[buzzert]

> The majority of people just want to earn some money and do it as easily as possible.

That's true, and I don't blame anyone for that. However, I don't think one should expect to enjoy all of the benefits of an extremely high performing company (i.e., RSUs of great value, high pay, prestige, etc.) if they approach work in this way.

It sounds very entitled to say "I'm just here for the paycheck" but expect all of the benefits of working at a highly productive company with none of the commitments.

[sfblah]

I philosophically agree with your comment, but honestly my income over the past 20 years hasn't really followed what you're saying in any meaningful way. I've had places I didn't work very hard that paid me a ton, and places I worked like crazy and made little. In my experience, the factor that matters far more than anything else is the prevailing economy and, really, the stock market.

[almost_usual]

Agree, most of it is luck.

[slavapestov]

I work my job for the paycheck, which includes those RSUs of great value. It’s a fine job, but if I didn’t need the money, I would quit. What kind of commitments should I be making and why?

[buzzert]

In this particular case, by commitments I mean fully commit to in-person collaboration. This doesn't mean sitting and working at your office desk instead of your home desk, it means actually making an effort to collaborate with other people. Sometimes in a spontaneous way, sometimes in a planned way.

Collaboration is done better in person. I believe anyone who disagrees with that is actually only disagreeing for selfish reasons (i.e., they want to continue WFH), or they go through mental gymnastics to justify it in their head.

[rsj_hn]

That word "collaboration" is used to cover everything from pair-programming to reviewing someone else's proposal. Some things are better done in person, some things are better done at arms length. Moreover people assume that things like "hallways conversations" or "overhearing" are an unmitigated good when in reality they can be incredibly distracting and disruptive. So again this boils down to a cost benefit analysis, and the balance of evidence is that employers have made offices, especially open offices, so distracting that it is almost impossible to do focused work. Then they add to that people constantly scrolling on slack, and praise "communication" as if this is something in deficit rather than extreme, often toxic, surplus.

One can imagine a completely different office setup where developers work behind closed doors, there are two days in the week when no one is allowed to hold a meeting, people's times arent being wasted with a constant stream of broadcast messages, and in that environment removing the chance hallway encounter or in-person meeting might be a net harm. But I would say that in the current environment the vast majority of workplaces would see an overall bump in productivity if they reduced the amount of communication and increased the amount of focused work. That managers can't understand this is part of the reason why they create these huge open offices and spend $$ on broadcast communications mediums.

[hnaccount141]

> Collaboration is done better in person. I believe anyone who disagrees with that is actually only disagreeing for selfish reasons (i.e., they want to continue WFH), or they go through mental gymnastics to justify it in their head.

Please consider that your experience is not always representative of everybody else's experience. Just because someone doesn't feel the same way as you doesn't mean they're lying to themself or others.

[slavapestov]

I collaborate with people remotely. But even if we take it as a given that in-office is better for everyone, it comes with the tradeoff of having to live in the Bay.

[justaguy88]

The commitment is to do some work for some money.

Anything else is just fake bs.

[buzzert]

There are varying levels of commitment to one's work, wouldn't you agree?

[delaynomore]

>However, I don't think one should expect to enjoy all of the benefits of an extremely high performing company (i.e., RSUs of great value, high pay, prestige, etc.) if they approach work in this way.

Why shouldn't I expected all the benefits (RSU/base pay/free food if that's included)? It was all agreed upon when I started the job.