Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Facebook to shift permanently toward more remote work after coronavirus (wsj.com)
596 points by Bahamut 12 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 591 comments






Thanks for posting the article link. Archive.md, which is a fantastic service, started throwing a 403 Forbidden error and 1001 error from Cloudflare a few days ago. Any idea what’s causing it? Cleared cookies and cache for it already. However I’m able to get to your archived article.

Cloudflare dns doesn’t support it, if they’re your dns provider. Some browsers are using them for dns over https which may be the culprit.

More specifically they don't support CloudFlare's DNS. The operator of Archive.(today/is/md) has decided to specifically provide bad IPs when the EDNS client subnet extension isn't provided, which CloudFlare's DNS doesn't provide due to privacy concerns.

A lot more discussion on this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828317


They have some really creepy dns hacks when you access your webpage.

you will access <personally>.<identifiable>.<stuff>.pixel.archive.md

(also mail.ru)



I do feel like HN is having a rehash of a conversation we've had many times this past month. I'll post my favorite comment [1] on the matter of remote salary adjustment, which captures a key market effect we all seem to forget (Bay Area specific):

-----------------------------------------------------

"Cost of Living" adjustments are a red herring, what they really are is really "competition density". There are plenty of tech companies paying great salaries in the bay because they have to, otherwise they would just go work for someone else. On the other hand, if you lived in Oklahoma you aren't going to say no to $LOCAL_OFFER+10k just because bay area salaries are $LOCAL_OFFER+90k.

As long as this disparity exists, I forsee bay area salaries and CoL still being high. Until companies move headquarters out of the bay, the trend will continue.

-----------------------------------------------------

Similarly, in this thread, Consultant32452 states [2] that the real argument is between those who can demand a high salary regardless of geography, and those who can only demand a high salary _because_ of geography.

The mistake is many people in the latter group think they are in the former.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23162855 by hn user nemothekid [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23265158 by hn user Consultant32452


> the real argument is between those who can demand a high salary regardless of geography, and those who can only demand a high salary _because_ of geography

It sounds dramatic expressed that way, but doing so is committing the binary fallacy.

In reality, there is a spectrum of the leverage between employees and employers that depends on many different factors including the employee's knowledge, skills, experience, reputation, trust, institutional knowledge, and even the degree of the employee's willingness to show up regularly in person.

That and the extent to which the employer values any of those.

The covid19 wfh emergency is going to modify that spectrum, depending on the job, cost of living, and the area. But it is not going to get rid of the spectrum altogether, just as it isn't going to eliminate the intrinsic value of cities and metros as factories for creativity, just diminish them a bit for a subset of the employees.


> I do feel like HN is having a rehash of a conversation we've had many times this past month.

It is not only on remote work, same with Google privacy issues, Zoom issues, micro service/monolithic, Electron... Most of the big conversations on HN have been going on for a long time and still do


Most conversations of humankind are going on for a long time. Why are we?

Because we're human?

Or are we dancer?

My sign is vital

my hands are cold

Go back to Reddit, jeez.

KEY, The mistake is many people in the latter group think they are in the former.

What's a bit interesting is that as a consultant with an OK rate I always attributed it to being onsite, directly talking with top management (what I do is routine so pay is basically for being able to interact successfully up and down org chart). This meant I felt very GEOGRAPHICALLY tied down.

Now I've not shown up onsite to ANYONE in 3+ months (we went remote early before shutdown). And it's not clear to me that value has diminished, though I need to up my zoom game a bit.

So some people may be discovering they thought they were geo tied / competitive but may be more broadly valuable or able to serve into that market remotely more easily than they thought?


You undoubtedly built your reputation onsite. That's why they trust you to operate remotely.

It's not yet clear if the same level of trust can be built by a purely remote worker with no pre-existing rapport or reputation.


You may be coasting in your past contracts and connections, although consultants are often better equipped to handle this chaos than the orgs themselves (e.g. a huge semiconductor company I consult for had all its labs shut down while my permanent home lab with their setups kept going).

Ouch. This comment is cutting. The truth can be that way sometimes, no?

Probably the only thing I take issue with is your second point. No matter how much companies talk about how much of a "talent shortage" there is, the mythical "overpaid engineer" in an area with high competition density is a lot rarer than they'd appear. To even get and keep a median salary job that lets you move there (and stay there), you're competing with (and often have to lose to) a lot of folks.

Social participation in that world and the learning of what gets rewarded and punished during your formative years helps condition you towards going about solving problems a given way, and alters you as a person. I am sure that I would be different if I spent the early formative years of my career in SV instead of NYC. I'd be solving different problems with different people and moving up career wise through different maneuvers.

So here's my question: will the pivot towards remote work diffuse or further reinforce hub centrality for current tech hubs? To be honest, I'm kind of mentally split on this one. Here's what I could imagine along both sides:

For concentration:

- Lacking differentiation, areas outside of tech hubs will become increasingly commodified (one giant suburb), stratified and divided into castes - Executives will tend to cluster around hub centers, middle managers around suburbs, ICs around exurbs and further; moving up will require "moving inwards" - Customer and capital consolidation into cities will continue - City lifestyle will continue being a status symbol synonymous with affluence, success, clout and social standing

For diffusion: - Propped up by inflated prices out of line with their underlying assets, hubs will crash economically when people have the option to work there without living there - Companies seeking to evade the "geography tax" will learn to work remotely to gain an edge in OpEx over competitors that don't and through lower margins gradually beat competitors that don't adapt into submission - Natural disasters, climate change and pandemics have/will continue to spark continued interest in the "retreat from society" - The pioneer spirit will come into vogue again, as enterprising contrarians try to rough it on the frontier once more, taking risks on developing fringe territory to capitalize off the nonlinear value they add (this, along with DoD funds/braintrust, was how SV began)

I don't know. It's hard to reason about what the outcome will be at this point. Greater flexibility seems like it would lead to heterogeneity. But as always, there are nonlinear second order effects that we can't think of now that will doubtless seem obvious in retrospect. What do other folks think?


> areas outside of tech hubs will become increasingly commodified (one giant suburb), stratified and divided into castes - Executives will tend to cluster around hub centers, middle managers around suburbs, ICs around exurbs and further; moving up will require "moving inwards"

Isn't this already the general pattern? I see that continuing, but with a very slight diminishing of the mega-hubs and a slight boost to secondary hubs (Austin, Boulder, etc).

> For diffusion: - Propped up by inflated prices out of line with their underlying assets, hubs will crash economically when people have the option to work there without living there

I think any prediction of the loss of the significance of cities is pretty far fetched. Cities have been robust to millenia of changes, including multiple past pandemics that have always disproportionately affected them vs more remote areas.

> [Companies] will learn to work remotely to gain an edge in OpEx over competitors that don't and through lower margins gradually beat competitors that don't adapt into submission

This will only happen in sectors with competition over thin margins and high OpEx as a percentage of expenditures, like running a manufacturing plant. That doesn't really reflect the kind of tech work done in tech hubs, which is CapEx and creativity heavy. Even pure software has to stay abreast of consumer and cultural trends, which are largely form in cities. A lot of software are dynamic cultural products, similar in many ways to movies, music, and TV shows. It could. however, affect things like consumer-facing tech support, but that has largely already taken place - a lot of tech support for major companies happens out of lower cost cities in the US, not the expensive tech hubs.


Excellent points. I'm again reminded of this 2S[1] investment article about the value of gross margins. I find particularly insightful your comment about tech work done in tech hubs which is CapEx, creativity and presumably margin heavy as well (to support the first two). One could say, well isn't it possible for this work to dry up? And yet, on the other hand, the whole point of investing is to perennially keep a portfolio fresh and full of the most cutting edge, margin heavy firms (when adjusted for risk adjusted returns compared to the nominal risk free return rate). Well, theoretically anyways.

[1] https://twosigmaventures.com/blog/article/why-gross-margins-...


> And yet, on the other hand, the whole point of investing is to perennially keep a portfolio fresh and full of the most cutting edge, margin heavy firms (when adjusted for risk adjusted returns compared to the nominal risk free return rate). Well, theoretically anyways.

I understand what you are saying here, but this perspective sees investment as the driver of the creativity of cities, while another perspective that I put more weight on is that the creativity of cities and the culture they create is a byproduct of human social/group psychology, itself a result of the fundamental reality that there is more security in numbers.

Investment, whether private or public, is then just a way of incentivizing the creativity machine of natural human agglomerations to produce ever more novel stuff.

Or put more succinctly: culture leads, investment follows.


It's an argument with a lot of merit. I think there's a chicken and the egg situation, but I think you're right in that the prime mover is probably the culture rather than investment. That goes along with another saying I think I've seen a lot of mileage, which is that politics is downstream from culture. Seems to follow that investment would follow too from there as well.

How is this different from offshoring ?

In many ways, it isn't. I've seen similar practices called "onshoring".

The important differences from typical offshoring are that it's costlier, but comes with fewer cultural, linguistic, and time zone challenges.


It's really hard to setup a cohesive engineering culture in the same office, harder to do with a remote office - and nigh impossible with an outsourcing firm with 12 hours time difference.

Not every business needs a cohesive engineering culture - but if your primary product is tech, then it stands to reason that the cost of your developers is a second priority to effective execution at scale.


It’s often just easier to put people in some physical space and hope the social interactions make for some progress and unison, than to actually manage things with follow ups and communicated objectives etc etc.

I hate my loud, noisy open office and only had two people that I would consider friends. Not that I don’t like my coworkers, they are great to work with. I just haven’t hit it off with them on a personal level. But I am really missing the interaction with them. Even though my company is trying with virtual happy hours.


I might be in a minority here, but I really don't feel like full time WFH is more productive. It could be indicative of my work place's culture only, but I feel like there are many more meetings now & communication is much harder. Also, it's nice seeing everybody at work, getting lunch, having a coffee break with people, whiteboarding, etc. There is a huge social aspect that is lost with WFH that zoom can't replace. Imo that reduction in socializing has reduced my work performance because I've noticed I just sprint ahead for 4+ hours straight and burn out really hard at the end of the day.

As an employee, it doesn't matter if it's more productive. You greatly increase your pay per hour of work given that you don't have to commute and you definitely don't spend 8 hrs of work consumed by work like you are forced to when in an office.

Productivity as an employee is about meeting a bar (that you partially define along with your employer). Caring about maximizing productivity is the goal of your employer. But you have some leverage in this job market so it's not like they can squeeze you dry. Remote only helps the employee side of that adversarial relationship.


I absolutely don't care about productivity. I care about

> Also, it's nice seeing everybody at work, getting lunch, having a coffee break with people, whiteboarding, etc. There is a huge social aspect that is lost with WFH that zoom can't replace. Imo that reduction in socializing has reduced my work performance because I've noticed I just sprint ahead for 4+ hours straight and burn out really hard at the end of the day.

I like showing up at work to work together with my co-workers. If you don't then maybe you should get a new job where you like the people you work with.

Am I really not looking forward to the new remote work future. Maybe someone will come up with a way to restore the socializing I got from work. I don't just want to hang out with friends. I want to work together with people on a common goal, and by "work together" I mean I want to do this in the same space. Just like eating lunch on zoom or going to a virtual bar via facetime is not as good as actually siting at the same table with friends neither is remote work as fulfilling "for me" as actually being in the same space as my co-workers. But then again I like my co-workers and I like the things we are building together.


Is a local co working space out of the option? Just genuinely curious. Of course, when the pandemic is over.

I think this will be increasingly popular. You can minimise your commute while retaining the social aspect. I've worked out of shared offices for 20 years and enjoy it.

> You greatly increase your pay per hour of work

I don't think this is guaranteed to happen. Another possible outcome is that tech salaries will pin to the lowest common denominator, such that employers will "outsource" much of their engineering work to engineers that live in low cost-of-living markets.


As someone whose friends are mostly blue collar workers who were scolded for being concerned that "poor people from other places will steal our jobs", I'm finding all of these posts to be delightful.

It's pretty funny. Though it's misguided for the same reason. Making high-productivity jobs available to more people is good. In 2015 it was estimated that US GDP is 9.5% lower than it could be as a result of housing shortages in just San Francisco, New York, and San Jose.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w21154


Sounds pretty good for those engineers.

Yeah, it's great news for engineers living in places where people don't pay more than a dollar per day for food. "Eat the rich" is one of most unintentionally-ironic phrases ever muttered.

2 things: we’re going to see pay cuts (because convenience and it’s easier for the drones) and your life quality is also going to be impacted (work/personal life separation? bye bye and good luck)

The companies that abuse work/life separation have been doing so without remote work and will do so regardless of the situation. Generally, these companies tend to pay more because if they didn't, nobody would do them.

So just as always, you have a choice, what's worth more to you? Money, or free time? And pick your job accordingly.


That isn’t strictly true and depends highly on the applicable labor market. For example, the worst paid software job I ever had was for a defense contractor that demanded 10 hour workdays 7 days a week during “crunch time” to meet deliverables and overtime frequently the rest of the year.

They paid poorly precisely because of the relative lack of opportunity for software in the region at the time. That meant anyone who’s livelihood was in software had little recourse other than to move. That was the option I took, but others can’t for a number of reasons.


Well now with remote work those people actually have job choices.

How would this be any different than now? Companies that have a culture of disrespect towards their employee's time by expecting responses to after hours emails and calls will continue to do so, as they always have. The onus is on the individual to determine if they're going to put up with that or not.

it’s always a push and pull kind-of thing. if you answer your email after hours you will receive emails after hours. if you work on your free time more work is going to show up on your plate. as with everything in life having boundaries is a must. if your boss makes you work nights or weekends make sure this is explicitly done (ie have them ask you formally) and ask for a raise to compensate for your time. if they don’t back off find another job.

Work-life balance is a necessary thing that each person has to work on for themselves. Learning to say 'no' while delivering on the things you're asked, and delivering well, is one of the most important things an employee can do to gain respect and to give the company boundaries.

Why do you see the employer/employee relationship as adversarial? Perhaps you are working in the wrong company. You need employers as much as they need employees. It’s a myopic view.

An employee/employer relation is mutually beneficial but that doesn't stop conflict. The employer is still going to try and optimize to get more out of that relationship than it puts in. The employee should also do the same.

Just because you're working together in a circumstance that benefits the two parties doesn't mean each party is not also working against each other to some degree to better optimize their self-interests.

An employer may need an employee to create something and by creating and selling that thing, an employer and employee may both get a cut and benefit. None of that prevents the employer or employee from attempting to get a larger cut or do less work (invest less time) to receive their cut. Extremes to either side cause the relationship to collapse but there's definitely wiggle room in the margins beyond a 50/50 split.

I've yet to meet a single employer that doesn't try to optimize on labor costs in that relationship through some component or another, directly or indirectly.


This is a pretty fascinating perspective to me, one I had never considered. I had always thought of the employee who is paid more than the value they provide as being lazy and a leech. But that’s exactly what the corporation is doing: trying to make a profit by paying for less value than they capture from their employees.

I don't see my employer as paying less than the value they get from me. I see my employer as accepting a risk I'm unwilling to accept. If I go do things on my own I have so many things I have to deal with. Assuming you start a business then insurance, taxes, deductions, payroll (gotta pay yourself from your company) plus I have to market my skills, network, find customers, negotiate contracts, and always worry if I don't I'll go hungry or miss rent. Or, I can just show up at some other company as an employee and in exchange for getting less than the full amount they take care of all of that and all the risk.

>I see my employer as accepting a risk I'm unwilling to accept.

Which is also true. At the same time, risk is highly relative which is why this situation is feasible at all. What's risky for you to do as an individual is not of the same order of magnitude of relative risk when you consider scaling of available resources.

Example, Alphabet, Amazon, or Company Y decide to invest $1 million in a new SaaS 'X' effort with some monthly fee in an attempt to build a successful product/service. These companies have arrays of pre-existing successful products/services they've built (typically diversified) that generate stable profits. Relative to that sort of expected profit, SaaS 'X' is a drop in the bucket. If 'X' fails, it's the same absolute monetary loss ($1 million) but the relative risk of losing $1 million isn't significant to any of these businesses, it's small relative to their total resource pool of disposable assets. Loss recovery will also take significantly less time.

On the other hand, if I as an individual go through the effort to form an LLC, develop SaaS 'X' myself and fail, $1 million is nothing to scoff at. Even if you're in the higher income scales of our industry and making $300-500k+/yr for labor, you're looking at ~3-4 years or so of potential losses and values that are probably near or a bit more than your total personal assets, at the very least I'd say 10%. If you start an LLC and get a loan or have some investor drop money on you, $1 million is still likely going to be a lot relative to your loan. It's highly likely that if 'X' fails your business will fail. There's high relative risk here (there are some mitigations strategies from your personal assets but it's still significant). You're probably going to face noticeable financial hardship or have to revert back to the labor market due to business small failure rates.

Risk is mitigated through scale, snowballed growth, and diversification (amongst other strategies) in our economic system through initial successes that often occur either through true innovation/market creation/penetration and/or sheer luck.


I think you may be reading something into the term “adversarial” that isn’t there. A relationship can be both adversarial and cooperative at the same time, that is just the nature of human behavior.

My personal take on things is that if you don’t recognize the adversarial part of the employer/employee relationship, then you will suffer for it. It’s more healthy to recognize where parties have competing interests, and it’s unhealthy to ignore them.

I’d also say that the people who can ignore the adversarial aspects of employment can only do so because of a fair bit of privilege. For example, people will throw around the saying here that “HR is an advocate for the company, not the employee,” but many of us will never really have to deal with HR in a way where it really matters.


> You need employers as much as they need employees.

I'm not sure I'd agree. When a company loses an employee it's an inconvenience but when an employee loses their job it's often devastating.


It is in some cases and isn't in others. I wouldn't call it myopic though. Different people have different experiences.

It's not zero-sum, but we also aren't perfectly aligned. There's room to make decisions that benefit you and don't benefit your employer.

If they aren't adversarial, why do so many successful employers treat them as such?

The market rewards them for this. Is the market wrong, or your thesis?


Because you can't say "no, I don't think so" if they suggest you not show up at work on Monday?

Your employer needs employees, not specific employees.


More specifically, it needs labor and most employers could care less where it comes from.

Maximizing productivity can be a shared goal of employer/employees if the employer pays fairly for higher performance (which many tech companies do). At that point it becomes a tradeoff for the employee on cost of going to the office (commute, wasted time) vs. cost of remote (potentially lower chances of future higher pay). That tradeoff is probably worth it for some people.

And this change isn't going to improve employee leverage, it's going to decrease it substantially when all companies develop processes to have a significantly higher pool of candidates to hire from. Long-term employees will look at having a company-provided office with a good work environment as a luxury.


> Productivity as an employee is about meeting a bar

This is the path to mediocrity and leaving tons of money on the table in much of the tech industry.


Not if I use the time gained productively for your own purposes & goals that your employer cannot satisfy. This can involve more income, more life satisfaction, etc.

I've been able to be well above mediocre in west coast tech for years now with this strategy /shrug For FAANG, startups, and other BigCos.

FYI, the bar can be the bar needed to get a promotion & bump your pay grade. It can also be to keep your current job & stay the course. And it can change over time strategically.


Let me elaborate a bit. If you are a top performer at tech companies with an obvious outsized impact, it’s easy to make 4x your original comp in spot bonuses, additional RSU grants, etc.

Unless your side hustle brings in $300k+ a year, you’re better off becoming critical at the main job because it becomes very lucrative.


Remote definitely does not help only the employee side. Because of remote I have hired people that I would not be able to hire. You vastly increase the talent pool when you cast the net wider.

It's a win-win! Efficiency for all.

For me, WFH let's me have a much better work/life balance. I have a family with 3 small kids. I was racing against the clock in the morning to pitch in around the house, arriving at work already stressed out usually late, put up with all the work place distractions, had to suffer through rush hour traffic, arrived home stressed out and found it difficult to switch to family mode. Very rarely would I get into a grove of deep work. I tended to hit that grove after 2PM, which was only a few hours before I needed to start watching the clock and dread the traffic back.

Now, WFH I'm free to set my own schedule. Sometimes I do my best work later in the evening, something that I never had time or energy to do while following the "9-5" schedule.

I don't miss the socialization much, probably because of the roll my family fulfills. The most important difference now is that I have a lot more patience with my family, because I don't feel the constant stress of my old commute and schedule.


I totally agree.

I was super productive in the first month of WFH, but that spike is going away, and I think a large part of it is meeting fatigue. The projects we are working on require coordinating with lots of devs within our team and then devs and PMs on other teams. That means lots of meetings here and there to make sure we're all on the same page.

There are days where I have 30 min or 1 hr breaks between meetings, and I just cannot get productive in that short window, knowing I have another meeting coming up (which sometimes I need to prep for).

My team does have lunches together remotely, but having to be tied to the computer the whole day, I often want to drop out of those and just be outside in the sun.

But to your point about burnout, I find that that's the other extreme as well. In those afternoons or days that I don't have meetings, there's a sense that, okay, I have to go hard now because everyone else is working hard. While at the office, you'd have occasionally breaks and conversations in the hall when you were getting up for coffee and you could see people's rhythms. At home, I don't see that, so my natural, irrational belief is everyone must be working hard, so I should too.


For me I don't think it's meeting fatigue, I have about the same amount of meetings as before. But I also noticed a similar productivity spike. Unfortunately what I think is happening is that we are using up a built-up "social capital" from when we were in the office together. Many of the people I know to ask for quick questions/favors I know because of hallway/lunch conversations. As new remote devs rotate onto my team I feel the team is becoming more impersonal and I am more reluctant to ask them things or help them. And likewise I think they are less likely to ask for help to get unblocked, than they would be in office.

But FB people ops (or beyond) aren't stupid and hopefully they can come up with ways to intentionally replace this. Won't be the same but something is needed and will be better than nothing or ad-hoc.


> There are days where I have 30 min or 1 hr breaks between meetings, and I just cannot get productive in that short window, knowing I have another meeting coming up (which sometimes I need to prep for).

This sounds like a normal day in the office for me pre-lockdown :/


I feel this pretty hard. I'm an engineering manager and there are multiple days a week where I will spend _six hours_ in video calls with an hour for lunch and MAYBE a 30 minute break somewhere in the day. It's a nightmare and the days feel like complete throwaways. It's made worse because we try and do "No Meeting Thursdays" which means meetings tend to pile up on Tuesday and Wednesday (nobody wants to meet on Monday or Friday, either).

The feeling of "I have to go hard now because everyone else is working hard" can also be pretty hard to shake. Especially if most people are heads-down and there's no chatter on Slack or email or anything going on.


This doesn't sound right to me and reads like 20 people in the team trying to decide on things at the same time. I sometimes had days where it's a meeting after meeting ( I'm in management) but to be honest most of those meetings aren't necessary. Since we all moved to remote work, the number of meetings dropped by 80% and everyone is fine with it.

Yeah, I don't necessarily think the meetings thing is something everyone's experiencing. For my team, the challenge is that the projects we are working on at the moment do span multiple teams, so it's kind of the worst time to have to coordinate remotely. We previously were considering flying people down to meet in person and work together for a week to get up to speed on things (i.e. high bandwidth communication).

How many teams and what's the average team size? Wouldn't having one representative from each team going to these meetings be better? Meetings with large number of people dilute individual contribution,focus,and deprive those attending from time to do the actual work.

It's really important to recognize that the current way people are Working From Home does not reflect how WFH works under "normal" circumstances for remote first organizations.

1. Companies have to invest in work from home practices and they have just started to do that. Using zoom and creating more meetings to replace in person experiences is not sufficient.

2. People have in effect just brought work into their home, into a house with no child care and generally no prepared work spaces

So please don't use this period as a reference for what WFH looks like when an organization is dedicated to doing it.


On the other hand, my most negative impressions of WFH have come from environments where a minority of employees are doing it. When a majority is FTF, it’s much harder to manage communications and expectations because so much of the critical information makes it to the remote workers slowly, and they miss out on decision-making opportunities.

So in some ways, the current situation is actually an improvement over a more typical split environment.


Let me buy a house in a quiet neighborhood with a dedicated office and I'll show you real productivity gains.

Ask me to WFH in a shared room in a tiny SiValley apartment with construction, gardeners and the neighbors music blasting randomly and I will show you how to waste $250k per year.


I work remote from a quiet neighborhood with dedicated office. I’m still distracted half the time with other things and often get bored sitting in my office by myself. I wander around the house a lot — which is full right now with kids remote learning.

I guess you don't have kids at home

I’ve heard kids can make it difficult, but these are kids that have lived most of their lives with mom or dad working outside of home and they’re trained as such. If this becomes the norm, the crazy, loud and annoying child trope I seem to hear about a lot will greatly reduces as the children are raised with ‘work from from home in mind.

There’s really only so much you can do to train small children to be quiet. My oldest is almost 4 and she’s just now getting to the point where she’s able to be quiet on her own for extended lengths of time. My younger kid is 18 months and when she’s awake there’s basically nothing that can stop her squawking.

We are moving to a house next month with a separate office space on the other side of a 2 car garage from the main house. I am beyond excited.


by god, please share this secret of getting your 4 year old to be quiet on her own for extended lengths of time! :bow:

We taught our toddler that being noisy wakes up his infant sibling from naps, and we tie some of his favorite activities to his sibling's nap time. He quickly figured out how to stay quiet and started scolding us when we made noise. It's not perfect, but pretty good. Straight out of Dale Carnegie, you might say.

My neighbors son is 3 year old

When I am repairing my car/bike, he comes with his bike (small plastic one) and gets under it and starts repairing act.

And he does it for long as I am repairing mine.

It's interesting that I don't live with him but he is copying my action but when I asked his mom if he helps with housework as he probably sees her doing a lot of housework, she said no.

I've no idea why getting under a bike is more appealing to him than doing stuff like cleaning with a mop and bucket.


cough

kicks the dirt a bit

We call it iPad time.


The truth is somewhere in between. Through wfh you gain an hour or two commuting and get rid of a lot of distractions but you lose the face to face contact. I think 80% wfh or something similar should be close to ideal. One day a week for meetings and watercooler chat, and four days of wfh.

I’m on my 10th year of wfh with just a handful of days per year in the office and I notice how each time I’m in the office I realize I actually like that guy who is professionaly the most annoying one. This is extremely important for an organization to work. I do it too little and while I wouldn’t want to go 100% to the office I realize I’m not doing it enough.


I think this is the right answer. For me, I work in embedded and have to talk to lots of people with different backgrounds. Slack communication and even phone calls just don't work when you're trying to learn or explain something really complicated. I think a 1-3 days in the office (depending on what a company needs) would be awesome.

So my company takes a somewhat similar approach to those who can, and those who want to.

We are 90% remote. Most remote employees are in the same area though, so sometimes they commute to the office for weekly meetings or just to hang out and work together.

I don’t live in the same country so I’m 100% remote. However, I still travel to the office ( when there isn’t a worldwide pandemic going on ) a few times a year.

I think giving people the option to work in the office when they want to is the best solution. Keep meetings on skype/jitsi, whatever, but give people the option to attend in person. More people will come than you might think.


I worked at a setup like that, and it was really bad because people were coming on random days. In a set-up like this, people need to have agreed upon days to come back to work

One of the big benefits to companies of WFH is dramatically reduced real estate costs (plus all of the support services required - cleaning, security, maintenance). If you still need your office capacity to support 100% of the staff in the office at a given time, you lose most of that benefit.

On the productivity question, if you're interested in some soft (very squishy) numbers, I can provide them.

I manage four small development teams and the one metric I track is velocity or velocity per developer (VPD). If you're familiar with scrum, you probably have a sense of what this means. (Note: this data is tracked in an open spreadsheet and not used to reward or punish but rather to adjust and adapt.)

Anyway, we went full-time remote from in-office 9-10 weeks ago. We did have some experience being partially remote (team members in different offices) before this. A comparison of avg VPD for last 3 sprints in-office (WFO) vs last 3 sprints (WFH):

  Team |  WFO |  WFH
    1  |  8.6 |  7.8
    2  |  9.2 |  7.6
    3  |  8.1 |  7.6
    4  |  7.5 |  7.7
This the first time I've actually compared them and I'm mildly surprised WFH is lower. Of course this ignores all sorts of caveats and qualifiers (like adjusting to a major change of environment and a pandemic!)

My impression is that productivity has held more or less steady and VPD will eventually not be too different from where it was.

I've also talked about this individually with members of my team. The consensus seems to be leaning toward a flexible mixture of WFH and WFO. That's the future I'd like to see.


VPD is a bullshit number easily game and highly prone to politics. I read this as "people in office have an advantage with politics". Which is a real thing. A bad thing, but a real thing.

Suffocating Agile, as is the standard these days, is about pushing away risky, but really valuable tasks, in favor of fine grained, easily estimated and understandable tasks that are only of minor importance but "feel" like progress. They are more amenable to Bad Agile, and so are the tasks that get selected increasingly in the long run.

WFH is far, far better at deep work, which is much more important to the long term value of a company.


The fact that WFH under current circumstances is close to WFO under normal circumstances, I think that's vindication for WFH.

Remember we are not robots, people are working under immense strain. I am very surprised at your mild surprise.

>I'm mildly surprised WFH is lower.

Schools are closed.


And if you have kids but they aren’t yet in school, you’re likely juggling watching them while working.

Any trend up or down on the past 3 months? Until lockdown, WFH for me meant coding on the couch. After lockdown, it took me some time to get a comfortable chair and ergonomics worked out. I'm still adapting, just ordered more office equipment that arrived on Sunday. When layoffs hit my company, that definitely made feel worried. Now that's over and I've been tuning out the news. I feel like I've been much more productive the past 2 weeks than when this started.

Velocity isn't a productivity metric, so your findings probably aren't meaningful.

"Velocity is the sum of the estimates of the stories that were completed in an iteration. If the programmers estimate perfectly, it's simply a measure of the number of hours that the programmers worked, minus interruptions. The number is often confused by estimates that aren't 100% accurate. Velocity measures a strange combination of estimate accuracy and hours worked. It's a great planning tool, but as a metric, it has serious flaws."

https://www.jamesshore.com/Blog/The-Productivity-Metric.html


For a well-tuned, consistent team that has experience working together and estimating together,

do you have any other recommendation?



Velocity is just the average sum of the story points a team completes

The article you've provided continues to keep saying story points are good things.

I don't know how we've found something contrary to what I've asked, yet.


Yes, value velocity. It’s linked from the above blog entry.

How do you measure:

* multipliers, like infrastructure work or pipeline improvements?

* fixing of technical debt that may have no immediate benefit?

* projects of uncertain monetary value?

* projects with great short term value but so much technical debt that they crumble the company a few years later?

* moonshots that may revolutionize the company?

How would organizations like the entirety of Microsoft Research where some guy got to play with coloring problems for a long time and that just so happened to end up requiring him to solve a subset of the halting problem, which just so happened to have benefit in driver validation? (It’s going to take me a looong time to find that source somewhere on the internet.)


This is where the right answer is "you do you", since only you and your team know what works best in your operating environment. The previous poster is correct, though, that working backward from business value measurements in order to drive IC behavior is almost always the smartest path.

Given this, I don't believe the this person's original argument is, to use their words, meaningful, then.

> Velocity isn't a productivity metric, so your findings probably aren't meaningful.

They were responding to someone that was using their average story point completion rate to track their productivity.

This person seems to be talking about what sorts of work to work on - the kind that makes the company money.

If it's already been predicted or measured that a certain project is going to earn the company money, then you need to know how long it's going to take to complete that project, which means either estimating it as a whole, or breaking the project into parts and estimating each part.

Assuming two projects of similar mathematical proportionality of size and value, you can then estimate velocity based on how much projected time it's going to take to complete each step of each project, as estimated by story points or similar.

In this way, story points can still be a meaningful metric that you can estimate velocity on.

In short, the discussion is on two separate things and their initial premise of velocity being meaningless is not correct.


There's a difference between productivity and prediction.

Velocity is a great prediction tool. Given a total estimate, it can tell you approximately how many weeks it will take to be done. It's a unit conversion factor: velocity = 25 points / week, therefore 100 points = 4 weeks.

Productivity is defined as output / input. Effort and time are both "input." Velocity is a way of converting from points (effort) to weeks (time). To measure productivity, you still need to define "output."

OP said, "On the productivity question, if you're interested in some soft (very squishy) numbers, I can provide them."

But OP didn't define "output," so they weren't measuring productivity. They just showed that their effort --> time unit conversion factor had changed. Given that there's any number of possible reasons for this—changes in hours worked, changes in overhead, changes in estimating technique, changes in estimate accuracy—the numbers probably aren't meaningful.


This still seems ancillary, though.

They're measuring how much work they're getting done based around approximate predicted complexity / work amount using story points and then using that to map overall work output and charting it from between non-WFH and WFH. If the projects they're working on have tended to remain of similar complexity with people that tend to be consistent, then this seems like a perfectly fine metric for exactly what they're trying to discuss: the relative output from WFH and non-WFH.


Yes, that’s fair. I would say that hadn’t measured a change in productivity, but rather a change in overhead, but that’s probably just me being nitpicky about the word “productivity.”

One thing that stuck out to me is how consistent the numbers became between each other under WFH. I am not familiar with the metric or scrum, but I wonder what the cause is?

I noticed that, too. I think that's mostly coincidence. Velocity is based on story points. Here's a definition of story points as a unit of measure that I like:

A Story Point is a relative unit of measure, decided upon and used by individual Scrum teams, to provide relative estimates of effort for completing requirements.

https://www.scrum.org/resources/blog/why-do-we-use-story-poi...

It is generally recommend you not include time as a component of that unit. For our teams, we kinda do. (Basically, for us, story point = time + uncertainty + complexity.) So there is a common standard. But with scrum you're supposed to size stories relative to other (previous) stories and I feel it's ok for the standard measure of a story point to drift apart between teams as long as its internally consistent to the team.

So maybe there's some kind of leveling force at work. But probably not.


Work from home is an old term from decades ago. What we have now is best described as "pandemic lockdown office". The actual state of the art is mobile work. With mobile work, you are in control of where you work - whether home, in your garden, on a nice place, in a shared office near your home, or in a company office that should be available when you need it, even if that's every day.

Also, ideally, you should be able to meet your colleagues once in a while to discuss important matters and keep a human connection. But surprisingly lots of trust and friendship can be maintained at distance.

Take time to refresh, slow down during the day and try to maintain social contact despite the lockdown (whatever your local conditions are, you might have to use remote methods of course).

I've been able to work well those last two months but can't wait to hug all my colleagues - miss them as well.


There seems to be a clear split in my social circle between developers and managers.

The former are generally pro working from home while the latter feel more swamped and are always talking about how busy they are now.

My guess is that for the first group it's pretty much business as usual, while the second (not generally producing visible output) feels that meetings are the only signal to indicate work being done. And as a result # of meetings in their area has gone up dramatically.

Would love to hear a counter from managers, perhaps I'm way off the mark.


You are way off the mark. Managers do have more meetings. The output they produce is not the number of meetings, but the results from those meetings. When done over teleconference, those meetings take a toll on the people involved. The managers were attending as many people interactions as before - just that the medium over videoconference makes it more tiring.

I wasn't suggesting their actual output was meetings :)

More that as we transition to remote, there is a higher internal desire to signal worth to offset not being in the office. Which on the surface is easily accomplished by adding meetings to your calendar.


This might be true, but I haven't felt it that way. My experience the past two months has been that my avg meetings/week has spiked from about 30 to 45, with avg time spent in meetings per week at 30 currently. The result is that I don't have any time to do Real Work(tm) because I'm constantly in meetings.

Why has this happened? My estimation is that it isn't "because I'm a manager" or "because I'm trying to create artificial face time to indicate my value", but because the broader organization hasn't matured enough culturally to know how to handle itself when everybody is WFH. Examples of things that haven't happened yet:

1) Top down declaration of any core hours, to reduce need for early morning and evening meetings 2) Adjustment of business objectives 3) Formal recognition that there is inequity across sub-populations when it comes to WFH effectiveness/capability (type of work, family situation, living situation, infrastructure access, maturity, mental state, ...).

The perception most within the org seem to have is that, while we pressed pause on some activities (proactive sales outreach, for example), we are accelerating others, and this is coming without much regard for human experience.

Imho, there's also a difference between normal WFH -- as a previous commenter noted -- and this cv-forced WFH. I think there's real fear, that well-founded, from workers who know they can't be 100% productive right now, but don't know if that fact will be adequately recognized by their employer or have clarity around how it will impact future performance ratings, compensation and promotion decisions. As a result, many folks are struggling with balance because they feel obligate to structure their lives in an unbalanced way.


Well, managers who do that signalling are poor ones, IMO. They are analogous to developers who split a single PR into multiple frivolous PRs to signal higher productivity.

Producing the results managers achieve over videoconference meetings takes more meetings (nothing as hoc now) and is physically tiring. Maybe that is what managers in your circle have been talking about.


I am a hobbyist machinist and I work in software development. Software development for me is good paying but boring work where I feel like I've sold my soul to devil and this has literally sucked all excitement out of my life.

Now that I work from home, I've more time at my hand so I am working on my hobbies which make me more productive at my work.


Why does it have to be more productive? It reduces the insane practice of commuting which saves time and energy. Even if it's slightly less productive (which I don't think is true), it would still be better overall. Productivity is not the be all and end all. Happiness and sustainability is what we should be aiming for.

Agree. Face-to-face is the highest bandwidth communication medium we have. It's not for everything, but there are definitely certain types of explanation/negotiation that happen much faster and have better outcomes in person.

I agree, and that means that sometimes that kind of communication is indispensable.

Zoom/Phone don't quite replicate that experience - they require focused attention. In person, your attention can "wander" while you are still focused on the conversation. Look how many people maintain eye contact in a cafe while having a conversation. Not many right? But do the same thing on Zoom/Skype/$VideoChat. "Hey, are you paying attention?" When really, wandering eyes are indicative (usually) of deep thought.

I have a heuristic when synchronous communication (phone, video chat) is necessary: When something is:

a) complex, or b) has a significant likelihood of misunderstanding (which is just a more specific version of (a).

Actual face to face... that's got to be for things that are socially critical. Breakups. Hard messages to people who are close. First meetings with the biggest client of your life. Important deals, if they take more than "Happy? Yep." Etc. Stuff where the physical impression makes or breaks the experience.


I think it’s almost always less productive. I suspect the reason software engineers like to talk about how productive it is, is because software engineers tend to enjoy sitting down and their own code the way the want to do it. Collaboration, teamwork, and anything that involves accounting for the needs of other stakeholders all gets in the way of that. So you can feel more productive, because you get to spend more time doing the things that you think of as productive. But really you’re probably operating much less efficiently from an organisational standpoint.

Social aspect or no, many executives believe their companies are more productive right now. What I'm hearing from the executive level is that the vast majority of companies are actively working to make WFH a permanent reality for those who wish to do so.

One executive I spoke to put it like this (paraphrased): "the introverts are loving it and the extroverts hate it. Productivity-wise its neutral to positive, but emotionally a lot of our folks are struggling without work so we're still committed to reopening offices when it's safe to do so."


> I might be in a minority here, but I really don't feel like full time WFH is more productive.

> Also, it's nice seeing everybody at work, getting lunch, having a coffee break with people, whiteboarding, etc

These are the exact reasons WFH is more productive IMO. Less people coming up to your desk talking nonsense distracting you.


I agree with you 100%

I run a completely distributed company and no one in their right mind would argue that a completely distributed company or even a partially work from home company

can be as good as the same people working TOGETHER in one office

The bonds are much stronger

The interaction is much better

Two superstars together are 10 times better than separately

However, when you do remote, it's only 5 times better

At minimum, it is 50% worse to have a distributed company than have a real same office, same location company

What really makes people say 'working from home is just as good' is a combination of

1) liking it for other reasons (more time with family, less pressure) and rationalizing

2) being able to cut out time wasting things (which they could anyways cut out if they were better at saying no to time wasting stuff

3) not ever having done it for a long time and seeing the long term implications

There is a very good reason that very few companies have become very big and very successful while being distributed companies


It’s not a fair comparison. Companies are forced to go remote and many are doing it quite wrong. Most companies have an immense amount of experience working in a shared space but only a month or two of remote so far. It’ll get better.

Similar to other people on Twitter and Shopify’s announcement thread, I think this might be an excuse for corporations to reduce their commercial footprint and save money by opening applicant pools to larger areas of the country with cheaper CoL (and perhaps the world, different time zones are tough though).

What about work visas? Will this encourage more visas, or will citizens become unsettled after more cost effective labor is remotely hired while they’re left competing against far cheaper world economies. I can see arguments for both expanding H1B program, and making it more difficult/selective.

Something about this doesn’t feel right, the pandemic isn’t nearly as bad as was predicted. It’s been devastating, but nothing like 1918. That is to say, perhaps these drastic actions of mass WFH will have implications we can’t predict yet, especially at scale.

Will cities become less congested? How about home life, if WFH becomes standard in 5 years time, and some positions that are easily remote are hard to find physically, will home life become disrupted? (Currently domestic violence, child abuse has soared, though this is most likely due to the stress of the pandemic, and not the WFH itself. Through school, work, etc tends to allow those at risk to form social networks, and reach out for help from their abusers.)

There is something to say about spending time away from immediate family. Some people need the break, others are synergetic and can spend all their time together. Depends on the persons involved. But let’s not celebrate just yet, there’s obvious economic incentives, and it isn’t clear this can be reliably reversed. We’re rarely given the full list of motives, which may not be in our best interest.


This made it up here a few weeks ago and I think it's important: "Quarantine Work is Not Remote Work"

https://www.hanselman.com/blog/QuarantineWorkIsNotRemoteWork...

I've worked remote before and it was fun, I got more done, and I could go into the office once or twice a week if I really wanted. I worked with a guy in Colorado I never met in person for over a year, but I did eventually meet him while driving through on a trip.

If you've never worked remote before 2020, this is not what remote work even remotely feels like. Everything is very different when it's not a choice. I think we need to keep that in mind.


> If you've never worked remote before 2020, this is not what remote work even remotely feels like. Everything is very different when it's not a choice. I think we need to keep that in mind.

That's true. But I'm damn happy this is the direction we're moving in, the commute is never fun, open offices are usually draining if you're not with a headset stuck in your focus bubble (which defeats the purpose of the open-office in the first place). Of course, we'll need to find a medium for this, but even an option for remote work is great.


> "Quarantine Work is Not Remote Work"

That's a great reminder. Thanks.


I never realized how many people relied on work and school to reduce contact with their family until this pandemic started.

I don’t know where we go from here, though.


I suppose I've seen the two extremes of this. People who are really annoyed with their family, and others (mostly women) who probably won't go back to work when this is over because they actually get to see their kids. Not sure which cohort is larger but I do see some benefits with people, who want to I guess, having an avenue for spending more time with their family.

That said I personally hate working from home. Never ever thought I'd say it but I long for my office cubicle as my work has totally monopolized what's usually my own personal space for side projects and zoning out.


> my work has totally monopolized what's usually my own personal space for side projects and zoning out

I would like to see an increase in flexibility. Many people will choose to work from their own homes, and some may choose to use a flex working space near their homes, and some may commute to the office. Maybe you'll do all 3 depending on what's going on in your life or at work.

The increased flexibility is the key.


I wouldn't expect anyone to enjoy wfh in a tiny apartment or anything like that.

I'm watching mountain houses that have sat vacant for months get rented and I'm quite tempted myself. It's not like I can walk to anywhere that's open and I'm paying all this money to live in a hip area with bars and stuff.


You're one of the lucky few with a cubicle. Do you think you would feel differently if you worked in an open office?

I sort of have a "half" cubical, with a ~5' high wall divider to my right and in front of me (and my back is to the wall). If I worked in a true open office you're right I'd probably be more reluctant to return.

>I never realized how many people relied on work and school to reduce contact with their family until this pandemic started.

Perhaps its less malicious than you make it sound. Isn't it pretty unprecedented in human history for families to be restricted in such close quarters, cut off from community, for such an extended period of time? People need personal space


In recent history in developed countries? Yea seems so. In human history? Most other cultures place way more importance on family than we do in the west, in many even today, kids continue living with their parents until marriage.

>Most other cultures place way more importance on family than we do in the west, in many even today, kids continue living with their parents until marriage.

Hunter gatherer and agricultural societies often have labor segregated by gender roles, with men, women and children spending more time apart from each other than a family in lockdown.


I suspect as with anything relating to human cultures, there's plenty of examples and counterexamples to go either way. For instance in many places people live in a single room, parents and kids [1]. In others I'm sure people live very segregated lives.

https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/sleep/bed-sharing-co...


That's maybe a bit uncharitable. I like my kids, but some tension will arise when they are shrieking & running circles around me while I try to suss out a bug or pay attention to a meeting.

There are no eggs to collect or cows to milk in tech work.


> It’s been devastating, but nothing like 1918

Well we won't really know until we finish the third wave too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#/media/File:1918_s...


We do already know that this virus is nowhere near as deadly, plus medical treatments have evolved significantly over the past century.

For some reason I feel like this is more of a way to reduce payroll and eventually outsourse most of the company. If everyone is working remote then it is only a small step to offshore everyone at that point.

Edit: Wrong word used


You have to compete with the same Amazon, Twitter, Google, etc whether you're hiring 5 star engineers for $300k+ each or 3 star engineers for $100k and under. I don't buy into the theory that one engineer is innately 100 times as skilled as another, but you're going to have a really hard time competing with FAANG if you just randomly scoop up a bunch of mediocre engineers willing to accept 50k a year each.

If I leave Silicon Valley to settle down in rural Vietnam, I'm not going to work for $50k a year. If I couldn't find something paying at least $150k+, I'd start my own company and live off my savings until I get it up and running.

There's a real market-based reason engineers get paid as much as they do. It's easy to lose sight of that here on HackerNews, but just look at what your white collar, non-tech friends do at work all day. Their productivity can often be easily doubled or tripled by better tech. That is to say, someone generating $30k in value per year for your business could suddenly generate an extra $30-$60k a year with better software to help them.


1) 5-star engineers are not exclusive to the bay area/Seattle/NY. They are open to earning more than they are currently (but less than bay area engineers)

2) Some 5-star engineers in the bay area are willing to take a pay cut to work from low-cost areas

3) I agree there are market-based reasons, but there are also geographic considerations as well as WFO momentum - why fix what ain't broken? Companies were not interested in experimenting/implementing remote work because it costs money and had unclear benefit. Their hand has been forced and they had to tackle remote work


agree with your comment

Also, a genuine question

Are Amazon, Twitter, Google, Facebook really doing any very technically amazing things?

mostly they are building platforms to collect more and more data and spy more and more

that's hardly cutting edge stuff that needs the world's best engineers

perhaps Facebook is beginning to realize this


Google outpublishes most (maybe all) universities if we restrict to AI research. Not particularly surprising given they have several hundred AI researchers and likely over a thousand (deepmind alone is a couple hundred). They also do interesting distributed research. Multiple landmark papers come from (sequence to sequence learning, mapreduce, attention is all you need, etc). They have multiple major frameworks (tensorflow, angular). Facebook similarly has a ton of AI research and is one of the most prestigious labs you can work at. Talking to top AI researchers they see less and less of a motivation to choose academia over industry beyond teaching. Both facebook/google have a ton of freedom for their researchers. I'm focusing on ML just because that's the area I work in, but I know other research happens too, Microsoft has some programming language theory people and I think both microsoft/google have quantum computing research.

My first real software job was at a 10 person firmware consulting shop. Some guy from Microsoft got burned out and joined us, and it was mind-blowing. The dude barely came into the office. Even when he was there, he was half-aslseep at his desk 75% of the time, and he still singlehandedly got more done in a week than everyone else in the company combined. Some of us had been theoretically doing the same work for 5-10 years, and our company was well-respected in its niche as an expert on what we did, and we still just couldn't compare at all.

10 years later, I was burned out from working at my crappy FAANG job building platforms to spy on people, so I went into consulting on my own. Sure enough, it was a really similar situation.. I don't want to break any NDAs or sound like a jerk, but I was rolling in and doing things in hours that teams of my clients' best engineers had been failing at for months at a time.

You could grab just about any mediocre nobody from a FAANG company and drop them into any tech company somewhere else that normally pays sub-six figures, and they'd be the top performer there. I think it's something that can be taught, and maybe we'll have a tech renaissance now where everyone goes back to their comfortable hometowns, but there's a very real skill differential between the big tech hub cities and the rest of the planet. (And yes, I'm including other countries where even super hard-working geniuses make $35k a year or less.. because a lot of those geniuses eventually tend to either make their way to the USA, or start their own successful companies. If I found out I could eventually make $3.5 million/year by learning Chinese and working my way over there, you'd better believe I'd get it done)


I don't know you definition of mediocre, but in most of developing world you must be seriously good to earn $50k/year as an individual contributor.

What is wrong with that ? Free market at play.

Let me start by saying you're correct. '

However, it's also the case that the free market seems to now be only in play when it comes to reducing wages, off shoring, and other cost cutting.

The free market isn't at play when it's time for bailouts, subsidies, and government contracts.

Rugged individualism for all, except the wealthy elite.

I'm not sure the person who you replied to has a frustrated / discouraged tone, but that's what I read it as. I share the sentiment and the above is why.


> Rugged individualism for all, except the wealthy elite.

This is a direct consequence of considering money to be free speech: those who have more of it have louder voices, and this matters a lot when it comes to elections, and when it's time for politicians to pay back their debts to the donors.


> That is to say, perhaps these drastic actions of mass WFH will have implications we can’t predict yet, especially at scale.

Something that I haven't yet seen discussed much on this or similar threads are the support and amenities staff. Most of the developers will be alright, maybe even better off, but the Bay Area is full of chefs, shuttle drivers, janitors, and who knows how many other roles that probably won't exist anymore. That's a big permanent shift in employment opportunity for those people.


It feels like innovation theatre. Everyone wants to be seen to be doing something innovative in response to this, so they all jump on the obvious “innovative” thing.

> nothing like 1918

It's not over.


It's still nowhere near those numbers though and I doubt it will be. Some of the cleaned up code from The Imperial College has been released and it's just tragic that just wide sweeping decisions were based on a model that is objectively a nightmare of illogical statements, random ideas, and something that honestly looks more at home in SimCity than in something used to decide policy.

I doubt we'll get anywhere near the numbers most models claimed with mitigation. Even the 90k/US currently will have to be re-evaluated at the end and pruned (or possibly added to) for any inaccuracies.

Predicting the future is often foolish, and I hope this is a cautionary tale. We'll have to wait until March 2021 to look at the average deaths per year and compare it to 2020 to get a real sense of the picture, but from what I've been reading currently, my hypothesis is that it will be no where near what was predicted a few months ago. (I could be wrong though, but we won't know until 2021).

It's all guessing at this point though. This whole thing we're in, was a guess, and the costs are high.


We don't have to wait, current average death analysis shows greatly increased deaths. The nyt had a piece on this.

Do you have a link?


To show how quickly things move that article from four weeks ago is already woefully out of date with the CDC having since revised down numbers and Dr. Birx herself criticizing the CDC for inflating them. The number of cases is exploding upward because of wide spread testing, but deaths are plummeting despite states opening up.

Over half of US counties have had zero coronavirus deaths.


Plummeting? Sure, deaths are down, but at a quick glance it looks like ~1000 people are still dying a day. There is a lag in deaths from people socializing, and a lag in people socializing from states opening up.

Unfortunately, I'm almost certain things will get dramatically worse in the next 2 weeks. Come laugh at me in 14 days if I'm wrong :)


I've read a few of these work from home related articles here on HN and I have to say, I'm super surprised by how many people are both vehemently against the idea of remote and generally pessimistic for what it would mean for society.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but my main hobby outside of work is outdoors related. I consistently spend my Friday nights driving 3+ hours to the mountains. The idea of being able to up and move to a mountain town, save the hours I'd be commuting to work AND commuting to the mountains, is so exciting to me. And that's on top of just the happiness I'd get being able to look out my window and see (what I consider) nature vs the cookie cutter buildings of suburbia Silicon Valley. Where are the cyclists, the surfers, the skiiers/snowboarders, dirt bikers, rock climbers, etc etc in these threads? I really can't believe there are that few of us...

But on top of just hobbies, I'd be so excited to see what society could look like in a much more remote world. I think a lot of people would spread out and leave Silicon Valley (but not everyone obviously). I think you'd see more small/medium sized towns pop up across the US that would develop their own uniqueness and character. Traffic deaths would likely go down because people would drive less. Maybe general physical fitness/health would go up because people aren't sitting in their cars and have time to exercise? People working minimum wage jobs would likely have better access to housing as demand spreads and isn't as concentrated. We could see a maaassssive change in the lives of the population, and I'm optimistic it would be for the better.

Note: I'm not saying everyone should be fully remote, or that working remote works for everyone, but the general lack of any real optimism about what life COULD be like in these threads is surprising to me.


I think it’s much more likely that, rather than empowering employees to live rich and fulfilling lives outside of work, a massive shift to remote will drive down wages everywhere to the level of the cheapest locations where talent can be found - so instead of living on an SF salary in Coer d’Alene you’ll be living on a Lagos or Jakarta salary - while obliterating the distinction between “work life” and “home life” and massively sharpening the knife of competition hanging over every engineer’s head

This may be different in firms where the workers actually have a say in the management of the company, but god knows there aren’t too many of those


> Lagos or Jakarta salary

This is fear mongering to say the least. Nobody is stopping those companies hiring from the said regions today. And it is super unlikely western engineers would want to relocate to the said regions given the choice.

Let's all admit outsourcing is a thing and it has been for more than 20 years. The reason outsourcing is dialed back is much more interesting to understand, and offers insight from perspective other than costs.

The high CoL in Bay Area is not sustainable. Software engineering is already democratized in a way, Bay Area no longer holds monopoly.

The high salary here is a reflection of prosperity of past decade of internet bloom, but there is no momentum to keep it that way as the party will end never-the-less eventually.

If anything, I see those remote working as a welcoming trend, to redistribute tech talents and money across US/Canada. Yes, the salary will go down, but it probably reflect better the reality we are already living.


The bay area is unique in that it has two major research universities where a lot of computer science was developed.

Berkeley and Stanford will continue to drive innovation.


And yet the collegiate programming contests includes high performing computer science schools from every region. You can raise an incredible programmer from Wisconsin, Colorado, Texas, Virginia, and Ohio just fine.

Ohio and vietnam and russia and bulgaria. Let's add to the list. People who have moved to costlier cities have done it at a significant cost and sacrificies. Making it all decentralized can potentially cause large harm to those individuals.

It'll boil down to completing with countries that have large human capital. Clearly USA is not a winner there. Talk about jobs being taken by people living in Bangladesh/pakistan/Indonesia and other highly populated countries.


Well, I have had Russian coworkers and coworkers from South East Asia, so it would seem I already have competed with them.

edit: I see you've modified your post, I'll update mine, too:

> People who have moved to costlier cities have done it at a significant cost and sacrificies

They're all welcome to return to the places they want to be. We often encourage people in dying towns to move elsewhere to find work or sustainable living. The people that have made 250k+ a year can do that, too.

> Talk about jobs being taken by people living in Bangladesh/pakistan/Indonesia and other highly populated countries.

I see the argument here; but, I don't expect it will be nearly as bad as is said. The platform may certainly change; but, there are still reasonably-sized development teams in countries that do their own thing. Further, a deep understanding of a given culture is very useful when developing software for them, or working with them as a team. We will become more global, certainly; but, there will still be advantages for US companies to pay for US developers: culture. Also, working hours. I had enough struggle on a team with a 3 hour difference in working hours. Having a team with members in Europe (7-8 hour difference from Pacific Time Zone) or India (13 hour difference) has a real impact on productivity that shouldn't be overlooked, unless the whole operation is moved elsewhere

But if the whole operation is moved elsewhere, what are all the developers in the United States and similar going to do? They'll probably start their own companies (yes, probably at diminished wages) and produce their own products; and, recognizing the job losses they've seen to skilled, overseas competitors, they may choose to prefer to hire relatively local employees, and the whole cycle may start again.

I believe the assumption that it will fully swing to 100% of development being out of the country is misguided.

Microsoft might not hire Silicon Valley or other US engineers; and, Facebook might not; but Stellar Games Interactive and the next "YNAB" or FreshBooks might.


Agreed it might end up being the way you mentioned but it might end up being very extreme. We both don't know yet which way it'll end up being.

-> but, there will still be advantages for US companies to pay for US developers: culture

I disagree here. My company has moved completed teams to India with no loss in productivity. Company today survives because of some projects that happened in India. Had the projects not moved to India some American folk would have been working on it and gathering accolodes and feeling proud of their work.

-> People will start companies here and hire people in other countries to code for them.

I don't know. People don't want to work for other people if they can start companies. How many chinese work for US organizations. They have their own companies and people to work for.

There are lot of points I want to bring forth but I fear they might hurt someone. In the beginning it'll help people people living in Texas or Nevada. But that benefit will be short lived. People in USA are still super expensive compared to people in other countries.

Same argument hold for H1B. You get some selected very smart people ( only smart not the abuse that Infosys has been upto ). They train 10 people. Start companies hire americans. Economy and people here in general benefit. You stop them from coming here. They can do their work sitting in their 10 by 10 room in some other country.

See guys California's/New york's loss will soon boil down to USA's loss. Maybe it'll take 10 years. But USA is still one country. Taxes people pay in california is still used for the developement of the country.

Don't think of a 4 year picture here. 20 year picture in WFH situation will not settle well for USA's dominiance.

It'll work well for China's dominance. They don't let their innovations leave their country :).


> -> People will start companies here and hire people in other countries to code for them.

This is not what I said. I said:

> They'll probably start their own companies (yes, probably at diminished wages) and produce their own products; and, recognizing the job losses they've seen to skilled, overseas competitors, they may choose to prefer to hire relatively local employees, and the whole cycle may start again.

That is: they may hire local devs.

Actively refusing to hire local or even in-nation devs and hiring only international devs is either something for a company so small they can't have a coworker; or, if they're hiring teams, some kind of money lover that wouldn't have hired local in the first place.


Innovation is not generally about hiring people who are really good at programming contests.

Does it have to come from schools that are known for what they did 40 years ago?

"I think it’s much more likely that, rather than empowering employees to live rich and fulfilling lives outside of work, a massive shift to remote will drive down wages everywhere to the level of the cheapest locations where talent can be found - so instead of living on an SF salary in Coer d’Alene you’ll be living on a Lagos or Jakarta salary"

I disagree. If companies felt they could readily get the same level of talent outside the US, why wouldn't they do that currently? Just set up their business in a foreign country and recruit internationally? And if they're still hiring domestically, why are you so sure they're going to dramatically reduce salaries? They still have to attract talent. If an employee wants to move from the bay area to Wyoming, and their employer says their pay will be cut 50%, what's to stop them from applying to Twitter or another company allowing full remote with (I'm assuming, I haven't checked) a much more competitive salary?

"while obliterating the distinction between “work life” and “home life”"

I've seen far too many emails sent by people at 11:30 PM and followed up with another email at 6 AM for me to believe this hasn't already happened. Not to mention the self imposed aspect of it (neither of those emails NEEDED to be sent at those times).


Last couple of companies I worked at, they are already outsourcing "average" work. We had a QA manager in the bay area, and then he had a team of six people in SE asia doing QA/QA automation. On the engineering side we had a team of 20 engineers in eastern Europe working for less than 30k/year usd working on bug fixes and test coverage, UI fixes, modifying legacy code from the original monolith that didn't change a whole lot etc

In the bay area we only had five engineers, mostly focuses on architecture, R&D, new products etc, and even then they only came in two-three days a week mostly for face to face meetings. The VP had a lake house in tahoe and would work remote for 2 months every summer.

I can see a bunch of legacy code maintenance/qa work moving offshore further, but there will always be a core group of five to ten engineers who meet at the central office a couple times a month. Remote will increase but humans still need face to face contact periodically.


Yeah I know a bunch of QA companies in Vietnam. How did your company find them? I am Vietnamese American myself and have spent a lot of time in the region. It is an amazing place w/ a hungry yet educated youth population, great food, beautiful beaches and quite fast internet. Surprised not many American companies heading there to recruit.

We initially hired the QA manager as our first QA hire, then he built the team in his country. After a couple of years we paid for his visa and he lives in the US now and has been with the company for over five years.

We went through Vietnam including Nha-trang on a tourist trip two years ago, of which I think Nha-trang is sort of their tech capital, I was really impressed with the level of development there and how modern it was, although I didn't talk with anyone directly in the industry while I was there. It definitely had an international modern vibe compared to Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City.


I would replace Nhatrang with Danang. Danang is the next big coastal tech hub now.

How is that "outsourcing"? Everyone is still from the same company but instead of just different cities, it's different countries as well.

You are correct, this is technically offshoring, not outsourcing since they are on the company payroll.

>> If companies felt they could readily get the same level of talent outside the US, why wouldn't they do that currently?

Well, by the same logic, why didn’t FB have a remote forward strategy before now? Presumably the pandemic has changed firms assumptions about the relative value of remote and in person work.


Because it's hard to drive change if there isn't a "need". Going into the office is the status quo, and there wasn't any real pressing drive to change/innovate there.

Now that companies have been forced to go remote, I think they're seeing some benefits from it, and there's a lot less inertia to fight against.


Yes, my point is that this is the same mechanism that will reduce the inertia for "move half of our engineers to low-wage countries and squeeze the wages of the ones that are left"

Executive changes? One of the engineering leaders, Jay Parikh recently left. He was not a fan of remote workers.

I think the point is not hiring in Lagos or Jarkarta, but hiring closer to that salary level. Facebook has already indicated salary cuts may be forthcoming for those who relocate out of the Bay Area, and we're still in the very early stages here.

I would like to offer a more nuanced position. People bring many attributes/abilities to work which have value. These include knowledge, integrity, communication, personality, etc. In the past, being willing/able to live in a place like the Bay Area was one of those attributes. Now that one attribute is less valuable. But the rest of the value proposition hasn't changed.

I understand why a person who REALLY wants to live in the Bay Area would be concerned about that. But for most of us in the world, not much is changing. In fact, salaries for the rest of us might go up because demand for our labor will go up.


Or in other words, people in Lagos and Jakarta will now have access to higher salaries (not as high as SF ones, but higher than their alternatives) because they can now work for Facebook and similar companies, rather than being discriminated because they happened to be born in Africa.

That's great for them, but it means the current employees day-dreaming about leaving their luxuriously appointed home office in their palatial Mountain West exurban home for a Wednesday afternoon skiing trip are going to need to seriously readjust their expectations towards "splitting an apartment in Sacramento instead of SF"

There are multiple sibling comments dismissing this argument because it could have happened already, but consider this:

Few companies were very accepting and open about remote work or had the structure to support it with any kind of scale (hiring, HR, legal, team structure, meetings vs async communication, ...)

If companies adapt their processes and workflows to include remote workers as first class employees, it suddenly becomes a lot easier to seamlessly integrate team members not only across the country, but across the globe.

This avoids the usual cost of outsourcing (communication and coordination overhead, lack of integration, etc), while still opening up a large, much cheaper labor pool.

This doesn't have to be primarily negative, but it very much has the potential to put a lot of downward pressure on salaries and should be considered.


Those engineers are already available in cheaper international locations, and they have yet to drive down engineering salaries down to subsistence level in the US.

Because company policies were not as open to remote talent. It took us over a year of lackluster local talent interviews in SF to convince our CTO that we have to go for remote talent.

By the time the pandemic hit, we were ready to be our most effective as a geo distributed team.


Do you hire in Jakarta?

And yet there seem to be many companies that are fine with lackluster?

Seems to be very much a reflection of how engineering is managed at a company.


You said this much better than I could. I'd expect the power of management to increase over individual ICs, too.

>will drive down wages everywhere to the level of the cheapest locations where talent can be found

god forbid we earn the same as everyone else with our skills instead of an arbitrarily inflated quantity thanks to luck of the draw wrt lat/lon we were born near.


I totally agree with you. The general negativity towards remote work seems, to me, to reflect a lack of imagination about how our lives, and our societies, could be organized in a world with more remote work.

The potential reduction in housing cost alone(one of the largest inhibitors to developing wealth for most Americans) should be a massive cause for celebration. We can stop orienting our lives and our cities around commuting (and therefore cars) and start focusing on people.

People complain about the loss of the workplace as a social environment. What about the opportunities to create new social environments that aren't centered around work?

I wrote more about this here, if you're interested https://manyfoxgiven.com/2020/01/21/remote-work-promise/


That all implies that people won’t be working more - while it’s true commute times being cut is a huge benefit, I’m concerned about employer demands and culture leaning more into people working more, especially across time zones. When there is more competition for roles those who are willing to work more and longer will advance.

That said, I also hold out great hope for this development. I’m already looking at places I’d like to live because I’d like to live there, not because there are jobs.


That would probably require changes in laws around the 40 hour work week and overtime, don’t you think? If enough engineers are making less, they’ll probably request the ‘exempt’ status be removed and suddenly they get overtime for those extra hours.

Did people that live in company towns tend to work 70* hours a week?


It is hard to imagine things being different for people that have been going to an office for the last 5 or 10 years.

Reality is crumbling now that the pandemic proved that we can be as productive without an office. Some people are lying to themselves to justify why they have lost so many hours of their life in an office.


>Some people are lying to themselves to justify why they have lost so many hours of their life in an office.

Sounds needlessly aggressive, just straight up dismissing any valid points the other side could have.

Do I like working from home? Yes. Does it give me more flexibility when it comes to my personal life? Absolutely. Would I want to work from home every day? Definitely no.

In a perfect world, I would love to work 3 days a week from home, with the remaining 2 days in the office (not necessarily back to back, e.g., I would prefer working from office on mondays and wednesdays.


> Sounds needlessly aggressive, just straight up dismissing any valid points the other side could have.

I'm not saying this is the case for everyone (I'm using some here) but myself and a couple of my friends have definitely been in that category before realizing that we actually don't like going to an office.


I’ve worked in an office essentially every weekday since 2007.

I can’t wait to get back to one. For me, working from home is awful. For you, it’s not. Different people are different.

Mostly it’s the isolation that gets to me. I’m used to working with people.


Out of curiosity which office did you work in between 2007 and 2018 when you started working for stripe? How is your teams WFH experience within stripe?

Most of what people talk about is going on a snowboarding trip while getting paid to "WFH" not the day to day reality of it.

I agree, but I'll note that I did exactly what you're talking about (went on a snowboarding trip while getting paid to "WFH"). I was in Europe, so I was on the mountains until midafternoon, and then worked the rest of the afternoon / evening. Worked great - I got a lot of work done, spent a ton of time on the mountains, and my employer never complained about my output (I spent a good 6-8 hours working each day, and easily got my normal workload done).

Yeah... what you describe isn’t lying about working from home. It’s changing where ‘home’ is. I was considering doing that this summer for some hiking trips, too.

When I shifted to working from home I started exercising a lot less. My office had an onsite gym. I would go in early and start every day with exercise.

I don't have all the equipment at home, so I only go to the gym once a week (well before lockdown, now I go 0 times but did end up getting some equipment).

Also the food. The office had free healthy food. Now I have to make my own lunch, which is often cheap easy crap and late in the day.

Also I miss socializing with adults that aren't my spouse. She's great and all, but we've already heard all of each other's stories. :)

I very much value all the extra time I get to spend with my family, and I also value the fact that when we wanted to spend a week in the mountains I could just up and go and work from there.

But there are definitely tradeoffs.


As a founder who works from home, I noticed that some days my step count was under 1,000. That is terrible. I started going for walks (before it was covid-cool) most days. I try to take my calls while walking, and I find that my most creative ideas come while I'm walking.

Some of these thoughts are wishful thinking though. The majority of people will not explore the mountains, travel, visit more their family and friends, exercise and improve their wellbeing, but will probably spend even more time at home, stuck on their smartphones and social media all day, making them miserable and lonelier. I might sound pessimistic but it was already happening before covid19 with all these social media nonsense.

I'd wager a guess and say that this was exacerbated by the fact that people had to move and live in cities far away from loved ones and away from places where they could spend time outside. The opportunity cost of "driving three hours to a nice hike location" Vs. "I'll just look at my screen to recover from mindless work" was too high.

If I can really rearrange my life around remote, be sure my couch will not be my first choice :D I've seen social media make enough people miserable and sad, but there might come a time of reckoning that will change that and have people focus more on what happens locally. Hopefully, when the crisis settles, attending offline events will be the new cool for a while and the world will be better off.

At least they wouldn't deal with the extra stress of commuting, or traffic from other commuters.

I replied much the same to someone on twitter. They were complaining that their coworkers were good friends and they thought remote meant they would no longer have friends.

No! You'll now be able to make friends outside of tech! Imagine being able to work from the diner, or a coffee shop, or a bookstore, or a another country entirely! You're going to be able to make friends with so many different people. It would be a wonderful thing for the world.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I think it would go a long ways toward breaking humans out of the bubbles they tend to stay in. Maybe people would start to empathize and understand one another better.


We live in a society experiencing a crisis of loneliness. Stripping away yet another built-in opportunity for in-person socialization and community building is going to make that worse, not better.

If people can work remote and don't have to commute, that's quite a bit of time saved that could be used getting involved in your local community. I couldn't disagree more that this would lead to a worse loneliness outcome and not a better one.

There are plenty of opportunities already for these people. It's just hard to force yourself to go to them. This is an incredibly optimistic view, it is far too easy to become complacent and not leave your house. Especially for young people, who for the last 16 years were basically forced to go to class and interact with peers. I'm a new(ish) grad and I really enjoyed getting to know some of my younger coworkers, and we hangout outside the office. I would have never reached this level of friendship if we only knew each other via slack and skype calls

A lot of relationships are forged through consistent meetings. Hobby circles generally form friendships for this reason. I don't think getting involved in my local community or working from a coffee shop will really provide the same sort of rich interactions that I get from a forced periodic meeting.

There are endless other "built-in opportunities" out there for socialization, and remote work gives the freedom to choose them for yourself rather than being forced into an arbitrary office for the majority of your life.

Sorry, but these opportunities exist today, even when people work from office (pre pandemic). Which is just to say: the existence of opportunities does not help the argument.

Coworkers offer a great pool of like minded individuals that can relate to people. You have to interact with them, and relationships are inevitably built. This is fantastic!

On a personal note: the office is a social environment distinct from my personal life. I enjoy both: hanging out with coworkers after work talking about a hairy problem, working together with coworkers to fix on call issues, and then hanging out with personal friends on weekends.

To be clear: I have mixed feelings about remote work. I can see the benefits it offers but I love to be around human coworkers. I’m not sure how invested I would feel.


Choosing is part of the issue, and at that point it is not longer "built-in". People make friends with those physically around on a regular basis–I can only think of three environments where making friends is "built-in": school, work, and church. You never have all three, but at least we always have just one.

I get that all it takes is to find a meet up of like minded individuals that meet up regularly, but sometimes even that is hard to find.


>I can only think of three environments where making friends is "built-in": school, work, and church

You left out the military, but those are merely the few institutional walls that society has most oppressively forced upon us. There are countless other sports teams, game clubs, hobby communities, activist groups, charities/service organizations, hacker/maker spaces, martial arts gyms, etc. etc which we are more free to choose from, and are often more likely to enjoy. With the internet, such groups have never been easier to find.

Choosing is only an issue because we are so unused to having such agency over our own lives.


I love the outdoors, so your comment really speaks to me. But speaking as someone who has worked remotely for the last 15+ years I'm skeptical that the model will become even close to dominant.

* Not everyone is equally productive when working remotely. For a variety of reasons some people just work better in offices.

* Mixed office/remote teams are unstable. People will be drawn to offices if only for career reasons, which makes it harder for the remote works, hence makes the office more attractive, etc.

* Some jobs are just better done in person. Auto repair is not a remote job. Same for manufacturing.

What I hope for is that companies will realize they don't need everyone to commute to the office every damn day. I freed up about 3 hours of transit time and reduced my annual carbon emissions by about a ton just by commuting one day less in the Bay Area. There's no reason why most white collar jobs can't work from home a couple of days a week. This would already be a huge improvement.


>Not everyone is equally productive when working remotely. For a variety of reasons some people just work better in offices.

It's probably a bit bleak to say, but those people will likely be replaced by others who are productive working remotely given the new, wider talent pool a fully remote company will have access to.


I don't understand this thinking that remote work will lead to hiring all over the world. I've worked on a bunch of teams split across timezones and I have never seen a team successfully function as a single team with more than a 3 hour timezone difference.

Oh, I'm not one with such beliefs. I think the work being spread over certain timezones is the likely direction it'll go in, which still vastly broadens the talent pool for the companies involved.

An example being Shopify's announcement today was followed with them switching previously Canadian, or Toronto/Ottawa specific roles to being remote and available within the Americas.


I think the reality is that you never get the best of both worlds. Companies will not spend on expensive real estate and amenities for people only in the office 2-3 days per week. Either there will have to be big sacrifices (open offices with no reserved desks/seating/equipment, like how consulting does this), or there will be no office offered at all.

I'm an outdoors enthusiast like yourself and feel similarly, but I would wager that the average tech employee is not an outdoorsman/adventurist/athlete, and might not have any hobbies at all aside from spending time with family, watching TV, playing video games, infinitely scrolling on their phones, etc. Also, a lot of these SF headquarters are really nice office spaces with all of the perks (free food mostly) versus the average home office. I have to imagine a lot of people enjoy their offices simply because it's nicer than the space they live in.

I only have a limited selection bias based on where I work, but it seems like there is disproportionately more athletes in these highly competitive companies in the bay area than I've seen elsewhere.

This person was division I MIT crew, this person runs 200mi ultra-marathons, many coworkers have done an Ironman or two, many are cycling 100+mi/wk, many are running marathons or 10mi a day at sub six-minute pace.

Where I grew up the number for any of these things would be zero, but here it feels common. I'd guess partly highly selective entry from top schools biases towards people that are also athletes, or that there's some positive correlation with competitive/ambitious people and making sure to exercise. I suspect the normal no-exercise indoorsy stereotype is actually wrong when compared to other people on average.


Fitness and being fit—especially the right fitness activities—has become a major status/class thing. Lots of articles about it over the last, oh, decade or so, which might pass for documentation of the phenomenon, plus what you can see if you've just been looking around and paying attention to trends, media, and marketing.

Sports and physical activity (especially competitive ones) have always been a component of upper class education. Soundness of body and mind, less fear of standing out and clashing, greater status, more attractive image.

Yeah I think there’s definitely a class element.

You don’t see people bulking up and lifting heavy, it’s all time intensive endurance sports that make you thin.


This is my experience as well, atleast among younger employees. Presumably the older employees that have kids don't have as much time for hobbies/passions like that.

I agree wholeheartedly, I've had the pleasure to work remotely for the majority of my career and it has been nothing but bliss to be able to focus on the living part of life and not just the working part of it. There's nothing I enjoy more than having deep technical talks with very smart people, but I'm not really interested in living within that tech bubble 100% of the time.

How many times can you have the same conversation with someone complaining about <outdated software library> and being underpaid at <six figure salary>? It's amazing to me how few people in this industry have exposure to the world of experiences outside of the pinhole purview of techworld concerns. Going remote means you actually get to choose your day to day friends, experiences, social life, and culture instead of having them forced upon you! Craft your life the way you want to live it.


> I've read a few of these work from home related articles here on HN and I have to say, I'm super surprised by how many people are both vehemently against the idea of remote and generally pessimistic for what it would mean for society.

I can think of one big reason why HN readership is suddenly worried about the prospect of universal WFH: they realise that the supply in the labour market is going to suddenly double. No longer will companies be able to justify paying them huge amounts of money because people from all over the world are just as good and able to work for much less.

Remember a lot of people here are now addicted to money. They don't much else in life besides that.


My own workplace is remaining remote for the time being. We moved out of our office prior to eventually maybe moving into one. We might not all be asked to move back in permanently.

I had looked in the past for remote work for precisely the reasons you mentioned. On top of that my partner would love to move back to Vancouver Island for a spell. Also Toronto is bloody expensive.

We've discussed all kinds of different options... but one of the core motivators would be affording a house, with some land. Being closer to family—mine or hers—and spending more time outdoors.

Also not having to commute 1+ hour each way—yes, please.


There are just multiple opinions on remote work. Simple answer is that there is no right or wrong - it just depends on each individual case.

There are people that would benefit from remote work - they might like living close to the mountains, no commute and they can still stay very productive while fully remote.

There are also people who don't care about mountains, live close to work and are more productive while working in the office among other people.

Both groups are right in what they value most, and as long as there is no detrimental effects to the business/employer - both seem like good options.


I'm working from home in just such a mountain town right now.

If you're willing to go far enough up the mountain, real estate is still quite affordable.

And I think you'd be welcomed if you actually live in a small town full-time (as opposed to keeping a vacation home) and get involved with the local community. Many of these places -- the ones just out of organic-grocery-store range -- have been losing population for decades.

Of course, in California, you have to make your peace with living in the Red State within the Blue State, in case that's a thing for you.


I see most negativity around WFH is from some form of fear.

Competition. Some believe that once orgs and managers get comfortable with a fully remote team, whats to stop them from replacing or supplementing office-only team with a cheaper remote-first one. That increases employer options and shifts market power over to them.

Work/life. Some like the hard separation between work and home. They are just not comfortable losing that wall.

Social setup. Some are scared shitless when they realize they will lose their only social setup: office, and will have to start fresh and actually talk to people who don't share their view of the world.

Family. For a lot of people, office is a convenient escape from family that does not get questioned. Take that out and it will drive them nuts to be around family all the time.

Income. Some believe that more competition will lead to lower salaries lesser opportunities, forcing a move to a lower income area leading to lower income and that sounds bad.


I think people are rightfully wary about massive employment changes that could have significant negative consequences. I see a slow shift from treating ICs like people with differentiated skillsets to undifferentiated drones. I think that rarely works out for the employee.

"I see a slow shift from treating ICs like people with differentiated skillsets to undifferentiated drones. I think that rarely works out for the employee."

I see it as the opposite. If an employer goes from mandating everyone be in office all the time, to allowing ICs to have a choice, doesn't that treat them less like an undifferentiated drone and acknowledge that some people work better WFH and others don't, or that for some projects you might want to be away from the office for extended periods of time?


> to allowing ICs to have a choice, doesn't that treat them less like an undifferentiated drone...?

No, on aggregate it will be the opposite, I think. Each dev will be treated more like an API--requirements go in and products come out. When the entire country is your labor pool rather than a select population close to your office, that's easier.


What’s so bad about being treated as an interchangeable ‘drone’? Let’s face it, for most of us, it’s true. If we weren’t there doing that particular jira, someone else would be. Similarly, the company I work at is pretty interchangeable for me. If I wasn’t at x company, I’d be at y company doing almost identical work. As long as you work to live, not live to work, it’s not really that threatening being ‘a cog in the machine’. In fact it’s pretty relaxing, predictable and an easy way to earn money.

Whose writing the design docs and the requirements then?

Yeah, I think as employees this is key. The ability to go to office makes you stand out as a human being and not as a commodity remote black box problem solver. Fuck, just look at investment bankers why do you think they fly and see their customers face to face even at this lockdown times? Their financial models and ideas are the same but the human element of trust and communication. I'm an early career stage software engineer and things like this shift to remote work make me uneasy about the viability of software as a career for me. In other fields, the more experience you get the less of a commodity you're treated as, here it sometimes feels as if relevance if pretty much out of our control, the more experience you have in a focused area the more you are seen as a tool for a particular job I'd say instead of a generalist.

Well since you're in early stage in your career, if being a black box, a replacable commodity makes you feel uneasy, you'd be better off exploring alternative satisfying career path while not getting too invested in tech, time wise. Futher down the road you'll see yourself be more a commodity, more burn out, more kids replacing your job with newer skillset at lower salaries.

If the human touch is important to you, there are a lot of careers that you will thrive at, especially with your tech skills that you can apply almost anywhere.


Ahh, I once worked for Google too.

I don't really like working from home, primarily because I like the social aspect of a workplace and also because I have a very hard time separating work from home life. But if places transitioned to something like 3 days a week wfh, with the option to come in anyway but not the expectation. I'd totally love that because I do a lot of outdoors stuff too and I like sleeping in lol, which commuting prevents, but I don't need this everyday (though others might, especially those with kids). But I really think communication simply when not in person is sub par, but that could be a failing on my part or those in my company.

I'm with you, but I think this post also highlights the need for protected land. I'd really hate to see any National Forest land go away because everyone who wants to live somewhere with a view now can.

More people/better infrastructure in Gunnison, CO would be great. Maroon Bells getting a housing development and a golf course? Not so great. I'm worried that more people in small mountain towns near national forests has the potential to slowly eat away the national forest.


I love working fully remote, but in the past month my job has become my entire life. Maybe that's because I can't leave the house, but I do fear that could stick. With employers expecting employees to be available constantly. Even more so than now/5 months ago.

Yeah, it was a real struggle for a while to just respond "No" to random 7pm or 8am meetings...

Hear hear! Work and what I consider “real” life are two completely different things for me.

> Where are the cyclists, the surfers, the skiiers/snowboarders, dirt bikers, rock climbers, etc etc in these threads?

I'd say they are out there riding bikes, skiing or climbing, not discussing WFH arrangements for the third time this week :D


I'm with you, that is how I feel. I have been working full-time remote since ... well, for most of my career.

My wife and I decided to be in a major metropolitan area because of our kids and schools... but back before, we were living in more rural, mountain areas with a lot of access to outdoors.

At some point, we're going to get a small trailer for my use as an office, or an office trailer. It's something I would want anyways.

I think one good compromise with this is having a remote-first company pay for either a home office, or the membership fees for a coworking space. Some people really enjoy the interpersonal interaction. Me? I get enough of it via Slack and Zoom, and the occasional in-person conferences and on-sites.

One of the positives I can see us moving towards is greater interpersonal interaction with the local neighbors, and greater mixed-use spaces like it used to be. You work from home some of the days, and then walk down the street for the coffee and bagals. You talk with the neighborhood grocers. You can hang out at the community gardens. You make your living with things that could be done remote, but there is a much better sense of community where you live. When you spend money, it would be within the local community, so it helps distribute the wealth to people who you live side by side.

And ok, maybe if you don't like to cook, instead of using one of those apps to get some food from across town, you support your neighbors who love to cook.

In other words, instead of bonding primarily with the people you work with, your main community is the one you live in. I think that's generally a good thing.

There's a project called the Urban Farming Guys. They do a lot of hard work for developing food resilency, and transformed one of the worst neighborhoods in Kansas City into something that is great. Imagine living there, because you cared about the work they did. You work the remote job by day, and then walk over to their makerspace to teach the neighborhood kids about coding. When they ask for donations, you could spread some of the wealth from working with a remote tech job. You would have a choice to live with the people who share the same values that you do.

Here's the thing. I think a lot of people feel that they will be disconnected from people if they work remote. But I think if they were able to choose where they live, they might find that they are even _more_ connected with the people they live with, in the neighborhood they live with. I think there is a modern malaise of disconnection and brokenness, and that won't really be solved without reconnecting to your local community. The interpersonal camaderie at work is an imperfect substitute for what I think most people crave without realizing they crave it.


> My wife and I decided to be in a major metropolitan area because of our kids and schools... but back before, we were living in more rural, mountain areas with a lot of access to outdoors.

The schools are the main thing preventing us from moving to a small town in nature. Most of them have really bad schools. If they don't it's because they're a rich-people enclave and housing's very expensive.


The US is really big. There are many, many small towns out there and by pure random chance there will be over a 100 schools in small towns that are in the 95th percentile nationally for whatever metric you want to use. And if you move to a less populated state your chances of going to a prestige uni go way up because they like to say they have students from all 50 states.

Even if the schools are terrible in every rural school district you can get individual tuition for your children for very cheap compared to the difference in costs of real estate in urban versus rural areas. The average adjunct instructor at a college makes $3,000 per class. So for $24K your child could get individual college level instruction for 8 AP tests, as an upper bound. Cheap compared to the difference between a house in Boston and one two hours away.


Well, environmentally, the preference is that humans live in dense cities & leave as much untouched nature as possible.

Remote work may have as devastating an environmental impact as the automobile (if not more).

Just wait until 250,000 of your fellow outdoor enthusiasts move to Wyoming...


Are you trolling? The environmental impact of reduced traffic is far more significant- and currently observable during this quarantine- than a hypothetical horde of hikers.

Cities centralize services and make them more efficient. Groceries, trash, hospitals, etc. By spreading all of these things out you make them less efficient. It seems you're overlooking everything else and focusing strictly on commuting's negative effects.

Perhaps, but those images of clouds of smog over LA or Beijing- though admittedly they might be largely produced industrial activity rather than transportation- certainly elicit a visceral response.

Wyoming would still be empty. People would still not commute. But - they would still want to visit family and old friends, so not be too far from an airport or a highway, and they still need a good internet connection. Also, living somewhere cheaper is nice, but most still want access to concerts, culture, museums, libraries and so on. I agree there are many questions, but the last twenty years have unproportionally favourited a few megacities (and areas) where people are still miserable because the costs are even higher than the high incomes. Also, it would be great to bring more college graduates into the country, that would help against the political divide we have currently. Who knows how it will turn out, right? But a try it is definitely worth.

I travelled across countrty over the course of 4 weeks while working remote. I stopped by Wyoming for a week to visit a friend. Was using a crappy internet, working from a hotel. Got altitude sickness the first day I was there. But I got to see things I didn't.

There are two broadband, Low Earth Orbit satallite internet projects that will be a game changer. These are supposed to have low latency to market towards high-frequency traders. If the cost is accessible for individuals, then yeah, you could live at the edges of the grid. Would still need some way to get electrical power.

My wife and I had been thinking about doing that with an RV, and just tooling around for a bit.


Another commenter from another article about permanent telecommuting - most likely this will happen between metro areas in the same/similar timezones.

You can still have culture, transport and internet in smaller metros. Timezone is key - it's the main reason why offshoring leads to problems.


Well, with the population of Wyoming being 578K, 250K would be enough to turn the tide politically and pass some much needed environmental legislation there. :)

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: