I live in a very small (not USA) city classified as 'rural and remote'. There is no local opportunity to do the sort of work I'm interested in, so for a few years I just didn't (obviously not USA :)
WFH allows me to participate. For some years, it was a complicating liability, and I had to gently massage potential employers to seriously consider a fully remote config. But this year when hunting I found my years of remote experience recognised and valued.
If you don’t see it as a perk, you should take that into account when negotiating salary.
For me personally (someone who doesn’t see it as a perk), I’d need a higher salary (compared to an in-office job) to consider a remote work arrangement – because I’d need to cover the cost of my coworking space.
> This reduces your income if work would pay for it.
I agree; I guess my personal point is that I don't remotely care about anything as much as I do the ability to wfh. After that is salary, after that is other comp. Offer me a fully-remote job at an acceptable salary and you've got me very interested. In contrast I've flat out turned down recruiters, including FAANG, when I asked about remote opportunities and they say they maybe will do a hybrid model in the future.
At the end of the day if I'm making a good salary and can work wherever I want to in the US/world, nothing else matters to me too much.
> Companies that are not WFH flexible will be less competitive in the jobs market.
And those companies may care more about selecting for people who don’t want to WFH. They’ll be attractive to people who don’t want to work with people who want to WFH.
> Some people love the lack of commute and less semi-forced hanging out, some people hate onboarding on a new company as a remote person and so on and so on.
My team has been able to hire people from all across the country, gaining access to talent that we normally would not have been able to reach.
Because my entire company has gone fully remote, if someone on the team has to take a trip overseas, they can choose to continue working if so desired. If someone wants to bail to a seaside town during the worst of winter, no problem.
People aren't forced to live in overpriced urban areas, they can live where they choose to!
> I think that an environment where someone can tap me on the shoulder when they need help leads to overall higher productivity, even if individual productivity suffers temporarily.
I agree, but I am getting 1/8th of my waking hours back from commuting.
Since the pandemic began I have been putting under 3000 miles a year on my car. I am eating home cooked meals every day. Mid day I can walk down to the local grocery store and pick up food to cook later for dinner.
My QoL is insanely improved.
If I need maintenance work done (Late last year I bought a house that was built in the 1950s, so, yes, lots of that happening) I am here all day long if need be. I don't have to worry about when expensive packages are delivered, I am always here to pick them up. I can have someone come by and cut my cat's claws whenever need be. I can schedule doctors and dentists appointments at any time of the day and not have to take a day off of work to make them.
> I think WFH is going to be more of a supply demand thing than a right though. Allow WFH and you have access to wider talent pool. Don’t allow it and you may limit your hiring rate.
And that's exactly what is happening. I monitor job listings in my niche and practically all top-paid positions are remote (with the few exceptions that ask for a visit in the office like once a month etc.).
> but we need to get over this idea that WFH is the best option for everyone.
I don't think anybody is claiming this. The argument is more that WFH is best for people who prefer to WFH and are able to do so effectively.
Last time I checked, most big tech companies have little tolerance for WFH, only allowing workers to WFH at most once or twice per week. There's clearly a middle ground between "no remote workers" and "WFH is the best option for everyone".
It only works when you can do your job from home (aka not most jobs).
It also only works if you don't have kids, a partner or have a big enough home to isolate, which isn't the case for most people. The current situation will make people hate wfh.
> I think remote work greatly increases the circle of people you're competing with. I don't recommend trying to be remote only unless you're world class - because the world is technically your competition.
Another perspective, from a remote-only employee away from all the world's tech hubs: there just aren't that many local jobs to choose from. Remote work really makes it possible for me to have a job in this field where every other company is complaining about shortage of talent.. and I don't have to leave home & everything behind and move into a big city (I don't like cities btw).
> They enjoy all of the same benefits everyone else does: increased ability to focus, more freedom of work style and schedule, freedom to live where they want…
I think some of the inequality comes not from the demands of the job itself but from where people are in life.
I've been working remotely for 10 years, so I bought my house because it had a home office. My WFH setup is very comfortable, and it works well for my family.
But early in my career, I was renting a cheap apartment with multiple roommates, and it was not as ideal for remote work. And I likely would have missed out on networking opportunities and just general friendships versus someone doing the same role in-office. Those aren't as important to me at this stage of my career, but they were very important back then.
>The pool of candidates for a remote job is literally everyone in the entire world.
It is not true. I for one do not even consider remote work. I don't imagine I am the only person in the entire world like this. The reason is that I had been working remotely sometime in the past and found it less attractive than working in the office. Combined with the fact that employers consider "remote" an additional perk justifying the lower compensation I now just turn down any remote offers without further negotiation.
>you cut yourself off from a lot of competing non-remote employers
Just because you're working remotely doesn't mean you wouldn't consider a non-remote job at any price. So the fact that you're local geographically does not reduce to a value of zero, even if you are currently in a remote arrangement. The employers are competing for people too.
> I also imagine that these kinds of discussions are infuriating to the people who were already remote pre-COVID and were working the hours they are supposed to. They had a great thing going on but if suddenly everyone else moves to remote and a bunch of people are slacking off, remote work suddenly look less viable from an employer's point of view, not more.
It's interesting, i've been WFH for ~8 years now under two companies. I've thought COVID would improve my job pool (and also competition), but you raise an interesting point where it might solidify negative WFH views in a lot of cases.
It's a shame, because if i could rely more on WFH i'd probably move further out. I like where i live (PNW) but it's expensive. While WFH is not for everyone, i wish more people would give it a chance because of the (potential) huge cost benefits of being able to live where you want.
Yep, this is exactly who WFH benefits, and nobody else.
reply