[zachware]

This will all depend what % of employers stay with their current remote structure. It’ll be somewhere between 1% of 80/90%.

The point is that we’re making long-term decisions based on short-term problems. Specifically this week JP Morgan asked its traders to return to the office.

You can counter this with examples like Facebook opening an office in Austin some years ago because that’s where the talent had moved. Similar in Boulder.

There will certainly be some % of employers who keep remote-first. And another scenario where they are forced to or the employees decide they love their lifestyle (which is likely). In the latter employers are either forced to adopt it or or the employees just leave or in some concentrations big companies start building offices in a distributed way.

We’re severely limiting our job choices if we stay remote but most employers don’t.

Before when we go off and buy houses or sign long-term leases we should really just wait this out until the Spring or whenever the virus is neutralized.

[xivzgrev]

exactly this. i'm pretty surprised at the number of people buying homes in far out locations, like this "new normal" is going to be the "new normal" ongoing. I don't buy it (yet). There are a few companies that have bought in, and if you work there then at least you're set for a bit. But people only stay at a tech job for a few years typically - what happens when you want to switch companies?

[cactus2093]

It's certainly possible that people have taken a liking to remote work and decided it's the right move for themselves. Whether in 5 years remote work is much more prevalent than it was in Feb 2020 or about the same doesn't necessarily affect your own individual decision making.

[shajznnckfke]

If you’re used to receiving BigCo pay and bought a mansion in a remote vacation hotspot, you could be in for a rude awakening if you find other remote jobs pay half as much and your employer knows that and stops giving you refreshes.

[wtracy]

This.

The FAANG crowd is used to pulling down $100k-$150k. Developer jobs that are advertised as remote from day one tend to be closer to $50k-$70k.

(These numbers are based on a combination of rumors and job board postings, so no, I don't have a source to cite.)

[rabidrat]

Erm, in my experience (20 years, good but not a superstar) the numbers are 2x that. My last BigCo offer was $300k total comp and jobs with smaller companies (all remote) were around $120-150k. One startup offered me $190k to work remote (but I would have been the only remote worker).

That said, I agree that your average non-FAANG job pays about half of FAANG. Although this is true regardless of remote-ness.

[tolbish]

You are getting those offers because of your 20 years of experience, not because remote work is inherently lucrative. Most people with 10 or fewer years of experience are used to seeing remote-only offers of less than $100k.

[anon9001]

I work for a big company you've heard of as a developer. I'm fully remote since pre-pandemic and plan to stay fully remote indefinitely.

If you're a good developer with experience, it doesn't really matter where you are. I actually get paid more total comp than I would in SF, my cost of living is lower, and my tax situation is much better.

[shajznnckfke]

This is interesting, they pay you extra to not live in SF?

[alexbanks]

This comment is all kinds of wrong. FAANG is "used to" pulling down anywhere from 150-400k.

On the flipside, many many remote jobs pay significantly more than you're describing, more in line with every other non-FAANG developer jobs. If you're just looking at those poorly managed "Remote Job Board" sites, of course you'll think that, because most of those jobs are just subcontracts and gig-type roles.

Yes, there'll be a COL difference, but it's not like you're describing. Gitlab, as an example, pays a Data Engineer in nowhere Indiana 90-120k for remote work.

[davidw]

I too want to wait and see, but I could see things shifting more permanently. When employees get benefits, they tend to be "sticky": they're not easily given up. Working remotely in a nicer place is a pretty good benefit for a lot of people.

[toomuchtodo]

You only interview at companies that support remote (or with hiring managers who will support you being remote in an org that isn’t fully committed to remote) and you keep a large emergency fund to give you substantial runway between jobs (~1 year expenses). Very easy to do on a tech salary and you moved to a low cost of living area with cheap housing (<$1k/month mortgage, reasonable property taxes).

[nickff]

I hate to ask for a citation, but where are you getting that 1% number? It seems made-up.

I would guess that more than one percent of office workers will be permitted/encouraged to go remote, but I think that few companies will go remote. There is no reason why remote needs to be a company-wide Boolean selection.

[xivzgrev]

well what we've heard from remote-first companies is that remote culture is a very deliberate thing. if you have hybrid model and don't actively work to include remote folks, they will naturally become second class citizens - less visibility, less in the loop, and less likely to get promoted. so i think that's in part where the boolean pressure is coming from.

[alexpetralia]

For people who strongly prefer to work remotely, doesn't this seem like a cost they sign up for?

[davidw]

If they don't have better options. But there are better options out there where remote is central.

[alexbanks]

> whenever the virus is neutralized.

I suspect not before 2022. And even that is generous.