[drawkbox]

Programmers, if they have a choice, like remote or at least some remote.

Managers + VCs, if they have a choice, prefer all in the office so they can keep power but this actually makes them less competitive and more susceptible to physical disruptions: moving an office, an employee moving, time, office politics, commute, distractions, over meeting and more.

The PG essay on this was glaringly overlooking that you can be a US based programmer and be good or great even if you aren't in SF. Tech companies have a responsibility to not be so monoculture and they currently have a single point of failure in Silicon Valley, which from an engineering perspective is poor distributed design and very little redundancy.

There are benefits of being in one place, the ability to meet physically and be on the same page but we all know the real work gets done back at our desks in our solitary focused modes when it comes to programming and making products. Then we open up for feedback and iteration, then again back to work.

The work part should be setup so programmers perform their best. Just like some of the best scientists, writers, etc, they need their lab/office where they can get somewhere with the problem at hand, not an open office in SF.

Glad Ma.tt mentioned this as he is a leader in the right kind of tech leadership we need: spread it around, live better, work hard, deliver solid products, from anywhere...

[andylei]

there's a pretty big difference between "remote" and "some remote".

[pc86]

No bigger than the difference between "in the office" and "some remote"

[andylei]

some remote requires a visa

[ha292]

I'd add that the PG post is a symptom of a disease. A disease that that is brewing in the echo-chambers of SV. Note also the recent post where PG claims that "mean people fail".

The more the VC community gets un-hinged from the reality the quicker the inflation of the bubble and the crazier the assertions.

Time to get out of the bubble.

[7Figures2Commas]

Part of the problem is that investors might understand the businesses they invest in from 30,000 feet, but they frequently have no idea how their portfolio companies are actually run. If some of them went undercover and applied for jobs at their own portfolio companies, they'd probably have a different perspective about the "talent shortage."

[onedev]

They'd probably get rejected for jobs at their own portfolio companies. That's how out of whack hiring is.

[gaius]

Not sure why you're down voted, graduation year alone would get all VCs fall at the first reading of their CVs.

[nicktix]

Yes. As a job search candidate myself, I see your point. It was not as it used to be before. Maybe something to do with a lot more competition and focus on competitive programming in interviews may be?

[sgrove]

What disease is that, (very) specifically? I'm having a hard time nailing down what you mean, and how you arrived at that conclusion, but think it would be worthwhile to understand more.

[ha292]

The disease is, to a large extent, myopic and self-serving reasoning. It goes like this: we want larger number of "highly skilled" developers to come to the US, preferably, permanently and preferably, working for VC-backed firms.

Let's think about the consequences.

If this is implemented, it will hurt the sender countries (brain-drain) and may even lower the salaries for people who are already here. I'll go back to the brain-drain again. The REST OF THE WORLD NEEDS DEVELOPERS TOO. Maybe even more than the US.

Once here, these people will toil long and hard and face very steep challenges in making serious money. Maybe 1-2% of them will see millions. Most will make sub-par wages as immigrants. Yes, H1-B wages are lower.

Meanwhile, VCs, since their bets are widely hedged will get to play many rounds of the same game increasing the odds of the payout.

[JoeAltmaier]

Hurt the sender countries? Maybe in some cases. But in many, opportunities were limited there. They come here, not just for money, but for meaningful work that engages their skills at a challenging level. Good for everybody.

[ha292]

This used to be true in the old days. These days both India and China are extremely hot markets for good software engineers. Europe always had a shortage of developers. They are also not markets where people from other countries can go and work.

So, that means all things being equal, when really good developers leave their countries they are depriving the local market of their talent.

If you think of the equation this way -- when engineers immigrate to the US they are bringing with them the investments that their own countries had made. Outside the US many countries subsidize higher education, especially engineering.

It used to be that the money that these engineers sent back would more than offset the local productivity gains. Given the growth in China and India and the salaries there it is hard to argue that the remittance is a good compensation for this "brain drain".

[grinnbearit]

Being one of those Indian developers, I'd happily switch with you (assuming you're one of those US devs)

Morally we'd both be better off, I would like a better quality of life (subjective I know) and you'd be able to contribute to Indian development.