Ask HN: Is the WFH revolution going to change how we valuate work?
8 comments
> discussions about being able to work for Google and Facebook at the same time, now that everyone's WFH anyway.
At the end of the day you get $x per hour and your hours are limited. This is true whether you you're in-office or remote. So no, you can't be a full time employee of both companies.
> And if the employer can't tell if that's the case, surely that's a problem in any case? What's the difference if the extra time is spent on another job or watching Netflix?
That's a problem of your time not being utilised well. The sudden move to remote this year means that this has happened at a lot of companies and they haven't been able to respond well quickly enough. But to think that you can keep that Netflix time slot indefinitely, or that you can fill it with a second FAANG job is absurd.
Don't assume that your employer is dumb. If you can spend only half of your time on the job and brag about it online, what's stopping your company from laying off half of your team?
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.
> WFH revolution
It's not a revolution. It's an involuntary experiment, and we don't know what the results will be and which companies and employees it will work well for.
At the end of the day you get $x per hour and your hours are limited. This is true whether you you're in-office or remote. So no, you can't be a full time employee of both companies.
> And if the employer can't tell if that's the case, surely that's a problem in any case? What's the difference if the extra time is spent on another job or watching Netflix?
That's a problem of your time not being utilised well. The sudden move to remote this year means that this has happened at a lot of companies and they haven't been able to respond well quickly enough. But to think that you can keep that Netflix time slot indefinitely, or that you can fill it with a second FAANG job is absurd.
Don't assume that your employer is dumb. If you can spend only half of your time on the job and brag about it online, what's stopping your company from laying off half of your team?
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.
> WFH revolution
It's not a revolution. It's an involuntary experiment, and we don't know what the results will be and which companies and employees it will work well for.
> 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.
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.
Be aware that a lot of these ‘permanent changes’ are wishful thinking by people who want to shape the way they work.
Ultimately the pandemic may have forced companies to look into remote work but if it isn’t in their (perceived) interest it’ll be reversed the second it’s no longer required.
Ultimately the pandemic may have forced companies to look into remote work but if it isn’t in their (perceived) interest it’ll be reversed the second it’s no longer required.
Yes and no. If enough companies offer it, and enough people who have a choice choose to work for those companies, others will have to follow suit.
Employers care because they want to maximize profit, not simply make enough money to break even. If enough workers say, “I’ll work full-time for you, and only you, and at a lower rate” then your scenario is dead in the water.
The opposite scenario is more likely: offshoring. If remote work becomes functionally 80% as good as in-person, there is no reason for BigCo to spend $200,000 in SV when they could spend $20,000 in Chile or Serbia.
If you really want to have two “jobs” and maximize your income, just do consulting.
The opposite scenario is more likely: offshoring. If remote work becomes functionally 80% as good as in-person, there is no reason for BigCo to spend $200,000 in SV when they could spend $20,000 in Chile or Serbia.
If you really want to have two “jobs” and maximize your income, just do consulting.
From my personal perspective, I would push for more WFH but let it be at the employees discretion. Some people enjoy WFH. I for one don't like it every day week in week out. I like the buzz of an office and the social aspect after work.
I think the employers will default back to having bums on seats in the office. It only takes some bad management to change it.
I think the employers will default back to having bums on seats in the office. It only takes some bad management to change it.
I think we'll move back to normal sooner than people think. There is too much vested interest in corporate real estate and loans. You can see this by who the furlough schemes are backing
Oh for sure 100%. i mean no you probably wont work 2 full time jobs, but you will get more work done! think about it, you drive an average of an hour or more to and from the office. then you get a lunch break, and other short breaks, talk to coworkers, and spend about probably only 4 hours actually working and get paid for 8 hours of work. Whereas if you work from home you'll get more done so the value will increase.
Which got me thinking, why should an employer care as long as the worker is providing more value than what you're paying them? And if the employer can't tell if that's the case, surely that's a problem in any case? What's the difference if the extra time is spent on another job or watching Netflix?
I'm not saying the two are equivalent. But what I am saying is that employers measuring what's worth it to them by hours/exclusivity doesn't make much sense. Either it's worth it or it isn't.
So, does anyone think that the WFH revolution is going to lead to a change in how employers value work? And that if the results are ok, there's nothing wrong with working at Google and Facebook at the same time?