[samr71]

We've only been doing mass WFH for a year. Many companies have been saying things very similar to Coinbase, but I'm not sure if long-term mass WFH will prove to that great (for the company, I'd argue it certainly won't be great for the average worker).

[destitude]

One thing the average worker should watch out for is companies who perform geographically adjustment pay scales. Some WFH companies now even list that as a benefit that they do not do these type of adjustments. I'm not sure what the best answer is to that but feel many are using it as an excuse to pay workers less.

[PragmaticPulp]

The reality is that geographic pay modifiers are part of the negotiation process whether it’s explicit or not. They only time it’s not is if a company goes out of their way to pay everyone the same, which is currently rare and only limited to small companies that haven’t tried to hire at scale yet.

At an individual scale, you have to pay enough to convince the person to join your company over their other options. Their set of other options is still heavily influenced by geography, so geography is a always factor in the negotiation.

On a global scale, developer compensation in the US is an outlier, and not just in expensive cities like SF. If you truly want pay equality, you have two options: Either raise everyone’s pay to That of the most expensive market you want to hire in, or simply exclude the expensive markets from your hiring plans so you can bring the number down.

Ignoring geography in compensation discussions sounds great, until you realize that they end game is reversion to the global mean, which means most US salaries would have to come down. Way down.

[pinkybanana]

Why wouldn't companies use WFH for their own benefit? They are businesses. I find it weird that western workers somehow imagine that WFH means that they can happily work remote but not compete with other remote workers. The fact is that their big value-add has been the physical contact with the employer, as employers want to interact with their employees f2f for god knows what reason.

[ajkjk]

I agree with the sentiment that companies should compete on WFH wages, the same as they would compete on anything else. It's really weird to me that HN thinks it shouldn't make a difference. Why not? You get to pick the job, pick it if it pays enough, don't if it doesn't. If it suppresses wages.. good, they were too high anyay.

But I disagree with "f2f for god knows what reason.". Face-to-face is really important to lots of people. That group of people is relatively less well-represented in HN comment sections, where lots of hacker types who are motivated by the work and would prefer to avoid socialization hang out, but it's a huge factor for lots of people.

I, for one, am considering changing jobs to find one with an office as soon as possible if my workplace doesn't go back to having a physical office, which it looks like it won't.

[ghaff]

I expect a lot of workplaces will change and many of those who can will shift to those workplaces that accommodate their preferred styles.

[whimsicalism]

I think the big value add is time proximity and lack of language barrier. Moreover, the large majority of high-level technical talent remains in the West (and the west coast of the west-most country of the West, at that), although that gap is closing.

[throwawayboise]

The west coast is heavy with tech talent because the tech companies are there. And tech companies are there because the tech talent is there. It's been a self-perpetuating feedback loop until now. With remote work normalized and proven to work to whatever extent it has, that feedback loop will start to break down.

[Talanes]

Paying extra for in-person employment and geographically determined pay-scales are only similar issues, not the same one. As long as you are doing your job with no issues the only two locations your employers should care about are Here and Not Here.

(Obviously things can get trickier across national borders, but that falls under the "with no issues" clause.)

[dcolkitt]

> compete with other remote workers.

A lot of people seem to operate under the assumption that there's a huge pool of talented engineers outside the tech major metros, eager to work for cheap salaries.

I just don't see it all. The reality is almost all talented engineers are currently being paid tech industry salaries. Yes, there's a lot of IT workers making $85k at regional banks in suburban Ohio. But the vast majority of these workers are not anywhere near skilled enough to step into a typical SV role. (I've seen the codebases of Ohio regional banks... they certainly wouldn't pass review at Google.) There's a huge shortage of software engineers-- everywhere, not just in the Bay Area.

Imagining that FAANG giants are just gonna hire a bunch of cheap IT workers from middle America, is like imagining that Goldman Sachs is going to replace their investment bankers with loan officers Missouri.

[tshaddox]

It’s very possible to both dislike a thing and not be surprised by it.

[jariel]

It's supply and demand it's perfectly reasonable.

2 devs with the same abilities will have different willingness to work in a situation because of their cost base.

Essentially, one gets more because they are demanding more and that demand is based on a kind of very hard negotiating legitimacy, and the company, on the other side of the table knows that and knows they have to concede if they want the table.

I don't think the cost of living shifts are quite that much however, they are generally not a true reflection of the change in cost of living, just a minor adjustment.

[ghaff]

Why not? Yes, to the sibling comment, there's the potential issue of pay adjustments that may (or may not) leave employees better off. But, in general, some percentage of employees do seem to want full remote and the majority want to work from home at least half the time. I agree that it's a negative for people who want to go back to an in-person office most days before time. But I assume that there will be many companies that lean in that direction.

[samr71]

These all potentially could or could not happen, but I think they're possible given multi-year mass WFT. I'm not guaranteeing these, but I've seen them discussed.

For the company: - Lower productivity (burnout, people not adequately connected, people not on same page, more difficult to manager remote workers, more distractions) - Less innovation - Less / No company culture - Less employee satisfaction; harder to recruit at all WFT firms - Difficulty onboarding new employees

For employees: - Competing with talent globally, lower wages - Fewer perks - Less community, more atomization

[ghaff]

I was mostly responding to "I'd argue it certainly won't be great for the average worker"

Many of us were working remotely before the current situation. I guess that makes me not average. But many people are saying they're looking forward to not going back to a commute every day even if they stay in the same general area and maybe go in a day or two a week for collaboration/meetings. The big negative for me has been working remotely during a pandemic with my usual 100 or so days of travel curtailed.

[partiallypro]

Though I often feel my work/life relationship has shifted more towards work since moving full WFH, I am still saving time each day without a commute and also saving money on gas and car maintenance.

[pinkybanana]

I agree, 1 year is very short time. We might see the effects of WFH policy even after 5 years or so, positive or negative.

[chrisco255]

Yeah. Work from home is not suitable for all personality types, for example. I believe one needs to at least be partially introverted to thrive in it. And I worry about long-term cohesion, onboarding and mentorship for rookie hires, culture erosion, serendipity effects, etc. that tend to get lost in remote work.

[throwaheyy]

(Rant about WFH removed)

[codingrightnow]

Have you tried ear plugs possibly combined with ear muffs?