[alkonaut]

Why aren't SF tech companies hiring more remote workers? They could pay people who work remotely a lot less, save a lot on office space etc. Tech companies are the ones that should be able to pull that off.

Even if I lived in SF I'd be reluctant to commute an hour to work if I could just as well work from home.

[superuser2]

Remote work is an excellent paradigm when you get an assignment, go work on it for a while in total independence/isolation, and then turn it in, i.e. when developer-hours are perfectly commoditized. Not every software project is like this at every part of its lifecycle.

The same pitfalls that apply to outsourcing to low-cost-of-living countries should apply to hiring American remote workers: communication overhead, lack of context and understanding of what the product should be, etc. If a projects works well with remote workers in developed countries, consider that it's probably irrational and a borderline violation of fiduciary duty to pay extra for them rather than equally skilled workers in India/China/Eastern Europe.

[jonesb6]

I wouldn't forget that communication is deeply entwined with regional culture. I would argue that it is much easier to hire a remote worker from the same country then it is from a third world country (which are frequently known for remote work). Everything from time zones, work hours (say western European countries accustomed to ~5-7 actual work hours /day), laws, religion, etc.

[alkonaut]

Yes, one shouldn't confuse outsourcing and remote work: with remote work I mean people working in the same tools (version control, issue tracking etc) in the same time zone (+/- 1 hour), and being always available on chat/voice/video and occasional physical meetings.

Most people who work in a multi storey office communicate the same way with the people on a different storey as they would with people in a different city.

[amorphid]

I work in an office, and everyone on my team is remote, including my boss. I might as well be working from home most of the time! But I like going into the office :)

[sawthat]

Everyone keeps asking this question. The answer: they are hiring remote workers. But my question: where is the evidence that tech companies are not able to be profitable with their high payroll costs?

[7Figures2Commas]

> But my question: where is the evidence that tech companies are not able to be profitable with their high payroll costs?

You could look at the growing number of layoffs at post-seed stage companies[1].

Or you could look at startups that voluntarily publish financial information. Take, for example, this one[2], which, as of June, was spending $525,000/month on payroll (equating to an all-in cost of $146,000/year per employee) when it had less than $300,000 of monthly bookings revenue.

A lot (perhaps the majority) of venture-backed Bay Area startups are entirely dependent on investor money to sustain their workforces at their current sizes. Even some of the tech companies in the area that have gone public aren't profitable. FireEye and Marketo are two that come to mind.

Everybody has been trading profitability for growth, and that's a game most will eventually lose.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10517445

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10049808

[charlesdm]

He said tech companies, not startups.

For tech companies, it doesn't really matter. They have unlimited money (relative to the cost of an employee). For startups, it does.

[7Figures2Commas]

1. Since when did "tech company" come to mean "non-startup"? Lots of startups are by definition technology companies.

2. Many people in the Bay Area are employed by angel and venture-backed startups, so how does it make sense to ignore them? If and when there's a significant downturn that results in the unsustainable startup herd being culled, not all startup employees are going to find six-figure replacement jobs at companies like Google and Facebook. People who lived through the first .com bust know how fast the job market can dry up for a large subset of employees.

3. It is absolutely not true that the Bay Area's unprofitable publicly-traded tech companies have "unlimited money" relative to anything. Review their SEC filings and you can determine how much money they have down to the dollar. You should not be surprised when those that struggle to reach profitability sooner or later take cost-cutting action, which may include layoffs and adjustments to employee compensation. Twitter just did this. Even profitable tech companies, like IBM and HP, have laid off significant numbers of employees. Bottom line: when push comes to shove and the shit hits the fan, companies tend to use large knives, not scalpels.

[sawthat]

Of course, but there is no evidence that operating in Tulsa would prevent that.

[sawthat]

I worked in Colorado after the .com crash, the tech industry was devastated there, Bay Area companies that had opened offices in the area reconsolidated back in the Bay Area, rather than take advantage of lower payroll costs in Denver. It sounds good on paper to move out of the area, in practice it hadn't happened yet.