5 ms·
It's not tied to any one place. It is tied to a few places, and Silicon Valley more strongly than most: in no small part because you can hire programmers there,
by fennecfoxen 13y ago
It's not tied to any one place. It is tied to a few places, and Silicon Valley more strongly than most: in no small part because you can hire programmers there, because programmers live there, because they can get hired there (all circular-referency-like).
But it's also tied to places like New York, and London, and Seattle, and Boston, and Austin, heck, Shanghai and Hong Kong and Bangalore -- any place where there's enough of a critical mass of reasonably well-educated raw population that "programmers live there" because everyone lives there. Not tied as strongly, mind you -- the network effect and the venture capital in the bay area are hard to beat. But tied enough that it works.
- toomuchtodo 13y agoCan't programmers work remotely? And can you not work remotely if your management isn't totally incompetent? "You can't manage what you can't measure." and all that jazz. In short, the SFBA crisis is caused by the tech culture not drinking its own Koolaid about geography not mattering.
- nknighthb 13y agoThere is no consensus in "the tech culture" on the value of remote work. You've confused pundits and politicians with techies.
- pistle 13y agoWhich may well mean that the Koolaid is a fabrication by a segment of the tech industry to move units and subscriptions.
- ufmace 13y agoI've done some remote work, and found it to be mixed at best most of the time. I think part of the problem is that, for it to really work, the entire organization has to completely change their methods of work around it. If there's even one remote worker, the entire workforce has to commit to doing everything online, even if they're in the same space, or else the remote worker is shut out. Even if you're right next to your co-worker, all of your interaction has to be over email/chat/whatever you're using. Everyone you might want to talk to has to be as available on chat/IM as they are in their office.
- argonaut 13y agoThe koolaid you speak of is only propogated by the few companies that actually do hire remote. GitHub and 37signals/Basecamp are two examples that immediately come to mind.
- toomuchtodo 13y agoGithub and Basecamp are companies I'd identify as fairly successful. If they can do it, why are Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and Amazon so bad at it?
- argonaut 13y agoGitHub only has 240 employees. Google has around 50,000. Bad comparison. It's like saying "Ruby on Rails works for GitHub; if they can do it, why can't Google use Ruby on Rails?" If you read any of their articles on how they make remote work for them, they do it by and organizing the entire company around remote work, IIRC. And they still have offices.
- toomuchtodo 13y agoSo Google isn't broken down into departments? And departments broken down into projects? This feels less like decision making based on results and more like hand waving by bad managers.
- argonaut 13y agoAnd projects don't talk to each other? And departments don't talk to each other? And departments don't report to inter-department leads/heads? There aren't Director or VP level managers?
- toomuchtodo 13y agoIf only there were some sort of text and voice based communications methods we could use to facilitate the transfer of information between disparate groups...