where as long as you were loyal to your company, they had a job for you - for life. When you watch that "Greed is Good" speech from Gordon Gecko [0], notice that table of old farts at the front of the room: that's where they promote the loyal employees (into "executive vice presidencies") when there isn't enough room at the top of the pyramid (and also they're too incompetent to promote in actual line management [1]). By the 90s, companies stopped paying for relocation of anyone below managerial levels. And instead depended on workers being able to afford to relocate on their own $. This brings us to today's economy. Large companies, instead of laying older workers off, simply relocate their position to a new office. IBM (who used to be called "I've Been Moved") has a reputation for doing this to their US-based workforce especially when over age 40. If you can't afford to relocate? Great, that's now a "voluntary quit". If companies want employees to "move where the jobs are", they need to step up to the plate and start paying for relocation. And that includes buying upside-down homes. 0 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF_iorX_MAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF_iorX_MAw 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ibejoeb 4y ago
If companies start buying upside-down homes, they're probably going to start holding them until they can at least wash out. I'd hate to see a trend of employers becoming landlords.
- tracker1 4y ago
  I'm not sure that would be worse than the capital driven land-lord situation. I mean, in terms of renting out a house from a former employee until real estate improves enough to sell. Odds are it would be done via the same rental mgt companies that everyone else uses anyway. At least as long as the company isn't pushing to keep said properties longer than necessary.

akudha 4y ago

I work for a non profit. After two years or letting everyone at home, this month they're forcing people to come to office at least twice a week. Not only that, anyone going to work has to book a desk in advance, otherwise they'll be sitting on the floor with their computer on their laps. This makes no difference to me personally, as I am a thousand miles away in another state, so I lucked out. I am still working from home. None of this makes any sense whatsoever. I am totally expecting people to leave, just because they are forced to commute. This is one of the nicer places I have worked. I dread to image what it would be like, in some of the shittier jobs I have had. In my opinion, anyone who can work from home should do so. It frees up the traffic, makes office space more affordable for those businesses who do need space (dentist, restaurant etc) and in general win-win for everyone. All this talk of making "human connections" at work is just bullshit. Offices are just noisy, leads to office politics and meaningless meetings, cubicles are shitty, open office plans are shittier... Either that, or make sensible but much, much harder changes to housing, transporation etc. Since nobody seems ready to take on that work, the easier solution is to just let people work from home. It won't solve all problems, but it is a good start

giancarlostoro 4y ago
> otherwise they'll be sitting on the floor with their computer on their laps. Why bother showing up at that point.
- falcolas 4y ago
  A one-sided sense of loyalty.
- albatross13 4y ago
  Probably the same reason the people who still work at twitter show up, it's either some weird sense of loyalty or perhaps it helps them feel like part of the "those who grind" clique. I dunno man, people are weird.
  - JustSomeNobody 4y ago

pc86 4y ago

1 has nothing to do with "corporate elites," who do not control housing pricing or schooling by any reasonable measure. I don't accept the premise of 2 that there is any degradation in communications except from folks who are new to remote work. 3 will never happen because there are too many people who acknowledge the positives of remote work starting companies and in technical leadership of good companies. There will always be 100% remote and 100% remote+async companies from now on.

giancarlostoro 4y ago

> I could be convinced to commute to a satellite office that's not affected by rush hour traffic. This right here. If I could get to work and back in 5 minutes I wouldn't mind the commute, ever. Unfortunately everyone wants to have offices in some downtown area, instead of just near a major city in a quieter part of town, safe back-roads that wont bother anyone.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
This only works if they put the office in the quieter back-road section near you. Otherwise you're driving all the way across town. The last company I was with I talked with the owner and he was clear why they chose downtown - yes, it sucked, but it sucked pretty equally for everyone. Downtown is also the place with the most transit going to it - you're excluding anyone who doesn't/can't drive if you choose to build in a quiet section.
- bcrosby95 4y ago
  It depends on the downtown. Where I live there's almost no transit to downtown and because of traffic, a 20 minute commute turns into an hour. If instead you have a few smaller offices in the burbs outside of downtown, you could save a lot of time for workers as they would be traveling counter-commute.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    That's interesting - how large is the city you're in that has an hour commute but little transit? I don't understand the value of having a few smaller burb offices - does your entire team have to go to the one you're at (even if they are on opposite sides of the city, thus negating the advantage of it being close), or do they each go their own and then do remote calls to discuss things (thus negating the advantage of it being in office)?
  - cmh89 4y ago
    >If instead you have a few smaller offices in the burbs outside of downtown, you could save a lot of time for workers as they would be traveling counter-commute. This only applies to some people living in some areas. If you locate in the east side suburbs, people who live in the westside suburbs are going to have a helacious commute.

ibejoeb 4y ago

We also have to be more specific. What does "going to the office" mean? Does it mean I'm going to an actual office, where I have my equipment all set up how I like it and a tailored environment that helps me stay focused and productive? Or is a bullshit open floor with terrible lighting and everyone is sick all the time because you're sitting face to face for 10 hours with someone you don't even talk to? "The office" is a tool. It's like we've forgotten the reason for doing things. Software development is really not all that social. It's not akin as a factory or an orchestra or any of these other analogies that get tossed around.

tracker1 4y ago

It can depend... there's a few colocation/shared offices in the Phoenix area. I know of a couple in Chandler, Mesa and Peoria in particular. Though I have a gigabit connection at home that's pretty stable and have my workspace setup how I like it. Personally, I prefer an office space as I find the comradery is better. Being able to have lunch or general conversation is much more natural. Also, a commute that isn't too long (20-30m) is nice for ramping up on the way in and clearing the mind on the way home. All of that said, since going remote, I don't plan to go back. I really want to move to a more rural location that better aligns with what I want in lifestyle/community. Of course, internet connectivity becomes crucial, and the current interest rates prohibit that. I also don't think TFA is quite right on that being younger is the stronger reason for a higher chance of layoff. I think a lot of it comes down to experience and value provided from more experienced devs. It can definitely cut both ways and I have seen it in practice. I would suggest it's about perceived and actual value as well as a bit of office politics and agreeableness in the workplace that is more desired. I do think that the nicest thing about more remote work, is it is more regionally competitive. At the higher end of the talent pool, one is able to compete for jobs that are much better paying that would be available locally, while still being less expense for businesses rooted in tech hub cities. This comes at the cost of communications, which you mention, though I think it's more than a 15% degredation in some cases. My prior position it seemed to hold things up for days on communications at times, with an international team.

Olreich 4y ago

> Suffer a 10-15% degredation in communications. If your team is split across 3 timezones and 5 cities already, you're going to damage your communications even further by making everyone go into the office again.

mancerayder 4y ago

>Make housing affordable Make? Who is the subject doing the making here in this scenario?

jen20 4y ago

I very much feel the opposite way. If my company had offices downtown (where I live, because I like being able to walk to get a beer), I would go every day. But they don’t - they’re in a suburban sprawl, at minimum a 30 minute drive - more like an hour during rush hour. I would quit on the spot if there were ever an attempt to make me go to the office on a fixed schedule.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
I chose a home with good transit to downtown. If I have to drive to an industrial sector across town each day to get to work I probably won't even consider the position.

vanilla_nut 4y ago

> I could be convinced to commute to a satellite office that's not affected by rush hour traffic. There's a lot of real estate available in the burbs. Funny that you say this. I could only be convinced to come to an office if my employer satisfied the following conditions: - accessible in <20 minutes from a place with affordable rent via bike, walk, or public transit - no or minimal video meetings in the office; I'm not taking the time to come in to sit on the same video calls I could take at home. - either a lunch subsidy or reasonable in-house lunch prep options (more than just a refrigerator and a dirty shared microwave) It definitely feels like housing affordability is a huge wrench in these gears. Up until this year, I lived in major US cities, and rent prices still shock me when I look back in my old neighborhoods. Even the suburbs have spiked to the prices I used to pay for walkable neighborhoods. I'm pretty sure my first criteria can't be satisfied unless the US has some kind of massive market-wide housing price collapse.

Robotbeat 4y ago
I’m lucky to have bought a duplex starter home for like $135k, 8 years ago before prices skyrocketed. It has off street parking and a garage so we can park and charge our two electric cars. The overall level of safety is high on the immediate area I live in, I don’t worry about break-ins. It’s in a walkable neighborhood a few blocks from a preschool and elementary school we send our kids to plus a park and little beach by the river/ocean. There are also nice neighborhood restaurants and cafe & ice cream parlor and library and community garden plus like consignment shops, etc. Tons of awesome neighborhood events around Halloween, Christmas, 4th of July, etc, plus a regular farmer’s market, etc… all this within east walking distance (even for kids). My work is 15 minutes by car, low stress commute overall. It has a beautiful common space with a nice kitchen. It doesn’t have a stove or a dishwasher, but the fridge and microwave are super nice, beautiful stone counters with a nice dish washing sink, place for sitting and eating, making coffee via electric kettle, etc. It’s part of our communal “maker space” so we can have great conversations while eating lunch and watching our 3D prints complete. Plus very affordable snack bar, and a cafeteria within walking distance. I also have my own office and lab space which aren’t beautiful, but are nice to have. Our house and yard are small and not super nice cosmetically, the income isn’t high for 3 kids and a spouse that has to stay home to take care of them, but every time I think about moving or taking a higher paid job, I realize how lucky this situation is. And how I could easily spend twice as much for a house only marginally better or three times as much for a larger and cosmetically better house in a non-walkable area.

TallGuyShort 4y ago

> The problem is that companies expect employees to be mobile when they are not I would add, many software companies expect employees to work in such a way that working remotely has to be viable anyway. My direct coworkers were split across multiple Bay Area offices. I had projects going on with other companies, some of them in Seattle. I was encouraged to attend and present at conferences in other cities. I dealt with teams distributed across Europe. Now, getting face to face time with all of these people is an important part of building relationships, but most of those meetings simply have to be online. I noticed that even though I had a home office, my boss virtually never saw me doing my most important work, because we were both in and out of meetings. I was willing to be dutiful employee who shows up to the office, and attends meetings in-person when I could, but invariably someone else in the meeting wouldn't or couldn't and we'd have to dial them in remotely anyway (ironically, this happen the most with a certain company who claims that they can't make remote work viable - their own employees would not attend meetings in person at their own employer's office). If you're already in that situation, why can't I live where I want? You already can't assess my productivity by looking at me at a desk. I already have to have a significant remote component to all meetings. When I really need to travel, I can travel. But day to day, you've already had to have the technology and processes to allow people to be distributed for a long time. Let me take advantage of it too.

Robotbeat 4y ago

We absolutely should make housing more affordable. The problem is we’ve built most middle class wealth on housing as a scarce and always-appreciating asset, and tons of peoples’ retirements are essentially counting on that continuing. We’re impoverishing the young to enrich the old, and there’s no easy way out.

JustSomeNobody 4y ago
Also, we don't build starter homes anymore. I monitor the city's development site and all of the home being built are 3+ BR. There are a few apartment complexes with 1,2,3 etc BR, but no starter homes. There was a 55+ retirement development that went in a couple years ago. About 150 homes. Every single one was 3+ BR. WTF!?

htag 4y ago

> I could be convinced to commute to a satellite office I tried this approach. I worked from a satellite with affordable housing, good schools. I had a <10 minute commute between my garage to my desk during peak traffic. I did not like it. Now, I would only entertain the idea of working out of a HQ. The satellite office provided many of the disadvantages of working in an office (open office floorplan, being forced into close proximity with that one annoying coworker, shared kitchen space) while being isolated from other teams and upper management. Those that worked at HQ saw more promotions, had better opportunities for internal mobility, and were taken more seriously inside the company. Going to HQ is fantastic for those career oriented. For everyone else WFH is the way.

TexanFeller 4y ago

> Let people work from home. Suffer a 10-15% degredation in communications. In my estimation you're grossly underestimating the degradation in communications.

roguas 4y ago
In my estimation he is not. I "remember" office for good and bad, for most of the time even when I communicated with folks next door/nearby i would still fallback to chat. Water cooler talks is what I miss actually, but if you meetup couple of times a year - you get the feel of those people. Also now that people got so used to streaming more, its often much easier to pair more effectively (if one person drives some stuff, the other person can do other checks etc.) I do not think 10-15% degradation is underestimated.
- TexanFeller 4y ago
  > now that people got so used to streaming more, its often much easier to pair more effectively People keep saying this, but the experience of quickly pairing on something is one of the things I feel has degraded the most. I can't point to a single cause, it's more death by a million cuts, but I absolutely dread pairing with a junior to help them over screen share where I would normally be happy to help someone in person. I'm not exactly inexperienced at it either, I worked fully remote for a couple years a decade before the pandemic.