[asd88]

Microsoft is doing something similar where you can choose hybrid work or fully remote. Personally, I think, with hybrid work, fully remote workers will go back to being second class citizens at those companies if most people choose to go back to the office (even part time).

[randomsilence]

Which will lead to the remote workers changing companies. If there is no substantial advantage, those companies will become second class companies.

[julienb_sea]

This is totally unproven. We have no idea how the market as a whole is going to react. Most companies are going to follow the leaders on this one, and Microsoft and Google taking a clear stance will heavily influence the rest of the market.

[amusedcyclist]

Highly unlikely, the best and most ambitious will move to get better jobs, as they always have

[paulryanrogers]

That's one way to evaluate things. Another way is to consider diversity in working methods a goal in and of itself, even if it doesn't further capitalist positive outcomes.

[jmeister]

Capitalism is ok with diversity in working methods as long as the pay is diverse too.

[oblio]

Just like how racial discrimination leads to worse outcomes yet FAANG is 99% White/Asian? Especially at higher levels.

<awkward silence>

[gameman144]

So looking at the numbers, it seems that Asians are over-represented across most tech companies, and most/all other groups are underrepresented (https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/divers...).

I'm curious, though, why that would make you think that racial discrimination is happening? It could just as easily mean that racial discrimination is not happening and that Asian candidates are equally over-represented in the underlying qualifications (e.g. university degrees, prior experience -- both of which are indeed the case).

Also, at a level removed from tech, what criteria do you use to determine whether some system which does not equally represent the general population is discriminatory or not? It seems like the numbers alone here aren't sufficient, but I reckon you've probably given this a lot of thought, so I'd love to hear your mental model there.

[oblio]

The mental model is simple. Tech has grown. It's no longer a niche domain. It employs a large percentage of the overall population.

The fact that it is not representative of the general population (and I'm not even talking about men vs women, that's another huge can of worms), means that something is wrong somewhere along the pipeline.

Either at university level, or at high school level, or before. Or at company level.

Plus diversity gets worse and worse as the pay grade goes up.

In any case, I think affirmative action works, long term, for the affected minorities. As much as people outside those minorities hate it.

[darkhorse222]

Indeed. Be warned, remote devs. Ideally only be remote on a fully remote team. You don't want to be the one person excluded from the meeting in the hall.

[EMM_386]

> You don't want to be the one person excluded from the meeting in the hall.

Unless I'm outperforming my entire team, since everything can be seen and reported on.

[mumblemumble]

Perhaps even less than half. At my last job, only three of the ten people on my team were going into the office, and yet the rest of us were still perennially out of the loop.

That said, I don't think it has to be that way. Companies and teams do have the ability to choose their cultures and communication styles in an intentional way. It's just that very few actually do. And this is a situation where you absolutely do not want to accept the default configuration.