3 ms·

> Evidently most prefer living less nicer lives and being slave/impoverished by services... Purely remote work will be a race to the bottom in terms of wages.

> Evidently most prefer living less nicer lives and being slave/impoverished by services... Purely remote work will be a race to the bottom in terms of wages. I would rather put up with a bit of commute a few days a week, which allows me to keep my comfortable salary. Living on salary dictated by the lowest paid workforce pool will be far less nicer.

kkfx 3y ago
That's an interesting point: while formally a remote worker (my hand raised) have the entire world as potential market and nothing physically change between working today for a USA company, tomorrow for a Japanese while living in Swiss, in most cases jobs exists inside a nation border for fiscal reasons of both parties, and formally the salary pay worker works, not it's physical residence, so well formally there is no reasons to see a drop in salary WFH. Another point is if the bigger salary many anti-civil companies offer to workers living in big cities is worth living there, considering cost of living, quality of living, climate, personal freedom and so one. Hybrid works for me is absurd: - you need to be anyway near an office, and the company need anyway office space; - you need two desk instead of one, both under-utilized, or living a disgraced life moving laptops around, to use them as desktop replacers... All of this just to keep a salary that potentially got wasted in city services, having an inferior quality of life, no thanks. I prefer competing with my skills against the entire world than having such kind of genital laces... Beside that: personally I own an apartment in a big city, and I rent it, so far for a nice profit (I do not know if it will last, of course) and so far stocks perform really wall (it will NOT last, but again...) meaning: if you are from middle/high income cohort you earn more moving in the nature in a well served area and rent to poor in the city. I do think this situation is fairly common, at least in southern EU for middle/high income people, who happen to be those who made the downtown of big cities. If I'm right, without downtown white collar who spend much what's left in the city? How the city economics can keep up given the fact that after the 80s logistic revolutions most manufacturing have goes out, and now most high wages have done the same leaving just low/middle-low income people in the city mostly employed in city service economy, an economy that closely depend on inhabitants mean wages...
- RestlessMind 3y ago
  Can you please state your points differently? I genuinely didn't understand what you are trying to say. > so well formally there is no reasons to see a drop in salary WFH. My observation says otherwise. Lot of remote companies have expanded headcount internationally or in cheaper cities compared to their pre-covid workforce. > if you are from middle/high income cohort you earn more moving in the nature This simply doesn't work for big segments of population - people with kids in schools who do not want to disturb stability of their kids lives, people with big social networks of friends and families in an area, a couple where one partners works a job which is necessarily in office etc.
  - kkfx 3y ago
    Well: - I know many companies try to penalize remote workers in salary and career terms even if they bring the same value from remote or in the office, but I also know this is not for socially sound reasons: giants simply need people in cities to keep up their service-centric economy, a model HARMFUL for the humanity, small and medium want to follow the big just for ignorant reactionarism; - I know how absurd is the hybrid model "hey, if you comply to our desire, harmful for you and the society at a whole, but we want if to exploit you, we gives you some small potatoes advantages you might think they are nice while they are not" but most seems simply to not care because they are already inhabited to city life and fear the change; - I know WFH will happen anyway but in a VERY HARMFUL manner, with digital nomads on one side, slaves living in goshiwong without even knowing what it means living in their own homes, and I know the outcome for us all. About the hard part of changing life, I know, I've done it myself. But I also know that for schools the mean/long term future is the remote model with some very curated and improved video lessons with a local teacher just to respond questions, offer support to dig deeper etc, in a campus-style model to offer the social part of schools to children, so remain in a city, choose to avoid the change, means only delay something that MUST happen anyway harming their child in the long term to not touching them in the short one. The world do change, we do not have the crystal ball of course, but something is clear enough, and trying to keep up "the old known way" is trying to remain on the large sinking boat fearing the lifeboat.

kkfx 3y ago

That's an interesting point: while formally a remote worker (my hand raised) have the entire world as potential market and nothing physically change between working today for a USA company, tomorrow for a Japanese while living in Swiss, in most cases jobs exists inside a nation border for fiscal reasons of both parties, and formally the salary pay worker works, not it's physical residence, so well formally there is no reasons to see a drop in salary WFH. Another point is if the bigger salary many anti-civil companies offer to workers living in big cities is worth living there, considering cost of living, quality of living, climate, personal freedom and so one. Hybrid works for me is absurd: - you need to be anyway near an office, and the company need anyway office space; - you need two desk instead of one, both under-utilized, or living a disgraced life moving laptops around, to use them as desktop replacers... All of this just to keep a salary that potentially got wasted in city services, having an inferior quality of life, no thanks. I prefer competing with my skills against the entire world than having such kind of genital laces... Beside that: personally I own an apartment in a big city, and I rent it, so far for a nice profit (I do not know if it will last, of course) and so far stocks perform really wall (it will NOT last, but again...) meaning: if you are from middle/high income cohort you earn more moving in the nature in a well served area and rent to poor in the city. I do think this situation is fairly common, at least in southern EU for middle/high income people, who happen to be those who made the downtown of big cities. If I'm right, without downtown white collar who spend much what's left in the city? How the city economics can keep up given the fact that after the 80s logistic revolutions most manufacturing have goes out, and now most high wages have done the same leaving just low/middle-low income people in the city mostly employed in city service economy, an economy that closely depend on inhabitants mean wages...

RestlessMind 3y ago
Can you please state your points differently? I genuinely didn't understand what you are trying to say. > so well formally there is no reasons to see a drop in salary WFH. My observation says otherwise. Lot of remote companies have expanded headcount internationally or in cheaper cities compared to their pre-covid workforce. > if you are from middle/high income cohort you earn more moving in the nature This simply doesn't work for big segments of population - people with kids in schools who do not want to disturb stability of their kids lives, people with big social networks of friends and families in an area, a couple where one partners works a job which is necessarily in office etc.
- kkfx 3y ago
  Well: - I know many companies try to penalize remote workers in salary and career terms even if they bring the same value from remote or in the office, but I also know this is not for socially sound reasons: giants simply need people in cities to keep up their service-centric economy, a model HARMFUL for the humanity, small and medium want to follow the big just for ignorant reactionarism; - I know how absurd is the hybrid model "hey, if you comply to our desire, harmful for you and the society at a whole, but we want if to exploit you, we gives you some small potatoes advantages you might think they are nice while they are not" but most seems simply to not care because they are already inhabited to city life and fear the change; - I know WFH will happen anyway but in a VERY HARMFUL manner, with digital nomads on one side, slaves living in goshiwong without even knowing what it means living in their own homes, and I know the outcome for us all. About the hard part of changing life, I know, I've done it myself. But I also know that for schools the mean/long term future is the remote model with some very curated and improved video lessons with a local teacher just to respond questions, offer support to dig deeper etc, in a campus-style model to offer the social part of schools to children, so remain in a city, choose to avoid the change, means only delay something that MUST happen anyway harming their child in the long term to not touching them in the short one. The world do change, we do not have the crystal ball of course, but something is clear enough, and trying to keep up "the old known way" is trying to remain on the large sinking boat fearing the lifeboat.