@iced wrote:
@Revelate wrote:"Projects are taking longer, collaboration is harder, and training new workers is a struggle. The Wall Street Journal says remote work isn’t going to be sustainable for much longer"
Oh my, with everyone WFH, the companies and their organizations need to adapt too? Say it isn't so!
I'll be the first to admit my "new hire orientation" would've been better in person and might have formed more lasting relationships with the people in that class (god I've gone so corporate) but it worked out OK... I didn't have any high expectations on that front to begin with honestly having been a contractor for 18 months in my role and knowing I will have very little overlap with nearly anyone going through it.
It's a new model that companies will have to adapt to and those who are thinking they can just keep doing things the ways they have always done are going to be tomorrow's dinosaurs anyway. I didn't find the full article but from the part I could read, color me skeptical that it is the only way it's going to happen.
Even if only 5-10% of the jobs go WFH, that is a massive impact that will reverberate throughout the economy, and I suspect once kids are back in school things will get better for pretty much all of those WFH issues.
We'll see, I'll try to find the full article but the surface detail is meh, that stuff will get better with time.
Sure 5-10% more will work from home; that's realistic. This pipe dream everyone with soul sucking commutes and crappy desk jobs has that they'll be free to rebalance life and work with WFH is just that, though - a pipe dream.
In our field, the big detriments are in collaboration. As a WFHer for 6 years now, webex and zoom just do not, can not, and will not replace the intangible value from in-person whiteboard sessions and meetings.
Most think big tech is going to lead this new WFH charge. I can also say my large cap tech employer is already back to 50% in the office and is chomping at the bit to get back to 100%. They're not alone, either.
Huh I will admit I am curious as to who you work for, my own large cap tech employer as stated earlier is closing offices all over the world. That said my own company rightfully eats it's own dog food, so we may be an aberration.
I couldn't find full article but I did find the company they listed for their example: Canon.
I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of people on this forum haven't ever heard of them, but 25 years ago they were:
1) Cameras
2) Copy machines
3) Printers
25 years later?
1) Hello iPhone et al.
2) Stop killing trees
3) Ditto, oh hi DocuSign.
I am sure there are more awkward places to WFH on (the government entities I do work with probably) but talking Corporate America, this sounds like a fairly cherry picked organization: big, traditional, old school company... that is going to be more awkward than most.
The thing is though 5-10% will have a domino effect, how much of my job do I find more tolerable because I'm not stuck on the 405 going anywhere in LA? I am just on the whole better without that suck in my life, I see it in how people react to me. I was willing to take a rather substantial pay cut (admittedly I could afford to) to get rid of it and companies had a difficult time finding people, especially with the compensation one-upmanship in the Bay Area between the big tech companies: they aren't doing this for their workers, and even with a productivity loss getting people working in cheaper living areas means they can drive salaries down and save on office space both.
I am betting when people suddenly aren't completely hostage to their locales in terms of what work we do, even 5% WFH that will relandscape the playing field.
Companies will gladly trade a 20% reduction in individual efficiency if it comes with a 30% reduced labor cost for the same headcount. Watch, it'll start small but I am betting it will be a tidal wave eventually.
Geez I didn't even think about this one but that affordable housing crisis in San Francisco? Over if this comes to pass. Real estate watch out.
@Revelate wrote:
@iced wrote:
@Revelate wrote:"Projects are taking longer, collaboration is harder, and training new workers is a struggle. The Wall Street Journal says remote work isn’t going to be sustainable for much longer"
Oh my, with everyone WFH, the companies and their organizations need to adapt too? Say it isn't so!
I'll be the first to admit my "new hire orientation" would've been better in person and might have formed more lasting relationships with the people in that class (god I've gone so corporate) but it worked out OK... I didn't have any high expectations on that front to begin with honestly having been a contractor for 18 months in my role and knowing I will have very little overlap with nearly anyone going through it.
It's a new model that companies will have to adapt to and those who are thinking they can just keep doing things the ways they have always done are going to be tomorrow's dinosaurs anyway. I didn't find the full article but from the part I could read, color me skeptical that it is the only way it's going to happen.
Even if only 5-10% of the jobs go WFH, that is a massive impact that will reverberate throughout the economy, and I suspect once kids are back in school things will get better for pretty much all of those WFH issues.
We'll see, I'll try to find the full article but the surface detail is meh, that stuff will get better with time.
Sure 5-10% more will work from home; that's realistic. This pipe dream everyone with soul sucking commutes and crappy desk jobs has that they'll be free to rebalance life and work with WFH is just that, though - a pipe dream.
In our field, the big detriments are in collaboration. As a WFHer for 6 years now, webex and zoom just do not, can not, and will not replace the intangible value from in-person whiteboard sessions and meetings.
Most think big tech is going to lead this new WFH charge. I can also say my large cap tech employer is already back to 50% in the office and is chomping at the bit to get back to 100%. They're not alone, either.
Huh I will admit I am curious as to who you work for, my own large cap tech employer as stated earlier is closing offices all over the world. That said my own company rightfully eats it's own dog food, so we may be an aberration.
I couldn't find full article but I did find the company they listed for their example: Canon.
I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of people on this forum haven't ever heard of them, but 25 years ago they were:
1) Cameras
2) Copy machines
3) Printers
25 years later?
1) Hello iPhone et al.
2) Stop killing trees
3) Ditto, oh hi DocuSign.
I am sure there are more awkward places to WFH on (the government entities I do work with probably) but talking Corporate America, this sounds like a fairly cherry picked organization: big, traditional, old school company... that is going to be more awkward than most.
The thing is though 5-10% will have a domino effect, how much of my job do I find more tolerable because I'm not stuck on the 405 going anywhere in LA? I am just on the whole better without that suck in my life, I see it in how people react to me. I was willing to take a rather substantial pay cut (admittedly I could afford to) to get rid of it and companies had a difficult time finding people, especially with the compensation one-upmanship in the Bay Area between the big tech companies: they aren't doing this for their workers, and even with a productivity loss getting people working in cheaper living areas means they can drive salaries down and save on office space both.
I am betting when people suddenly aren't completely hostage to their locales in terms of what work we do, even 5% WFH that will relandscape the playing field.
Companies will gladly trade a 20% reduction in individual efficiency if it comes with a 30% reduced labor cost for the same headcount. Watch, it'll start small but I am betting it will be a tidal wave eventually.
Geez I didn't even think about this one but that affordable housing crisis in San Francisco? Over if this comes to pass. Real estate watch out.
We will not live to see that day where there is much affordable housing! Have a second cousin that lives there now and has for many many years. He said if it weren't for room mates life would be financially very tough. Note, he is over 40 years old and knows the game! 
@Anonymous wrote:
@Revelate wrote:
@iced wrote:
@Revelate wrote:"Projects are taking longer, collaboration is harder, and training new workers is a struggle. The Wall Street Journal says remote work isn’t going to be sustainable for much longer"
Oh my, with everyone WFH, the companies and their organizations need to adapt too? Say it isn't so!
I'll be the first to admit my "new hire orientation" would've been better in person and might have formed more lasting relationships with the people in that class (god I've gone so corporate) but it worked out OK... I didn't have any high expectations on that front to begin with honestly having been a contractor for 18 months in my role and knowing I will have very little overlap with nearly anyone going through it.
It's a new model that companies will have to adapt to and those who are thinking they can just keep doing things the ways they have always done are going to be tomorrow's dinosaurs anyway. I didn't find the full article but from the part I could read, color me skeptical that it is the only way it's going to happen.
Even if only 5-10% of the jobs go WFH, that is a massive impact that will reverberate throughout the economy, and I suspect once kids are back in school things will get better for pretty much all of those WFH issues.
We'll see, I'll try to find the full article but the surface detail is meh, that stuff will get better with time.
Sure 5-10% more will work from home; that's realistic. This pipe dream everyone with soul sucking commutes and crappy desk jobs has that they'll be free to rebalance life and work with WFH is just that, though - a pipe dream.
In our field, the big detriments are in collaboration. As a WFHer for 6 years now, webex and zoom just do not, can not, and will not replace the intangible value from in-person whiteboard sessions and meetings.
Most think big tech is going to lead this new WFH charge. I can also say my large cap tech employer is already back to 50% in the office and is chomping at the bit to get back to 100%. They're not alone, either.
Huh I will admit I am curious as to who you work for, my own large cap tech employer as stated earlier is closing offices all over the world. That said my own company rightfully eats it's own dog food, so we may be an aberration.
I couldn't find full article but I did find the company they listed for their example: Canon.
I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of people on this forum haven't ever heard of them, but 25 years ago they were:
1) Cameras
2) Copy machines
3) Printers
25 years later?
1) Hello iPhone et al.
2) Stop killing trees
3) Ditto, oh hi DocuSign.
I am sure there are more awkward places to WFH on (the government entities I do work with probably) but talking Corporate America, this sounds like a fairly cherry picked organization: big, traditional, old school company... that is going to be more awkward than most.
The thing is though 5-10% will have a domino effect, how much of my job do I find more tolerable because I'm not stuck on the 405 going anywhere in LA? I am just on the whole better without that suck in my life, I see it in how people react to me. I was willing to take a rather substantial pay cut (admittedly I could afford to) to get rid of it and companies had a difficult time finding people, especially with the compensation one-upmanship in the Bay Area between the big tech companies: they aren't doing this for their workers, and even with a productivity loss getting people working in cheaper living areas means they can drive salaries down and save on office space both.
I am betting when people suddenly aren't completely hostage to their locales in terms of what work we do, even 5% WFH that will relandscape the playing field.
Companies will gladly trade a 20% reduction in individual efficiency if it comes with a 30% reduced labor cost for the same headcount. Watch, it'll start small but I am betting it will be a tidal wave eventually.
Geez I didn't even think about this one but that affordable housing crisis in San Francisco? Over if this comes to pass. Real estate watch out.
We will not live to see that day where there is much affordable housing! Have a second cousin that lives there now and has for many many years. He said if it weren't for room mates life would be financially very tough. Note, he is over 40 years old and knows the game!
A big reason is you had a bunch of big tech employees that are making as much doing one job as I do with two... we are talking an ocean of disposable income in aggregate.
All that drives prices up all over the Bay Area and the City in particular: good grief they were doing corporate busses down the peninsula like Jesus Christ on a pogo stick hahaha.
If that all changes and they find they can staff people remotely in nice areas where that compensation can be cut in half and you still have just as much disposable income if not more without California tax structures, how does that not directly drive down prices throughout the Bay Area?
1) Why would people stay if they are unshackled from that geographic locale.
2) Why would Google et al keep the same salary level when the possible resource pool just increased by an order of magnitude by WFH.
It may not happen, but if even it goes some amount it's going to be worse than when TransAmerica pulled out, and in their 40's they might remember that. We'll see but if Big Tech goes to mostly WFH there will be big economic impacts across California but in particular the Bay Area.
@Revelate wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Revelate wrote:
@iced wrote:
@Revelate wrote:"Projects are taking longer, collaboration is harder, and training new workers is a struggle. The Wall Street Journal says remote work isn’t going to be sustainable for much longer"
Oh my, with everyone WFH, the companies and their organizations need to adapt too? Say it isn't so!
I'll be the first to admit my "new hire orientation" would've been better in person and might have formed more lasting relationships with the people in that class (god I've gone so corporate) but it worked out OK... I didn't have any high expectations on that front to begin with honestly having been a contractor for 18 months in my role and knowing I will have very little overlap with nearly anyone going through it.
It's a new model that companies will have to adapt to and those who are thinking they can just keep doing things the ways they have always done are going to be tomorrow's dinosaurs anyway. I didn't find the full article but from the part I could read, color me skeptical that it is the only way it's going to happen.
Even if only 5-10% of the jobs go WFH, that is a massive impact that will reverberate throughout the economy, and I suspect once kids are back in school things will get better for pretty much all of those WFH issues.
We'll see, I'll try to find the full article but the surface detail is meh, that stuff will get better with time.
Sure 5-10% more will work from home; that's realistic. This pipe dream everyone with soul sucking commutes and crappy desk jobs has that they'll be free to rebalance life and work with WFH is just that, though - a pipe dream.
In our field, the big detriments are in collaboration. As a WFHer for 6 years now, webex and zoom just do not, can not, and will not replace the intangible value from in-person whiteboard sessions and meetings.
Most think big tech is going to lead this new WFH charge. I can also say my large cap tech employer is already back to 50% in the office and is chomping at the bit to get back to 100%. They're not alone, either.
Huh I will admit I am curious as to who you work for, my own large cap tech employer as stated earlier is closing offices all over the world. That said my own company rightfully eats it's own dog food, so we may be an aberration.
I couldn't find full article but I did find the company they listed for their example: Canon.
I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of people on this forum haven't ever heard of them, but 25 years ago they were:
1) Cameras
2) Copy machines
3) Printers
25 years later?
1) Hello iPhone et al.
2) Stop killing trees
3) Ditto, oh hi DocuSign.
I am sure there are more awkward places to WFH on (the government entities I do work with probably) but talking Corporate America, this sounds like a fairly cherry picked organization: big, traditional, old school company... that is going to be more awkward than most.
The thing is though 5-10% will have a domino effect, how much of my job do I find more tolerable because I'm not stuck on the 405 going anywhere in LA? I am just on the whole better without that suck in my life, I see it in how people react to me. I was willing to take a rather substantial pay cut (admittedly I could afford to) to get rid of it and companies had a difficult time finding people, especially with the compensation one-upmanship in the Bay Area between the big tech companies: they aren't doing this for their workers, and even with a productivity loss getting people working in cheaper living areas means they can drive salaries down and save on office space both.
I am betting when people suddenly aren't completely hostage to their locales in terms of what work we do, even 5% WFH that will relandscape the playing field.
Companies will gladly trade a 20% reduction in individual efficiency if it comes with a 30% reduced labor cost for the same headcount. Watch, it'll start small but I am betting it will be a tidal wave eventually.
Geez I didn't even think about this one but that affordable housing crisis in San Francisco? Over if this comes to pass. Real estate watch out.
We will not live to see that day where there is much affordable housing! Have a second cousin that lives there now and has for many many years. He said if it weren't for room mates life would be financially very tough. Note, he is over 40 years old and knows the game!
A big reason is you had a bunch of big tech employees that are making as much doing one job as I do with two... we are talking an ocean of disposable income in aggregate.
All that drives prices up all over the Bay Area and the City in particular: good grief they were doing corporate busses down the peninsula like Jesus Christ on a pogo stick hahaha.
If that all changes and they find they can staff people remotely in nice areas where that compensation can be cut in half and you still have just as much disposable income if not more without California tax structures, how does that not directly drive down prices throughout the Bay Area?
1) Why would people stay if they are unshackled from that geographic locale.2) Why would Google et al keep the same salary level when the possible resource pool just increased by an order of magnitude by WFH.
It may not happen, but if even it goes some amount it's going to be worse than when TransAmerica pulled out, and in their 40's they might remember that. We'll see but if Big Tech goes to mostly WFH there will be big economic impacts across California but in particular the Bay Area.
This assumes the only reason people live in cities like SF is proximity to work. This isn't the case for many people.
I myself live in a major city but don't have an office nearby. I could cut my CoL by 30% and be very close to my office, but I choose the higher CoL because of the amenities and lifestyle.
You don't get great walkability in suburbs. You don't get easy access to the best dining and entertainment in the suburbs. You lose a lot of culture in the suburbs.
For me at least, the only appeal to suburbs is the lower cost. McMansions and SUVs on every corner where everyone is trying to be the polo shirt dad or soccer mom is my image of what an Edward Scissorhands-esque hell would be like.
Anyway, I agree some would leave because they wanted that suburban life but couldn't get it without a nasty commute, but places like SF and NYC aren't comparable to a place like Minneapolis or Phoenix where downtown rolls up the rug and turns for the lights at 6:00. SF and NYC have thriving 24/7 heartbeats that will always attract people to live there, local job or no. There's a lot of empty nesters here who sell their McMansion and move back into the city once their psychological need for a "good" school system is no longer applicable. The reason more don't already is the cost. Cost won't tick down that much exhaust every time it does tick down a new wave of people will jump in as it becomes affordable to them.
@Revelate wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Revelate wrote:
@iced wrote:
@Revelate wrote:"Projects are taking longer, collaboration is harder, and training new workers is a struggle. The Wall Street Journal says remote work isn’t going to be sustainable for much longer"
Oh my, with everyone WFH, the companies and their organizations need to adapt too? Say it isn't so!
I'll be the first to admit my "new hire orientation" would've been better in person and might have formed more lasting relationships with the people in that class (god I've gone so corporate) but it worked out OK... I didn't have any high expectations on that front to begin with honestly having been a contractor for 18 months in my role and knowing I will have very little overlap with nearly anyone going through it.
It's a new model that companies will have to adapt to and those who are thinking they can just keep doing things the ways they have always done are going to be tomorrow's dinosaurs anyway. I didn't find the full article but from the part I could read, color me skeptical that it is the only way it's going to happen.
Even if only 5-10% of the jobs go WFH, that is a massive impact that will reverberate throughout the economy, and I suspect once kids are back in school things will get better for pretty much all of those WFH issues.
We'll see, I'll try to find the full article but the surface detail is meh, that stuff will get better with time.
Sure 5-10% more will work from home; that's realistic. This pipe dream everyone with soul sucking commutes and crappy desk jobs has that they'll be free to rebalance life and work with WFH is just that, though - a pipe dream.
In our field, the big detriments are in collaboration. As a WFHer for 6 years now, webex and zoom just do not, can not, and will not replace the intangible value from in-person whiteboard sessions and meetings.
Most think big tech is going to lead this new WFH charge. I can also say my large cap tech employer is already back to 50% in the office and is chomping at the bit to get back to 100%. They're not alone, either.
Huh I will admit I am curious as to who you work for, my own large cap tech employer as stated earlier is closing offices all over the world. That said my own company rightfully eats it's own dog food, so we may be an aberration.
I couldn't find full article but I did find the company they listed for their example: Canon.
I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of people on this forum haven't ever heard of them, but 25 years ago they were:
1) Cameras
2) Copy machines
3) Printers
25 years later?
1) Hello iPhone et al.
2) Stop killing trees
3) Ditto, oh hi DocuSign.
I am sure there are more awkward places to WFH on (the government entities I do work with probably) but talking Corporate America, this sounds like a fairly cherry picked organization: big, traditional, old school company... that is going to be more awkward than most.
The thing is though 5-10% will have a domino effect, how much of my job do I find more tolerable because I'm not stuck on the 405 going anywhere in LA? I am just on the whole better without that suck in my life, I see it in how people react to me. I was willing to take a rather substantial pay cut (admittedly I could afford to) to get rid of it and companies had a difficult time finding people, especially with the compensation one-upmanship in the Bay Area between the big tech companies: they aren't doing this for their workers, and even with a productivity loss getting people working in cheaper living areas means they can drive salaries down and save on office space both.
I am betting when people suddenly aren't completely hostage to their locales in terms of what work we do, even 5% WFH that will relandscape the playing field.
Companies will gladly trade a 20% reduction in individual efficiency if it comes with a 30% reduced labor cost for the same headcount. Watch, it'll start small but I am betting it will be a tidal wave eventually.
Geez I didn't even think about this one but that affordable housing crisis in San Francisco? Over if this comes to pass. Real estate watch out.
We will not live to see that day where there is much affordable housing! Have a second cousin that lives there now and has for many many years. He said if it weren't for room mates life would be financially very tough. Note, he is over 40 years old and knows the game!
A big reason is you had a bunch of big tech employees that are making as much doing one job as I do with two... we are talking an ocean of disposable income in aggregate.
All that drives prices up all over the Bay Area and the City in particular: good grief they were doing corporate busses down the peninsula like Jesus Christ on a pogo stick hahaha.
If that all changes and they find they can staff people remotely in nice areas where that compensation can be cut in half and you still have just as much disposable income if not more without California tax structures, how does that not directly drive down prices throughout the Bay Area?
1) Why would people stay if they are unshackled from that geographic locale.2) Why would Google et al keep the same salary level when the possible resource pool just increased by an order of magnitude by WFH.
It may not happen, but if even it goes some amount it's going to be worse than when TransAmerica pulled out, and in their 40's they might remember that. We'll see but if Big Tech goes to mostly WFH there will be big economic impacts across California but in particular the Bay Area.
You were right, @Revelate :
Remote work is reshaping San Francisco, as tech workers flee and rents fall (Fox Business)
(By giving their employees the freedom to work from anywhere, Bay Area tech companies appear to have touched off an exodus. ‘Why do we even want to be here?’)
"While it’s too soon to measure the total net outflow of tech workers from the Bay Area, it’s already affecting real-estate prices. Rents have started falling for the first time in years.
The median rent for a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco in the month of July dropped by 11% compared with the same month a year prior, according to rental-listings platform Zumper, which analyzed nearly 11,000 listings in the city and several surrounding areas. In Cupertino, home to Apple Inc., and Mountain View, home to Google, the median rent for one-bedroom apartments fell by more than 15%.
....
"“The majority of techies in the Bay Area are not about to move out, but it is a significant enough minority that it’s moving the market,” said Zumper CEO Anthemos Georgiades. “This year is the first year that it’s actually real.”"
There's a lot more in the article, including links to other areas where this is happening, like Seattle, Colorado, and NYC.
Mobile editing is failing badly with so much quoted text @Anonymous haha, but surprised you remembered the thread even 
.
Was listening to Bloomberg the other day and they mentioned NYC and a few other locales were seeing it too; as one NYC resident put it why would you move here for work if you didn't have to?
What surprised me (data from Redfin) was that so many were not just moving Heartland but specifically to locales with <50,000 people.
I made the move to Houston admittedly as part of the early wave realizing in February I was probably totally WFH for a while, but now it really seems to be digging in.
I think what remains to be seen is if the salaries are maintained as it wouldn't surprise me if we see a reduction in offered wages but then again in this day and age of gender and racial pay parity pushing, it's possible that it'll simply be supply and demand at a national or global level when it comes to compensation.
It will be really interesting to see how it all plays out: the head of IBM HR was saying that the days of just going to an office as a place to work were basically over: there would still be offices for specific reasons but not the general butts in seats employment that we have had for what, a century and a half now?
Living in interesting times.