[Apocryphon]

Corporate buses are helpful to their workforce (and at this point normalized to the extent that such backlash is far less common) but are also just a bandaid that can lead to extreme commutes [0]. Ultimately, the faults of development in the Bay Area, Seattle, and other high-growth/high-CoL areas are mainly on local governments and residents, but large employers share part of the responsibility because their presence is what drives up the desirability of a region in the first place, as well as prices.

Yes, you can't ask Google to solve everything themselves (even if their PR likes to paint them as being in the business of doing that), but they could at least explore more policies like opening larger offices in regions with more housing, embracing more remote work, working more closely with local communities, etc. You'd think megacorps with the resources and supposed strategic foresight that FAANGM possess would be more proactive about addressing an issue that impacts their workforce. Is it no wonder then that their workers will seek desperate measures like unionizing?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22362271

[codingmess]

If they would open offices elsewhere, they would drive prices up there, too. In fact here in Berlin they cancelled their plans after protests by the locals.

[Apocryphon]

Then perhaps they should take remote work more seriously.

[codingmess]

You assume it is as effective as onsite work, just like that? If that was the case, why haven't remote work companies trounced on site work companies en masse?

[Apocryphon]

We're not debating the efficacy of the practice, but whether or not it can help prevent rising costs of living caused by tech agglomeration. Certainly "taking remote work more seriously" would include investing in pilot programs, experiments, and innovating processes/technologies to make it better and better. And it's something that large megacorps could work with, if they cared about rising CoL.