The great resignation is coming?(dailymirror.co.za)
dailymirror.co.za
The great resignation is coming?
https://dailymirror.co.za/2021/05/11/the-great-resignation-is-coming/
175 comments
I had to work 100% remote for a few months last year, and after that we went back to the office part time. I have to say that I could not have handled working from home any longer than I did. Getting back to the office doesn't just let me concentrate more, but being able to interact with my colleagues is really useful.
I'm sure there are people who like working from home, but I think that that number may be smaller than you think.
I'm sure there are people who like working from home, but I think that that number may be smaller than you think.
Why go back to office? Why commute?
To be outside again. To breathe outside again. To be among human beings again. Sit next to them. Talk to them in person. To not have to look at Zoom windows everyday again.
To have an extremely clear “arrived at work, left work” boundaries again. Not just from employer’s side, but from my side as well.
To have a place called home again, that’s not my office as well.
But hey that’s just me.
To be outside again. To breathe outside again. To be among human beings again. Sit next to them. Talk to them in person. To not have to look at Zoom windows everyday again.
To have an extremely clear “arrived at work, left work” boundaries again. Not just from employer’s side, but from my side as well.
To have a place called home again, that’s not my office as well.
But hey that’s just me.
> that workers want to be able to work remotely is going to struggle to find talent.
I suspect that there will be a large split here. My company reopened offices for any volunteers who were interested.
You couldn’t have meetings in person. You couldn’t have lunch with people. But plenty of people still went in anyway.
I suspect that there will be a large split here. My company reopened offices for any volunteers who were interested.
You couldn’t have meetings in person. You couldn’t have lunch with people. But plenty of people still went in anyway.
There are many lonely people who have nothing but work as their lives. No friends, little family, no hobbies or interests to keep them busy. The workplace is their life.
On the other hand, there are plenty of people who have hectic home lives (young kids, etc), and are much more productive being able to get out of the house and into the office.
There are also people who actually enjoy face-to-face interactions with coworkers/clients and working together in the same physical space. Even with friends and hobbies, for many careers, WFH still means spending most of your day in relative isolation.
That's great for some people, but looking at everyone else, I'd imagine there's a split between people who _only_ have meaningful social interactions at work and people who just happen to _enjoy_ it.
That's great for some people, but looking at everyone else, I'd imagine there's a split between people who _only_ have meaningful social interactions at work and people who just happen to _enjoy_ it.
I’m sure there are many many more reasons for enjoying a return to the office.
This has always struck me as both something strongly encouraged by management (“we’re like family here!”) and extremely dangerous. Anyone living this way is risking having their life ripped away from them the moment their labor is no longer convenient for their employer.
Best to leave work as purely economic, and satisfy as many emotional requirements as is feasible in other places.
Best to leave work as purely economic, and satisfy as many emotional requirements as is feasible in other places.
Yes, this will probably play out in a number of different ways. You'll have people who don't want to be forced back into an office at least part-time at one group of companies. And you'll have other people who don't want to go back to a company that basically doesn't have much of an office culture any longer and necessitates most meetings still happening over video.
I think companies will need to decide and split. Hybrid is going to be hard on those who really like that in person interaction.
Although I'd point out that many companies were pretty hybrid before this between people traveling, people in different offices, and, yes, people remote. Even if I went into our local office pre-pandemic, only a few people I work with are there and I don't actually even know most people in the office. I don't disagree though. This was sort of my point. People who don't want remote or hybrid will have to seek out companies with stronger butt-in-seats cultures.
It's also hard for people who don't need an office or in-person interaction with coworkers. It should be opt-in rather than hybrid; socialites can hang out with each other, so there's no need to force everyone else to go through commuting, dressing up, and sitting in an office around people all day.
Fair point. I did not intend to be as blanketing as I was. I assume there are a number of people who would not mind going back into the office. I think my point still stands, as long as employees do not have an option, some will leave.
Oh certainly. I can see a lot of companies basically splitting in half on what their engineering teams want.
Introverts vs extroverts
IT workers who live in regions where there are many work opportunities — or in regions where remote talent from that region is considered suitable for hiring — will have this option.
IT workers who live in regions where they couldn’t have worked remote previous to COVID simply because no IT company would hire someone remote from $country to do this sort of work, and who had to instead settle for local, low-paying jobs, will be back to being stuck in the same rut as soon as their local employer stops offering remote.
IT workers who live in regions where they couldn’t have worked remote previous to COVID simply because no IT company would hire someone remote from $country to do this sort of work, and who had to instead settle for local, low-paying jobs, will be back to being stuck in the same rut as soon as their local employer stops offering remote.
Except we are seeing a mass movement in food service today of workers closing up shops for better pay. We're seeing businesses say there's a "labor shortage" (there isn't, they are just unwilling to pay a wage labor wants to work for.)
Something is stewing out there, and I expect to see some road bumps when covid is over.
Something is stewing out there, and I expect to see some road bumps when covid is over.
> We're seeing businesses say there's a "labor shortage" (there isn't, they are just unwilling to pay a wage labor wants to work for.)
And that may well change rapidly as both the active job search condition for unemployment returns and the temporary federal boost is withdrawn by states or expires.
Sure, there may be a cluster of elite workers taking a pause resulting in some short-term disruption, but most will probably return to work in fairly short order, some after trying entrepreneurial endeavours or other alternatives to traditional work.
And that may well change rapidly as both the active job search condition for unemployment returns and the temporary federal boost is withdrawn by states or expires.
Sure, there may be a cluster of elite workers taking a pause resulting in some short-term disruption, but most will probably return to work in fairly short order, some after trying entrepreneurial endeavours or other alternatives to traditional work.
For one thing, a lot depends on what office life in cities looks like. If there are X% fewer office workers on a given day, that's going to put a lot of places out of business that depend on the lunchtime trade.
> Working in IT or some similar position at a modern company? I bet we would see a larger number of people quitting.
This is purely anecdotal, but I changed jobs last year from one tech company to another, and in general on the teams I worked with both at the old and new companies it felt like there was if anything a slightly larger number of people changing jobs vs a normal year. From my social networks I can also recall seeing quite a few friends and tech folks I follow get new jobs.
In other words I really don't see any impending event here. There has been no reason for the past year that someone who wanted to change jobs wouldn't have already done so. I did a full interview process and joined a new company without ever leaving my house or meeting anybody in person, so the pandemic certainly didn't limit job changes in tech in the same way it limited travel and events.
This is purely anecdotal, but I changed jobs last year from one tech company to another, and in general on the teams I worked with both at the old and new companies it felt like there was if anything a slightly larger number of people changing jobs vs a normal year. From my social networks I can also recall seeing quite a few friends and tech folks I follow get new jobs.
In other words I really don't see any impending event here. There has been no reason for the past year that someone who wanted to change jobs wouldn't have already done so. I did a full interview process and joined a new company without ever leaving my house or meeting anybody in person, so the pandemic certainly didn't limit job changes in tech in the same way it limited travel and events.
I changed jobs as well, but I have noticed pretty high turnover in my personal web of contacts.
However (again, anecdotal) I think people are fairly uneasy about having to hit the job market right now. At least where I live, there's a feeling of worry about the housing market specifically, and many people I've talked to want to sit pat and see.
However (again, anecdotal) I think people are fairly uneasy about having to hit the job market right now. At least where I live, there's a feeling of worry about the housing market specifically, and many people I've talked to want to sit pat and see.
I don't think this is directly related to covid, but a powerful knock-on effect. The IT market in many centers outside of the typically high-demand areas is absolutely booming right now. I'm not convinced covid taught us anything definitive about remote work, but the involuntary loss of central control at many companies showed that satellite or hub organizations will be very doable, and sometimes come with huge cost savings. I know of several Seattle companies setting up entire dev teams (30+) in Canadian cities where they are paying 30-45% premiums and still recognizing similar cost savings. Amazon et al have done this at scale for a while (Seattle -> Vancouver) but it's now viewed as viable for those 300+ person companies that are growing fast, and it's meant demand for tech workers is as hot as the housing markets.
Same here. I jumped -- new gig starts in 2 weeks -- and I know literally all of my coworkers are actively looking.
At least one has an offer (not sure if it's been taken), and another sounds like she's going to have an offer soon.
At least one has an offer (not sure if it's been taken), and another sounds like she's going to have an offer soon.
I am REALLY curious about home prices during this coming period.
Are we due for a correction down or was the 15-20% overnight housing cost jump a correction of house prices being too low (yes, absurd but I’m serious). A perfect storm of Millennials finally buying homes with low interest rates (?). COVID just jump started it.
Who knows. Either way:
- Huge amount of people fleeing to suburbs regretting their new commute times is likely.
- Huge amount of people who can’t carry their new housing bill and find remote work like planned.
Seems inevitable. Either way, I think housing cost will be one of the best indicators if remote is here to stay or not.
Are we due for a correction down or was the 15-20% overnight housing cost jump a correction of house prices being too low (yes, absurd but I’m serious). A perfect storm of Millennials finally buying homes with low interest rates (?). COVID just jump started it.
Who knows. Either way:
- Huge amount of people fleeing to suburbs regretting their new commute times is likely.
- Huge amount of people who can’t carry their new housing bill and find remote work like planned.
Seems inevitable. Either way, I think housing cost will be one of the best indicators if remote is here to stay or not.
In India home prices do not depend on factors such as market conditions, demand-supply, pandemic etc. It is just one thing - real estate mafia which includes a whole lot of politicians and their vested interests.
When you look at real estate prices and everything else in last decade and a half here, you’d be forced to think real estate has been living in an entirely different dimension all this while. It just doesn’t make sense. I’m talking about urban India of course.
When you look at real estate prices and everything else in last decade and a half here, you’d be forced to think real estate has been living in an entirely different dimension all this while. It just doesn’t make sense. I’m talking about urban India of course.
I think we’re overstating the WFH effect in a lot of places. During Covid I moved from CA to Boise, ID. On the surface, it seems like I’d be part of the problem that’s driving up the cost of homes in the area. But once you dig in a bit more, you’ll realize that the majority of the people moving to Boise come from ... the rest of Idaho.
There are more trends at play in the housing market above and beyond office workers moving to or from WFH.
There are more trends at play in the housing market above and beyond office workers moving to or from WFH.
>On the surface, it seems like I’d be part of the problem that’s driving up the cost of homes in the area. But once you dig in a bit more, you’ll realize that the majority of the people moving to Boise come from ... the rest of Idaho.
It only takes a minority of bad actors to ruin a good thing for everybody.
It only takes a minority of bad actors to ruin a good thing for everybody.
Buying a house is bad faith? That seems pretty unkind of you.
I said "bad actors" not "bad faith". Litter in the economic park is litter in the economic park regardless of whether someone tossed it there intentionally or the wind took it from someone who would otherwise have thrown it in a trashcan.
So, buying a house outside CA is like littering?
I'm "attending" the "strategic investment conference" currently and there was a presentation on housing a few days ago that implied that housing prices will continue to rise due to demographic factors and "housing stock shortages" for at least a couple more years
While there's a lot of factors involved, the impact of lowering interest rate is usually underestimated.
I didn't pay an absurd amount of money for my house because the market was super hot and I had to outbid everyone in a bidding war (though I did have to do that).
I paid an absurd amount because with interest rates so low, it was cheaper than renting in term of monthly payment + maintenance.
I'd obviously be willing to go as high as my current rent, and probably a bit higher (to be allowed to do whatever I want with it), and that just came up to the price I paid.
The only thing blocking you, financially, is the down payment. The lower the interest rate, the higher the down payment will be for the same monthly payment. That's the problem.
To live in the house, if you can afford 1500/month (including insurance, HoA, maintenance), it doesn't matter if the house is worth 100k, 300k, 600k, 1 million...if the math adds up to 1500/month, you'll buy it. Interest rates go down, house value go up. Simple as that.
Now if you add all the other factors, like how home ownership becomes a potentially profitable investment, alongside society's pressure that "it's what you're supposed to do", and of course prices will skyrocket, shortage or not.
In turn, it raises rent prices, which makes the math above work out even more, and it's a self reinforcing cycle.
I didn't pay an absurd amount of money for my house because the market was super hot and I had to outbid everyone in a bidding war (though I did have to do that).
I paid an absurd amount because with interest rates so low, it was cheaper than renting in term of monthly payment + maintenance.
I'd obviously be willing to go as high as my current rent, and probably a bit higher (to be allowed to do whatever I want with it), and that just came up to the price I paid.
The only thing blocking you, financially, is the down payment. The lower the interest rate, the higher the down payment will be for the same monthly payment. That's the problem.
To live in the house, if you can afford 1500/month (including insurance, HoA, maintenance), it doesn't matter if the house is worth 100k, 300k, 600k, 1 million...if the math adds up to 1500/month, you'll buy it. Interest rates go down, house value go up. Simple as that.
Now if you add all the other factors, like how home ownership becomes a potentially profitable investment, alongside society's pressure that "it's what you're supposed to do", and of course prices will skyrocket, shortage or not.
In turn, it raises rent prices, which makes the math above work out even more, and it's a self reinforcing cycle.
And what I never got when I was younger rent ticks up 2-4% every year, your mortgage costs are fixed. I am now locked in paying the same as what I had in rent 5 years ago. I used the the same rent vs buy cost allocation with a down payment to get the monthly cost I wanted.
Percent of my income for housing costs has actually dropped since buying, that never happened when I rented.
You need to take into consideration the ROI of your down payment as well. The S&P 500 goes up at a pretty consistent 7-10 percent yearly clip. Your $100k down payment will be worth about a quarter of a million dollars in ten years. Are you going to save that sort of money owning vs renting over a decade? Maybe. Maybe not. It's fuzzy.
It varies depending upon the situation but I've never been convinced it's a slam dunk financial decision.
Factors like:
- Can you rent the type of property you want
- For houses in particular, are you willing to put work in
- How mobile do you want to be
- How important is it to customize the property to how you want it
etc.
Factors like:
- Can you rent the type of property you want
- For houses in particular, are you willing to put work in
- How mobile do you want to be
- How important is it to customize the property to how you want it
etc.
It's not a slam dunk if you just look at the numbers. With appreciation, my home, taking into account maintenance, renovations, significant raises in HoA fees and insurance, etc, and correlating that with how much it appreciated in value, probably comes a little shy of a triple-fund portfolio investment.
The catch is, I get to live in it. I made it awesome. I put a ton of money on the kitchen, the bathroom, etc to make it something I'll never be able to rent (without paying 9-10k/month anyway, and I can't afford that). I was able to do all that while still coming up only SLIGHTLY below renting + investing the extra.
There's a certain emotional value to buying a house that the math can't capture. Even JUST with the financial math, it's pretty close (and sometimes an amazing investment, in the right market). But once you tack on the emotional value, it shits all over the alternative (for people who want a home to call their own).
I can't think of any other purchase where you can get something you really want, AND have that thing be a mediocre or better investment at the same time. I can't live inside of my S&P500 position.
The catch is, I get to live in it. I made it awesome. I put a ton of money on the kitchen, the bathroom, etc to make it something I'll never be able to rent (without paying 9-10k/month anyway, and I can't afford that). I was able to do all that while still coming up only SLIGHTLY below renting + investing the extra.
There's a certain emotional value to buying a house that the math can't capture. Even JUST with the financial math, it's pretty close (and sometimes an amazing investment, in the right market). But once you tack on the emotional value, it shits all over the alternative (for people who want a home to call their own).
I can't think of any other purchase where you can get something you really want, AND have that thing be a mediocre or better investment at the same time. I can't live inside of my S&P500 position.
> The S&P 500 goes up at a pretty consistent 7-10 percent yearly clip. Your $100k down payment will be worth about a quarter of a million dollars in ten years.
Bay Area housing prices tend to appreciate at that rate or faster, and you can acheive much more leverage with better downside risk protection buying housing, since California is a non-recourse state. Plus, it replaces a rental expense you would otherwise have, which a stock market investment doesn’t: you can’t live in an ETF.
Risk is higher, too, so its not all upside.
Bay Area housing prices tend to appreciate at that rate or faster, and you can acheive much more leverage with better downside risk protection buying housing, since California is a non-recourse state. Plus, it replaces a rental expense you would otherwise have, which a stock market investment doesn’t: you can’t live in an ETF.
Risk is higher, too, so its not all upside.
of course your mileage may vary. Renting is more expensive because it is offloading risk in other ways. I don't need to keep a repair fund for a new roof, or a new dishwasher, or a new furnace. Housing is exceptionally illiquid with a 6 percent+ haircut whenever one decides to sell. In california, specifically, a repeal of proposition 13 would destroy both the value of homes home and tax bills would skyrocket.
Risk is priced in to both asset classes. Nothing is set in stone.
Risk is priced in to both asset classes. Nothing is set in stone.
If your dishwasher breaks you can buy something nice and not have the cheapest noisiest machine the landlord buys.
Yes there are maintenance items if you own and need to set aside money for those things.
Yes there are maintenance items if you own and need to set aside money for those things.
What I didn't understand when I bought was that property taxes actually will make your mortgage payments go up. Mine went up about 1.5% after one year. I'm very curious what it will be this year, as property values have gone way up.
Property taxes are a small fraction of a mortgage payment though. When property values go up, rents usually go up a similar amount, and renters eat all that cost. However homeowners housing costs go up a tiny fraction compared to renters.
If by a small fraction you mean 20, 30% or more (and higher if your home appreciated a lot since you bought it), then yeah, sure.
My taxes are about 25-30% of my mortgage payment (after a massive residential exemption, too), and if you have a slightly more expensive than average home in a low cost area (so things like school taxes will be higher to raise a similar amount of money per child), it can get reaaaaally expensive.
My taxes are about 25-30% of my mortgage payment (after a massive residential exemption, too), and if you have a slightly more expensive than average home in a low cost area (so things like school taxes will be higher to raise a similar amount of money per child), it can get reaaaaally expensive.
yeah, our property taxes have been skyrocketing, because the city is raising it by the max legally allowed every year AND they have votes to raise it further (usually by misrepresenting the needs to get people emotionally involved. Also renters generally think tax rates don't affect them, which is incorrect).
On the other hand, I chose to manage my own taxes instead of having the lender escrow it for me, so I get to see them separately. It helps putting things in perspective.
On the other hand, I chose to manage my own taxes instead of having the lender escrow it for me, so I get to see them separately. It helps putting things in perspective.
Higher property taxes mean that less property will be hoarded, and that it's likely that real estate will be put to more productive use.
It's the rare market where rents are set according to how much it costs to provide the rental, as that would be a market that is oversupplied, and most governments work hard to prevent that from happening. In supply-constrained markets, rents are set by what the market can pay, not based on how much property taxes are or interest rates for mortgages or maintenance costs.
It's the rare market where rents are set according to how much it costs to provide the rental, as that would be a market that is oversupplied, and most governments work hard to prevent that from happening. In supply-constrained markets, rents are set by what the market can pay, not based on how much property taxes are or interest rates for mortgages or maintenance costs.
I think your logic around rent vs. mortgate highlights a huge shift in the perception of home ownership as well. I'm not convinced many people ask "Can I afford this home?" as much anymore, vs. "Can I affort the payments on this home?". This happened a while ago in vehicle ownership; no one cares that a truck has a MSRP north of $100K, just that they can swing the biweekly (or weekly!) payment of $xxx
This was always the intent of very lower interest rates, so I think the question for all the crystal ball prognosticators out there is will interest rates eventually rise and change the math, or are savers the suckers because inflation will erode their wealth? I have to believe that we can have low, steady prices OR free cash, but the current situation of both can't last. What do you think?
This was always the intent of very lower interest rates, so I think the question for all the crystal ball prognosticators out there is will interest rates eventually rise and change the math, or are savers the suckers because inflation will erode their wealth? I have to believe that we can have low, steady prices OR free cash, but the current situation of both can't last. What do you think?
Yeah, you pretty much nailed it - this article gives context, but it's pretty much as you said, most people are not adjusting by inflation & interest rate: https://realestatedecoded.com/the-shocking-truth-about-house...
Think of houses like bonds that pay a coupon (rent). If risk free rate goes down, the coupon is worth more in comparison so house price goes up.
The only downside is that when you buy a house that is cheap with a high interest rate you can benefit from refinancing if the rate goes down (and deduct your mortgage interest, which used to be significant tax savings). When you buy an expensive house at a low rate, you get no such benefit (although if inflation does pick up, the fact that you are implicitly short the borrowed dollars might still work in your favor).
Think of houses like bonds that pay a coupon (rent). If risk free rate goes down, the coupon is worth more in comparison so house price goes up.
The only downside is that when you buy a house that is cheap with a high interest rate you can benefit from refinancing if the rate goes down (and deduct your mortgage interest, which used to be significant tax savings). When you buy an expensive house at a low rate, you get no such benefit (although if inflation does pick up, the fact that you are implicitly short the borrowed dollars might still work in your favor).
I think this is the correct analysis in many ways, but I am very fond of the Minsky view that we are all agents dealing with cash-flow.
The other side of cash flow is income, and I'd be very interested to see if income has kept under this analysis too...
The other side of cash flow is income, and I'd be very interested to see if income has kept under this analysis too...
Exactly, and not everyone is in white collar high paying job.
I have few friends that are in a saving vicious cycle, high rent and cost of living eat up saving so that they save little. This makes them resigned and depressed - so the spend money on stuff to make them happy.
Having 25 yr old tell you that they will be able to afford a down-payment in 20 years is a telling sign.
I have few friends that are in a saving vicious cycle, high rent and cost of living eat up saving so that they save little. This makes them resigned and depressed - so the spend money on stuff to make them happy.
Having 25 yr old tell you that they will be able to afford a down-payment in 20 years is a telling sign.
At some point we need to have a reckoning on home prices, because there's only so much blood to squeeze out of those who don't own homes. Sure, parents that own will help their children continue the ever upward ratchet of prices, but as the disparity grows more and more it will eventually lead to social unrest.
Already in the high demand areas of the country, the land that a house sits on is appreciating at a rate faster than a lot of full-time wages.
There's a massive bubble in land prices that's happened due to suppressing building across entire regions, via downzonings decades ago.
At some point housing has to return to acting like a piggy bank, rather than an asset that rises in value in excess of productive economic activity.
Already in the high demand areas of the country, the land that a house sits on is appreciating at a rate faster than a lot of full-time wages.
There's a massive bubble in land prices that's happened due to suppressing building across entire regions, via downzonings decades ago.
At some point housing has to return to acting like a piggy bank, rather than an asset that rises in value in excess of productive economic activity.
not all housing everywhere has gone up, just the desirable housing in desirable locations where people have excess income to spend on housing. Housing can gobble up as much of percentage of your incomine as you let it, and when incomes are large, and interest rates are low, the ceiling becomes quite high.
This is really important.
30% of someone making minimum wage isn't the same thing as 30% of someone making 500k/year.
I'm fairly well off. If housing took 70% of my after-tax income, I'd still be able to live reasonably well (and would have one hell of a badass home to go with it).
My food, my phone, my electricity bill, my insurance, my transportation, they cost me the same as they cost someone else living in the same city making 1/4th of the money. Since real estate is wealth storage at worse and an investment at best, I can pour everything else I make it into it. It's not particularly optimal, but I -can- do it if I so choose.
The end result is that money available for housing goes up in a curve as you go up the income bracket. People below the threshold get screwed.
30% of someone making minimum wage isn't the same thing as 30% of someone making 500k/year.
I'm fairly well off. If housing took 70% of my after-tax income, I'd still be able to live reasonably well (and would have one hell of a badass home to go with it).
My food, my phone, my electricity bill, my insurance, my transportation, they cost me the same as they cost someone else living in the same city making 1/4th of the money. Since real estate is wealth storage at worse and an investment at best, I can pour everything else I make it into it. It's not particularly optimal, but I -can- do it if I so choose.
The end result is that money available for housing goes up in a curve as you go up the income bracket. People below the threshold get screwed.
The problem there is that ratios are still important. If you are using 70% of your income on housing, you will lose your house as soon as you lose your job. Unless you spend less than 10% of your remaining income, you can’t really save for retirement or a rainy day. The ratios still matter unless you assume people never lose work (which isn’t realistic).
That is the reality for virtually everybody I know - university educated folks in Canada with white collar jobs. job gone - house gone within a year, and probably not saving much for retirement. We live in an area with a bubbly real estate market and a place to live in now and have a family home is more important than saving for 'retirement'. As we have all seen over the last 15 years the real estate market only goes up and savings in secure low return investments is is not a winning strategy, so you have to get in as early as you can or move away and say 'see ya' to your friends and family. The thinner you can stretch it when you enter the market, the higher you can lever yourself out, the better off you become in the long run! it is sick but that is reality.
I honestly don't know any of my peers to be without work, ever.
The mothers are taking less than a year off work per child and then they are back to work too. I think dual income families are another reason house prices have skyrocketed, get two YUPPIE 'DINKS' saving for their downpayment and 1% interest rates and yeah they can afford to bid up the price of a house.
Carpenters are getting $75/hr CAD around here in house construction, and a plumber is $125/hr, so per my grand parent commment people are also simply earning a lot of money so they can afford a $5k monthly payment.
edit: grammar
I honestly don't know any of my peers to be without work, ever.
The mothers are taking less than a year off work per child and then they are back to work too. I think dual income families are another reason house prices have skyrocketed, get two YUPPIE 'DINKS' saving for their downpayment and 1% interest rates and yeah they can afford to bid up the price of a house.
Carpenters are getting $75/hr CAD around here in house construction, and a plumber is $125/hr, so per my grand parent commment people are also simply earning a lot of money so they can afford a $5k monthly payment.
edit: grammar
This all points to a huge undersupply of housing.
If prices are set by the maximum that people can pay, rather than what the costs are to provide housing, then there's an easy solution: allow more housing to be built.
Nearly everybody can afford to pay for the costs of providing housing: the maintenance, the amortized cost of construction over the lifetime of the house.
What people can't afford to pay for are the increases in land prices due to the housing shortage. This sets up a two class system: those that own the land and see benefit from appreciating land prices, and continue to have the flexibility to move and own land becuase they bought early, and the unlanded, who are doomed to pay ever increasing land costs in their monthly rents, with all the benefit going to landlords and homeowners who reap the land rents.
It's a gigantic unproductive transfer of wealth from those with less to those with more. In addition to the human misery and poverty that this causes among working people, this also greatly increases inequality, which further reduced economic output of society.
And there's a simple solution to it all: allow people to pay to build housing rather than forcing them to bid up limited supply and pass off their stored labor to idle land owners.
However, the homeowners who benefit from this system are the ones with the political power to keep their rentierism enforced by law...
If prices are set by the maximum that people can pay, rather than what the costs are to provide housing, then there's an easy solution: allow more housing to be built.
Nearly everybody can afford to pay for the costs of providing housing: the maintenance, the amortized cost of construction over the lifetime of the house.
What people can't afford to pay for are the increases in land prices due to the housing shortage. This sets up a two class system: those that own the land and see benefit from appreciating land prices, and continue to have the flexibility to move and own land becuase they bought early, and the unlanded, who are doomed to pay ever increasing land costs in their monthly rents, with all the benefit going to landlords and homeowners who reap the land rents.
It's a gigantic unproductive transfer of wealth from those with less to those with more. In addition to the human misery and poverty that this causes among working people, this also greatly increases inequality, which further reduced economic output of society.
And there's a simple solution to it all: allow people to pay to build housing rather than forcing them to bid up limited supply and pass off their stored labor to idle land owners.
However, the homeowners who benefit from this system are the ones with the political power to keep their rentierism enforced by law...
there is no housing or land shortage - simply desirable houses in desirable locations are expensive.
Check out this website: https://www.cheapoldhouses.com/ there are many houses on there for not much money but they are obviously not in desirable locations. Some need some repairs but that is just time & materials not buying expensive land. So there is lots of cheap land and cheap houses.
Increasing density by tearing down some single family homes and replacing with townhomes is probably a workable compromise - now there are three dwellings where before there was 1, and everybody still gets a garage and a yard, but each of those townhomes will still be priced up to what the market will bear because there will not be an infinite supply of them.
In my town of 20,000 about 1000 dwellings are coming online significantly increasing the supply - potentially increasing the populatiog by 2000-4000 people, (up to 20%!) but they were all snapped up for $800-900k and now there is only one available for $1.2M.
People want to live in desirable places, and will pay more to do so. Nice places are always going to be expensive.
If you don't have a house you can hack the system by moving to a place with cheap dwellings and making it desirable, which is a normal pattern: Artists and musicians move to cheap neighborhood, it becomes cool & desirable
Check out this website: https://www.cheapoldhouses.com/ there are many houses on there for not much money but they are obviously not in desirable locations. Some need some repairs but that is just time & materials not buying expensive land. So there is lots of cheap land and cheap houses.
Increasing density by tearing down some single family homes and replacing with townhomes is probably a workable compromise - now there are three dwellings where before there was 1, and everybody still gets a garage and a yard, but each of those townhomes will still be priced up to what the market will bear because there will not be an infinite supply of them.
In my town of 20,000 about 1000 dwellings are coming online significantly increasing the supply - potentially increasing the populatiog by 2000-4000 people, (up to 20%!) but they were all snapped up for $800-900k and now there is only one available for $1.2M.
People want to live in desirable places, and will pay more to do so. Nice places are always going to be expensive.
If you don't have a house you can hack the system by moving to a place with cheap dwellings and making it desirable, which is a normal pattern: Artists and musicians move to cheap neighborhood, it becomes cool & desirable
Building housing is starting to get really high. I don't know if its because the margin is so high that workers can be paid that much (I'd be skeptical), but the average price to build in the expensive cities is pretty high. Not as high as what it sells for, but definitely higher than a lot of people can afford.
Add that right now there's a timber shortage (insurance costs are spiking recently for that reason), and it's probably not helping.
The land value is the most actionable problem, but it doesn't solve everything.
Add that right now there's a timber shortage (insurance costs are spiking recently for that reason), and it's probably not helping.
The land value is the most actionable problem, but it doesn't solve everything.
Timber shortage is kind of the wrong way to put it. We have a lack of redundancy in sawmills. We actually have a lot of timber - just not enough sawmills to process the timber and turn it into wood products that people can use in construction. Just like the CPU shortage - no one wants to build new fabs/sawmills because everyone assumes demand is just high for now and won't stay high forever... So, for now, they all get to raise their prices and rain in the profit.
mills have been going out of business for decades since we are shipping whole logs overseas to be processed there.
Local small players, boutique mills if you will, can't even buy logs because the lots of logs that are put up for sale are so big only container-ship scale buyers are in the game.
I am 100% against exporting whole logs, we have lost so many jobs in the mills and supporting the mills.
Local small players, boutique mills if you will, can't even buy logs because the lots of logs that are put up for sale are so big only container-ship scale buyers are in the game.
I am 100% against exporting whole logs, we have lost so many jobs in the mills and supporting the mills.
I don't know if that's the sole reason that smaller mills have been going out of business... As far as I know - we've had a massive amount of consolidation in mills under a few major corporations. (Same as anything, really) I agree with exporting whole logs as that seems very wasteful.
But I wouldn't be surprised if the reason boutique mills can't buy logs as easily is because there are contractual agreements with larger suppliers. That isn't really anything new in any industry... guess you need the government to step in to prevent that.
But I wouldn't be surprised if the reason boutique mills can't buy logs as easily is because there are contractual agreements with larger suppliers. That isn't really anything new in any industry... guess you need the government to step in to prevent that.
In The Netherlands the house prices have only continued to go up during the pandemic. As a Millenial myself, buying a house is still out of reach.
No resignation for me anytime soon.
No resignation for me anytime soon.
I feel for you. From what I hear, the population in the Netherlands has a unique appetite for overleveraging to buy a home (and this is coming from someone who lives in the most overpriced housing market in the world)
It's a combination of many factors. Restricted supply of new homes is one very large one, ridiculously high rents, ridiculously low interest, preferential treatment for tax reduction on account of a mortgage further reducing the net interest paid and so on. Even after 2008, arguably the largest drop in house prices here in a very long time the market didn't drop nearly as far as it could have on account of everybody being locked in to their purchases and unable to move to something else until the market loosened up again.
It's a pretty tricky situation, everybody knows that the market is overvalued but as long as supply is this constrained and prices remain high buyers are left with very few options.
If the interests go up to something reasonable again (5-10% or so) there will be a lot of people in trouble but it won't immediately lead to a price drop unless investors move away from the buy side. This is especially true for apartments which are going for crazy rates because investors buy them up as fast as they hit the market. A typical property is for sale less than two weeks, and usually on the day it goes up for sale there is already a waiting list.
It's a pretty tricky situation, everybody knows that the market is overvalued but as long as supply is this constrained and prices remain high buyers are left with very few options.
If the interests go up to something reasonable again (5-10% or so) there will be a lot of people in trouble but it won't immediately lead to a price drop unless investors move away from the buy side. This is especially true for apartments which are going for crazy rates because investors buy them up as fast as they hit the market. A typical property is for sale less than two weeks, and usually on the day it goes up for sale there is already a waiting list.
It seems like most of Europe currently has issues like that. Sweden had to recently pass a law capping mortgage terms at 105 years. The average mortgage term for a time was 140 years.
https://www.thelocal.se/20160324/sweden-limits-mortgage-loan...
https://www.thelocal.se/20160324/sweden-limits-mortgage-loan...
My wife and I have been living in a studio to save for a down payment and meant to buy last year, but didn't. Now we have saved up double what we were expecting since we stayed in the studio for a year longer than planned. I think there are a lot of couples like us who are now on the market, having been vaccinated and ready to move out.
I know everyone is expecting housing to go up in near future for a variety of reasons but I see couple of counter trends that might temper the market
1. return to office
2. increase in interest rates due to inflation
3. effects from lifting eviction bans, rolling back unemployment covid provisions ect.
4. Biden govt encouraging more house building.
1. return to office
2. increase in interest rates due to inflation
3. effects from lifting eviction bans, rolling back unemployment covid provisions ect.
4. Biden govt encouraging more house building.
If #4 happens that would be the best thing all around (imho). Creates real value that can be absorbed without destroying access as people leave/reenter cities.
However, as we have seen in many densely populated cities the amount of red tape in development is absurd and probably results in an incredibly diluted impact
However, as we have seen in many densely populated cities the amount of red tape in development is absurd and probably results in an incredibly diluted impact
How can house prices go down when there's 4x as much money (M1) [1], 30% more broad money (M2) [2], and debt service is 25% cheaper [3]?
This is /before/ any additional stimulus (monetized by the Fed).
Additionally, the personal savings rate is also at an all time high [4] - and net worth of individuals has increased by >$12Tr (>50% of US GDP).
In one year...
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1
[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2
[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US
[4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT
This is /before/ any additional stimulus (monetized by the Fed).
Additionally, the personal savings rate is also at an all time high [4] - and net worth of individuals has increased by >$12Tr (>50% of US GDP).
In one year...
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1
[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2
[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US
[4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT
Anecdotally, I'm already seeing this at my tech company. A few coworkers have quit without a next job lined up in order to take a sabbatical.
This past year, if you've been working at a US tech company it's been easy to save enough money to just quit for a little while, and the fact that people haven't been able to buy things like childcare or vacations means they may really feel the need to.
This past year, if you've been working at a US tech company it's been easy to save enough money to just quit for a little while, and the fact that people haven't been able to buy things like childcare or vacations means they may really feel the need to.
That's exactly what I did. Part of me feels guilty about it because I don't have kids, so I feel like I can't really complain by comparison. But I feel just so tired that I literally couldn't do my job anymore.
Yeah, I've been struggling this spring, too. I also don't have kids, and the hours I've been working are reasonable, but living through a year+ of pandemic has resulted in a weird kind of exhausted burnout. I'm actually hoping returning part-time to the office will help.
This is something I’m considering myself. I’ve been working in the industry for a while and have always thought about taking a few months off from working but just never had the guts to leave the comfortable routine. Now I’m considering it seriously when it seems the pandemic has died down enough. Being cooped up working at home has made me realize time is precious and I should broaden my horizons a bit.
This article does call out for some actual data although the general point that people may not have seen this as the best time to switch jobs makes sense. That said, I've seen a pretty decent in and out flow of people from and to other jobs where I work.
I've also seen some retirements. Which is par for the course naturally. On the other hand, it's not out of the realm of possibility to imagine people deciding to stick it out for another year when there's nothing to do anyway but figuring that right about now is as good a time as any if they were near to pulling the trigger anyway.
I've also seen some retirements. Which is par for the course naturally. On the other hand, it's not out of the realm of possibility to imagine people deciding to stick it out for another year when there's nothing to do anyway but figuring that right about now is as good a time as any if they were near to pulling the trigger anyway.
What do they do about health insurance?
You can still purchase healthcare insurance through healthcare.gov, for up to 60 days after losing employer-supplied insurance, whether you were fired, or quit.
Also, the enrollment period is extended through August last I checked due to COVID. So, basically you can just purchase your own after leaving, if you want.
Or you can go COBRA, but that's hella expensive.
Also, the enrollment period is extended through August last I checked due to COVID. So, basically you can just purchase your own after leaving, if you want.
Or you can go COBRA, but that's hella expensive.
>Or you can go COBRA, but that's hella expensive.
Well, it's expensive, in many cases, because you're paying for an unsubsidized high-end company plan.
Well, it's expensive, in many cases, because you're paying for an unsubsidized high-end company plan.
Either COBRA, pay for anything you go to the doctor for out of pocket, or just don’t get sick.
I would guess the usual options like ACA or COBRA.
Just buy catastrophic. It's cheap and covers you for the big things (auto accident, heart attack, etc). Lots of doctors that only charge $30 for a regular visit (no insurance).
COBRA is actually retroactive so you don't actually need to purchase it until you _need_ it. So a lot probably just bank on not needing it.
I quit my job a few years ago to go hiking for 4 months and I got free health insurance from my state since I had zero income.
It looks like the original source is Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-10/quit-your...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-10/quit-your...
You can also just prepend arxiv.link to the url:
https://arxiv.link/https://dailymirror.co.za/2021/05/11/the-...
https://arxiv.link/https://dailymirror.co.za/2021/05/11/the-...
I left a good salary at a tech startup late last year. The pressure to perform at home, from a boss screaming over Zoom, made me realize that I've had enough of that rodeo. I keep my living expenses minimal. I eat dinner with my neighbors now and I'm actively involved in the raising of their child. Burning through savings in a big city, so I might get a part-time job, but for the moment, I am enjoying waking up well-rested.
I'm one of those, last day at the end of this month.
I'm looking forward to shaking off the old routine that I felt I had for the last few years. I got too complacent IMO, far too comfortable doing the same-old-same-old.
I'm looking forward to shaking off the old routine that I felt I had for the last few years. I got too complacent IMO, far too comfortable doing the same-old-same-old.
I haven't resigned, but I feel the same way!
Well this tracks for myself and a few software engineers I know.
Same. All these other doubtful comments and I’m sitting here like yep – I already quit my job a month ago! Still not seeking work either. I can vouch for a friend who quit an eng job at Amazon just recently as well.
The housing market was still too competitive to buy, though. Houses 100 miles out from Seattle were selling for six figures over asking price back in March! Couldn’t get an offer accepted anywhere because there was always another buyer who had full cash.
The housing market was still too competitive to buy, though. Houses 100 miles out from Seattle were selling for six figures over asking price back in March! Couldn’t get an offer accepted anywhere because there was always another buyer who had full cash.
> Should I quit before or after returning to the office?
> Consider going back for at least a week or two. Think of it as a test of your hypothesis. Humans tend to be really bad at predicting how they’ll actually feel.
This is really bad advice for a lot of people. Especially tech people.
1. Currently you're working from home, and almost all the other companies you'd consider working at are also home. This means you don't need to take unexplained time off work to go into the city for an interview -- you're at home, your interviews are remote, and most companies have been willing to work with people to interview outside business hours, since everyone's home anyway. This is the time to look, not only because you have time and aren't commuting and coming home exhausted, but because companies are being more flexible with remote. Instead of fighting with your current company for a flexible remote policy, while you're stuck back in the office, you can work out a full or hybrid remote arrangement with a new company, as part of the terms of starting there.
2. At least for tech employees, this is a sellers' market, and you're the seller. Tech unemployment is around 1.2%. No matter what you're currently making, someone is going to be willing to pay you more to do it there. I've watched medium sized tech companies streamline their byzantine interview processes because they couldn't interview people faster than they were hired elsewhere. If you have good tech chops, it has never been easier to find a job quickly, and never easier to set your own terms and salary. The big tech companies are still being stodgy, and the small silicon valley tech startups still want to pretend they're big tech companies, but if you get your resume in front of a recruiter, they have small and medium sized businesses lining up to hire literally anyone they can.
So if you're in tech, which is probably why you read Hacker News, this is not good advice. If your company isn't giving you real plans for coming back that you're comfortable with, throw your resume out there and watch companies fight to have you. They will work with you on those plans, and you're in a better position than you think you are for those discussions. Everyone's laughing at fast food places putting up signs saying "No one wants to work anymore" because people realized they didn't have to. We're a few months from some tech companies being in the same spot.
> Consider going back for at least a week or two. Think of it as a test of your hypothesis. Humans tend to be really bad at predicting how they’ll actually feel.
This is really bad advice for a lot of people. Especially tech people.
1. Currently you're working from home, and almost all the other companies you'd consider working at are also home. This means you don't need to take unexplained time off work to go into the city for an interview -- you're at home, your interviews are remote, and most companies have been willing to work with people to interview outside business hours, since everyone's home anyway. This is the time to look, not only because you have time and aren't commuting and coming home exhausted, but because companies are being more flexible with remote. Instead of fighting with your current company for a flexible remote policy, while you're stuck back in the office, you can work out a full or hybrid remote arrangement with a new company, as part of the terms of starting there.
2. At least for tech employees, this is a sellers' market, and you're the seller. Tech unemployment is around 1.2%. No matter what you're currently making, someone is going to be willing to pay you more to do it there. I've watched medium sized tech companies streamline their byzantine interview processes because they couldn't interview people faster than they were hired elsewhere. If you have good tech chops, it has never been easier to find a job quickly, and never easier to set your own terms and salary. The big tech companies are still being stodgy, and the small silicon valley tech startups still want to pretend they're big tech companies, but if you get your resume in front of a recruiter, they have small and medium sized businesses lining up to hire literally anyone they can.
So if you're in tech, which is probably why you read Hacker News, this is not good advice. If your company isn't giving you real plans for coming back that you're comfortable with, throw your resume out there and watch companies fight to have you. They will work with you on those plans, and you're in a better position than you think you are for those discussions. Everyone's laughing at fast food places putting up signs saying "No one wants to work anymore" because people realized they didn't have to. We're a few months from some tech companies being in the same spot.
> If you have good tech chops, it has never been easier to find a job quickly, and never easier to set your own terms and salary.
What are you basing this on?
What are you basing this on?
The conversations I had with multiple recruiters who were having trouble placing candidates with clients because they were getting hired elsewhere faster than they could even finish interviewing them. I didn't envy their position.
This of course isn't universal. If you apply to the flashy postings on WeWorkRemotely where companies have high profile CEOs making dozens of blog posts about revolutionizing their industry, those positions are getting hundreds of applications, and they can take their pick.
But if you find a posting on a job site posted by a recruiter, and apply, you will get phone calls from several other recruiters at that agency, struggling quite hard to find candidates for small and medium size companies having trouble placing people. And they are having a lot of trouble placing people right now. Get yourself into recruiter databases, set yourself as open to work on LinkedIn, and the requests just pour in.
This of course isn't universal. If you apply to the flashy postings on WeWorkRemotely where companies have high profile CEOs making dozens of blog posts about revolutionizing their industry, those positions are getting hundreds of applications, and they can take their pick.
But if you find a posting on a job site posted by a recruiter, and apply, you will get phone calls from several other recruiters at that agency, struggling quite hard to find candidates for small and medium size companies having trouble placing people. And they are having a lot of trouble placing people right now. Get yourself into recruiter databases, set yourself as open to work on LinkedIn, and the requests just pour in.
Can't get the site to load :(
Edit: loading now--Okay, I'm not sure I buy much of this article. Most people need some kind of job to survive. So while there might be more turnover than usual in the marketplace, I don't foresee a bunch of people independently deciding to become homeless over "culture" at work.
Edit: loading now--Okay, I'm not sure I buy much of this article. Most people need some kind of job to survive. So while there might be more turnover than usual in the marketplace, I don't foresee a bunch of people independently deciding to become homeless over "culture" at work.
The server quit when it was asked to start wearing pants again.
[deleted]
My interpretation was that they were already looking to quit but didn't do so because of uncertainty of the pandemic. Supposedly, when the uncertainty resolves people in the resignation backlog will actually quit.
My point is it doesn't matter--on a large scale, movement _between_ jobs is a zero-sum game. Businesses might see a spike in hiring costs, but by your logic they'll just be making up for lost time so it's even more-so a non-story if that's the case.
Took several tries for me, finally got it... well the text.
It’s as though a year of high pitched media alarms going off about the impending wave of death and devastation, 24-7 news flooding the zone created with the intention to incite fear, gloom and doom in the American people, astonishingly enough with the paternalistic conviction it’s for “our” own good — it’s as though all that might somehow desensitize people. I call it a reorientation to risk. We went paste the fear saturation point. Consequences will never be the same.
[deleted]
How many people can actually afford to ... do that?
This is not the first time I've seen this prediction.
This is not the first time I've seen this prediction.
This is an upper middle class fantasy. It’s a very small slice of the population (though a big chunk of HN) that has the luxury to just quit a job and look for something better.
Most middle class and lower run a very tight money in=money out and can’t afford to be without work for more than a few weeks and certainly won’t resign without something else already lined up.
Most middle class and lower run a very tight money in=money out and can’t afford to be without work for more than a few weeks and certainly won’t resign without something else already lined up.
HN says I should have 15 years of expenses in a saving account before I consider moving out of my car and doing something extravagant like renting a studio apartment
This is the way.
Devs with cushy jobs cashing month after month, for sure. Others, no way.
This. And devs with no family or medical expenses. A warning to anyone thinking they'll be fine taking a sabbatical without health insurance: you're playing with fire. Don't try it in the U.S.
If you're young and healthy you can get a high deductible policy that will protect you in the event of a disaster for very cheap, in the $150/mo range. These are not the Obamacare covers all your pre-existing conditions without a healthcare screening plans.
If you don't have the resources to buy health insurance, you probably don't have enough cushion for a decent sabbatical anyway.
Why no health insurance? Go on the ACA exchange and pick a plan. It's an expense like any other.
COBRA is what I’ve seen people use when away from work, sometimes benefits continue for a few months.
A lot of these resignations will be people leaving for other jobs, not just giving up employment entirely. To the company left behind, that makes no difference; it's a resignation either way.
Average American makes $1.5 million total during their entire 40-50 year working career. In a world where tech salaries start around $100k and quickly go higher, many tech workers in their early 30s have already earned a lifetime's worth of average wages.
Can you quit if you want to continue living a lifestyle higher than the majority of Americans? No, but that's a tradeoff you're choosing.
Can you quit if you want to continue living a lifestyle higher than the majority of Americans? No, but that's a tradeoff you're choosing.
Probably a lot of well paid developers who have had nothing to spend their money on for a year and a half
But how many of them have these well paid jobs with low expenses?
Anecdotally, I'm one of them. I'm a single guy that gets paid well above my mortgage and I do not really like to endlessly consume stuff (same TV since around 2007 which my buddies always complain about when we get together to watch fights or whatever. I don't have a dishwasher or microwave, I like to live very simply). I've been seriously considering dropping to 50% or something so I can keep my insurance but drastically lower my stress and raise the amount of time I can just sit out on the porch playing my guitar
Me too, but I was also pushed.
I spent over 30 years, saving at around 40%, so I had a pretty decent amount ready for early retirement. I was able to sink a decent chunk into a couple of small corporations, while still having plenty to retire, but at a fairly humble level (that 40% meant no Teslas or in-ground pools).
By "pushed," I mean that when I started looking for work, I was treated quite barbarously. Some, by corporations, but mostly by headhunters. It was made quite clear, that I was not welcome in today's tech field.
So I had to swallow my pride, and just deal with the fact that no one wants to play with me, and I found some folks that would be happy to take what I have to offer for free. They are getting some pretty top-shelf work. I'm no slouch.
Best decision I ever made. The last couple of years have been some of the happiest of my life.
I spent over 30 years, saving at around 40%, so I had a pretty decent amount ready for early retirement. I was able to sink a decent chunk into a couple of small corporations, while still having plenty to retire, but at a fairly humble level (that 40% meant no Teslas or in-ground pools).
By "pushed," I mean that when I started looking for work, I was treated quite barbarously. Some, by corporations, but mostly by headhunters. It was made quite clear, that I was not welcome in today's tech field.
So I had to swallow my pride, and just deal with the fact that no one wants to play with me, and I found some folks that would be happy to take what I have to offer for free. They are getting some pretty top-shelf work. I'm no slouch.
Best decision I ever made. The last couple of years have been some of the happiest of my life.
Wow, 40% savings is awesome. I think I'm lucky to hit 20%, even including employer contributions.
TBH, it would vary from year to year. A lot of the savings were used during the year (I never carried debt, so I would use saved money to do big purchases).
I also live pretty humbly. A lot of HN folks would not approve.
I also live pretty humbly. A lot of HN folks would not approve.
Most working class people are both time and money poor. To be in a position to buy time back for a better life is a rare privilege, and I'm grateful to be in that position myself.
As someone who's been looking to change jobs recently, this definitely tracks. I feel like for me at least, I used to really enjoy the environment of my job much more than the job itself. However, since we're all locked down, the job itself is basically the only thing I have now so I'm looking for something a bit more interesting. I wonder if that's the case for a lot of other "exiters".
The biggest part of the environment is the people. And the interactions with people aren't the same when you're remote.
This seems more like a how-to guide to leave your job (as if it is a new fashion trend) and reads more of a persuasion to leave your job post-pandemic.
At one LargeCo, you had to return to work for a certain period (six weeks?) after a sabbatical to retain incentives like stock options. It was common to hear people return from sabbatical ready to resign, but by the end of the six weeks they were pulled back into projects and went back to bitching about the place like everyone else.
I talked to management at work about this, because our best and most motivated engineers have quit in recent months. Management is fully aware and expecting lots of turnover and have already budgeted for it. So this isn't just "coming", it's already here, and business leaders are well aware.
If this is true, we should already have data to support it (since many businesses have already fully transitioned back to the office). I haven’t seen any such data.
IMO, whether remote work is here to stay depends on two questions: 1) Where are employees more productive 2) How much of a pay cut are employees willing to take to work from home?
The answer to the first question is pretty clear to me. We will be more productive in the office, on average. Primarily bc it’s human nature to exert the least effort possible to obtain resources, and so over time, employees will find more ways to slack from home while looking productive. Though there are exceptions, companies will base their decisions on the average productivity of each potential policy.
IMO, whether remote work is here to stay depends on two questions: 1) Where are employees more productive 2) How much of a pay cut are employees willing to take to work from home?
The answer to the first question is pretty clear to me. We will be more productive in the office, on average. Primarily bc it’s human nature to exert the least effort possible to obtain resources, and so over time, employees will find more ways to slack from home while looking productive. Though there are exceptions, companies will base their decisions on the average productivity of each potential policy.
Isn't there now a mountain of evidence, thanks to the pandemic, that remote employees were in fact more productive?
Why should remote employees take a pay cut at all? After all their employer is saving a great deal of money on office space.
Why should remote employees take a pay cut at all? After all their employer is saving a great deal of money on office space.
I think that is just the outcome that you inevitably get to if you start from the assumption that humans are lazy and just waiting to slack off and work back from there. If you believe that then work needs to be a prison to function.
I've seen this data too, but I don't think it's representative of post-covid WFH productivity because: 1) there are far fewer productivity distractions during COVID due to everyone being cooped up at home 2) people are still learning how to slack off while seeming productive 3) the novelty of WFH helps spur productivity
Among my early-20s friends, I don't think I've talked to a single person who thinks their office is running more effectively than it was before. If there is such a mountain of evidence, you should at least be able to point us to the foothills.
How many jobs do early 20’s people have to compare it with? They might also have a bias as it is their first job out of school and are excited about meeting other people.
Also the pandemic where 600k people died in the US alone might put a damper on things.
Also the pandemic where 600k people died in the US alone might put a damper on things.
I mean, they were all working the same jobs for 2-4 years before the pandemic hit. They experienced the decrease in productivity first-hand.
And yeah, I'm sure the pandemic had am impact on the effectiveness of remote work. But I'm disputing the aforementioned "mountain of evidence" which I so far haven't been able to view from my vantage point.
And yeah, I'm sure the pandemic had am impact on the effectiveness of remote work. But I'm disputing the aforementioned "mountain of evidence" which I so far haven't been able to view from my vantage point.
There's a mountain of evidence that people self-report they're more productive. That's not to say there aren't elements of that which are true, but it's not entirely clear to me that remote employees can continue to be meaningfully more productive than those teams would be in a traditional office setting, especially once the world opens back up.
The pandemic did give strong evidence that it was at least close, which was somewhat surprising to me, due in part the difficulties of formalizing previously ad-hoc communication patterns and in shared whiteboarding.
The pandemic did give strong evidence that it was at least close, which was somewhat surprising to me, due in part the difficulties of formalizing previously ad-hoc communication patterns and in shared whiteboarding.
>The pandemic did give strong evidence that it was at least close,
And it may be worth noting a couple other things:
- A fair number of people didn't have a great working situation at home whether in terms of the lack of a good work area or childcare/teaching on the side
- Under normal circumstances, it's not 100% virtual versus in-office. Distributed teams routinely get together for on-sites/off-sites which can provide a lot of the collaboration and team-building that people are lamenting the loss of with remote
And it may be worth noting a couple other things:
- A fair number of people didn't have a great working situation at home whether in terms of the lack of a good work area or childcare/teaching on the side
- Under normal circumstances, it's not 100% virtual versus in-office. Distributed teams routinely get together for on-sites/off-sites which can provide a lot of the collaboration and team-building that people are lamenting the loss of with remote
> Isn't there now a mountain of evidence, thanks to the pandemic, that remote employees were in fact more productive?
I never believed it to begin with. Seemed like a way to try to prop up confidence in markets, rather than hard science. Afaik, all organizations are horrible at measuring productivity.
I never believed it to begin with. Seemed like a way to try to prop up confidence in markets, rather than hard science. Afaik, all organizations are horrible at measuring productivity.
My place of work had an all hands a few months into the pandemic where they basically said they were surprised how everything is running as usual/better while everyone was WFH. I honestly don't know what they expected. People are slacking off while at home, but people slacked off at work too. It was not uncommon for me to lose my entire morning in the office to people coming to asking a simple question that then turns into a 30+ min conversation about random bullshit.
I know some people doing 2-4 hours of work per day, getting 100% as much done as they did in the office, then playing with their kids or cooking or reading or making art or just watching TV while they leave work chat open. Many not in tech. Office work generally is full of slack and meaningless butt-in-seat time.
There are complaints/observations of this dating back to at least the 1950s (see the wasteful faux-activity pretending-to-be-busy office work described in Revolutionary Road, for instance—it could have been written today, except there'd be more email, and it doesn't read as one bit exaggerated) so it's not like modern office workers are wildly less industrious than their predecessors from The Greatest Generation or the Baby Boomers or whatever. Office work under a modern corporation or other bureaucracy is just largely BS, evidently by nature.
So there may be about the same work getting done, but possibly way less "work".
There are complaints/observations of this dating back to at least the 1950s (see the wasteful faux-activity pretending-to-be-busy office work described in Revolutionary Road, for instance—it could have been written today, except there'd be more email, and it doesn't read as one bit exaggerated) so it's not like modern office workers are wildly less industrious than their predecessors from The Greatest Generation or the Baby Boomers or whatever. Office work under a modern corporation or other bureaucracy is just largely BS, evidently by nature.
So there may be about the same work getting done, but possibly way less "work".
[deleted]
On average would need quite a bit of data to back that up.
Anecdotally for myself I can't imagine why I would ever return to an office unless it was a couple blocks from where I live. Even then I'd want a private office with a door, a couch, and a nice garden to sit in outside when I need some time to decompress and think.
I get the same amount of work done with far less stress working from home. No commute, no random noise, no people tapping me on the shoulder, fewer meetings, no small talk and awkward social situations.
I get more sleep and less stress. At least in my field, software development (and knowledge work in general), those two factors have the greatest impact on "productivity." [0] [1]
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2656292/
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/99-101/
Anecdotally for myself I can't imagine why I would ever return to an office unless it was a couple blocks from where I live. Even then I'd want a private office with a door, a couch, and a nice garden to sit in outside when I need some time to decompress and think.
I get the same amount of work done with far less stress working from home. No commute, no random noise, no people tapping me on the shoulder, fewer meetings, no small talk and awkward social situations.
I get more sleep and less stress. At least in my field, software development (and knowledge work in general), those two factors have the greatest impact on "productivity." [0] [1]
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2656292/
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/99-101/
I think your reasons around productivity being greater in the office are valid. But there are lots of reasons why people can be more productive at home too. For example I can often concentrate better as there are fewer distractions. I can also take a quick 20 minute nap and then be productive for the rest of the day rather than sitting at my desk zombified for the whole afternoon because napping isn't socially acceptable, or there are no good places to nap.
This is a bigger advantage for a lot of us that is not widely represented in the usual "pros" of working remotely.
I can go for a springtime walk on the trails five minutes from my new place since I moved out of the Toronto downtown core. I couldn't have gotten out of my building inside of 15 minutes let alone to a wooded trail where I was living before.
I can also take a five minute break and play some guitar and clear my head rather than going to the cafeteria to buy overpriced coffee or just clicking around on nonsense online. And lunch is way cheaper, and less time-consuming.
It's really nice.
That said, I've never been one for so many of the pretences we entertain socially. There's an immense amount of overhead in managing those mores.
I can go for a springtime walk on the trails five minutes from my new place since I moved out of the Toronto downtown core. I couldn't have gotten out of my building inside of 15 minutes let alone to a wooded trail where I was living before.
I can also take a five minute break and play some guitar and clear my head rather than going to the cafeteria to buy overpriced coffee or just clicking around on nonsense online. And lunch is way cheaper, and less time-consuming.
It's really nice.
That said, I've never been one for so many of the pretences we entertain socially. There's an immense amount of overhead in managing those mores.
If workers are equally or more productive (and companies are saving money by offloading work space costs onto individual employees) why should the employees accept a pay cut at all?
I agree - all else equal, I think workers should expect a pay bump if they are indeed equally or more productive at home. I'm working under the assumption that they're less productive, in which case it's a matter of how to maximize the productivity to cost ratio (from the perspective of the company).
I think it depends on whether the job requires serious concentration. When I was working as a programmer, I was much more productive at home.
I'm no less a slacker than anyone else but I had deadlines to meet. Being at home meant I could largely exclude interruptions, pace around talking to myself to figure things out, and crank out code, which I enjoyed anyway. And if I also had to work days at the office, it gave me more room to slack off there, where it was harder to concentrate.
I'm no less a slacker than anyone else but I had deadlines to meet. Being at home meant I could largely exclude interruptions, pace around talking to myself to figure things out, and crank out code, which I enjoyed anyway. And if I also had to work days at the office, it gave me more room to slack off there, where it was harder to concentrate.
> 2) How much of a pay cut are employees willing to take to work from home?
Wh ... why? What about not coming into an office means that I should be paid less? A lot of companies have reduced their in-office capacity in the last year+, presumably slashing costs.
This seems to pivot on the archaic idea that if you're not in the office you're goofing off or something. I remember feeling that myself when I first worked with remote people a decade ago but at this point we should all kind of understand that work is work.
Wh ... why? What about not coming into an office means that I should be paid less? A lot of companies have reduced their in-office capacity in the last year+, presumably slashing costs.
This seems to pivot on the archaic idea that if you're not in the office you're goofing off or something. I remember feeling that myself when I first worked with remote people a decade ago but at this point we should all kind of understand that work is work.
The reason is if I were an employer, I'd gladly cut your pay because there would be a line out the door once I consider people nation-wide, let alone internationally. As an employee, I'd gladly take your job at a fraction of your pay for the guarantee that I can be fully remote.
>What about not coming into an office means that I should be paid less?
Sometimes there are quality of life decisions that come to play. Not sure cut in pay from current job is what's at hand. If I am currently employeed at a job that requires >=1 hour commute each way, has added stress from management inadequacies, etc, but then a job opportunity presents itself that is closer to home (or even WFH) for less pay, a conversation about what that cut in pay would entail long term is definitely worth having in my head. Those 2 hours back from the stress of commuting is huge. New job might mean worse management, or it could be better. Grass isn't always greener.
Sometimes there are quality of life decisions that come to play. Not sure cut in pay from current job is what's at hand. If I am currently employeed at a job that requires >=1 hour commute each way, has added stress from management inadequacies, etc, but then a job opportunity presents itself that is closer to home (or even WFH) for less pay, a conversation about what that cut in pay would entail long term is definitely worth having in my head. Those 2 hours back from the stress of commuting is huge. New job might mean worse management, or it could be better. Grass isn't always greener.
Two of my largest clients have seen productivity gains of 15-20% depending on department during COVID. It’s yet to be seen if that level will hold as the job market opens back up, but it’s pretty clear that WFH is at minimum not decreasing productivity for most people.
Edit: supporting data: https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-news/pages/study-produ...
Edit: supporting data: https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-news/pages/study-produ...
You’re viewing this entirely from the employer’s point of view, which doesn’t seem prudent considering the shortage of qualified programmers and what not. Whether or not people are more productive from home is a moot question when the worker says “I don’t care, I want to work from home, good luck replacing me in this market”.
> We will be more productive in the office, on average.
This is really going to vary by job description. I'm not sure what the "overall" facts may be, so perhaps you're still right. For certain though, some jobs are much more productive remotely.
This is really going to vary by job description. I'm not sure what the "overall" facts may be, so perhaps you're still right. For certain though, some jobs are much more productive remotely.
I don’t think productivity comes from slacking, I think it comes from a communication tax. When you’re in the office you can just ask someone, at home you have to ask and wait and explain.
But this is also the cause of a lack of production. I have routinely been interrupted from what I was doing because someone just casually drops by to discuss whatever they felt like (might be work related, might not). As a developer, it takes time to get back to where you left off.[0]
While working from home, those interruptions are dropped to 0. Any questions must come from some form of slack/email/etc that can all be ignored until I'm ready to look at them.
[0]https://heeris.id.au/2013/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-interrupt...
While working from home, those interruptions are dropped to 0. Any questions must come from some form of slack/email/etc that can all be ignored until I'm ready to look at them.
[0]https://heeris.id.au/2013/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-interrupt...
You have the right personality for work-from-home. There are others who need that social interaction in order to be productive.
When I was in the office, most developers had headphones on when working and you wouldn't interrupt them at that time.
I definitely agree that if you're in the kind of role where you can turn off notifications and just put your head down and work, this has probably been a very productive year.
When I was in the office, most developers had headphones on when working and you wouldn't interrupt them at that time.
I definitely agree that if you're in the kind of role where you can turn off notifications and just put your head down and work, this has probably been a very productive year.
What about the gains from those not having to pay the tax ? Being interrupted and having to do context switches has a significant cost associated.
What about the communication tax of people asking instead of Googling to solve their issue?
If I am more productive why would I take a paycut?
> For example, if the job doesn’t provide meaning, that doesn’t need to be said. Give specific reasons, like graduate school or the commute.
I have to disagree. True, "doesn't provide meaning" isn't actionable to the company, but it's no less so than graduate school. And if it forces your manager to think about meaning in their own life, all the better. I'm really not a fan of this "keep everything strictly professional" idea. I think it's dying out slowly, and good thing: putting humanity back in work is exactly what we need, both for ourselves and ultimately the planet.
I have to disagree. True, "doesn't provide meaning" isn't actionable to the company, but it's no less so than graduate school. And if it forces your manager to think about meaning in their own life, all the better. I'm really not a fan of this "keep everything strictly professional" idea. I think it's dying out slowly, and good thing: putting humanity back in work is exactly what we need, both for ourselves and ultimately the planet.
I wonder if we'll see something similar in the housing market
Right now perfect storm in HCOL areas eg
- Cheap money from banks - not uncommon to see $2m+ loans to tech salaries
- Low inventory - people aren't moving, especially older people, with pandemic uncertainty
- Record increase in savings + equities values increasing
- Huge increased cost in rennovation materials / building materials limiting new supply
What's impetus for that to normalize?
Right now perfect storm in HCOL areas eg
- Cheap money from banks - not uncommon to see $2m+ loans to tech salaries
- Low inventory - people aren't moving, especially older people, with pandemic uncertainty
- Record increase in savings + equities values increasing
- Huge increased cost in rennovation materials / building materials limiting new supply
What's impetus for that to normalize?
For those thinking of doing this: what's your plan? Travel? Apply to jobs immediately?
So, this is something I've done for most of my working career. Though I work in heavy construction (first as union labor, now an engineer) rather than IT or the like.
Construction jobs will naturally come to an end, and I take that opportunity to take some time off and travel in between gigs. I've also done it on jobs that lasted multiple years but had shut down periods (like a project in Alaska that couldn't proceed during the winter). While my work/life balance may not be entirely healthy during the work periods...okay, it really isn't at all, I can get all the R&R I want between stretches of work.
I'll admit and fully own up to having a good amount of privilege that allows me to do this. I've got experience in a niche side of the construction industry, clearances, checks and licenses to go with it, and the project/contract oriented nature of heavy construction in general means that gaps in the resume are usually glossed over. On top of that, I have ins with the good-old-boys club to the point that, generally, I'm not actually looking for work, I get called up. I do think I know my side of the business, am good at it, and put in hard work, and that is why I continue to get calls.
Case in point, my current gig. I was fresh off the plane from 4 weeks in New Zealand, just starting to unpack, when I got called up. I wasn't planning on looking for work for a while longer, but when called I didn't want to endanger that networking relationship by passing on it.
In short, my plan would be to travel for a decent period of time, and begin to put out feelers for work as that winds down. I've never been to Greece1, and summer is coming...in fact I was just talking to my dad and he saw round trip tickets to Istanbul for ridiculously low prices.
1Pandemic allowing, of course.
Life is too short to spend it all whiling away at work. You must find time for yourself, for your family, for your mental health. Slow down, smell the roses, all that. There is just too much world to explore, in my opinion. It seems to me that the pandemic and lockdowns have caused more people to come to that realization. I'm actually seeing a lot of turnover in the engineering and management staff at my current project, which I think might be related.
Construction jobs will naturally come to an end, and I take that opportunity to take some time off and travel in between gigs. I've also done it on jobs that lasted multiple years but had shut down periods (like a project in Alaska that couldn't proceed during the winter). While my work/life balance may not be entirely healthy during the work periods...okay, it really isn't at all, I can get all the R&R I want between stretches of work.
I'll admit and fully own up to having a good amount of privilege that allows me to do this. I've got experience in a niche side of the construction industry, clearances, checks and licenses to go with it, and the project/contract oriented nature of heavy construction in general means that gaps in the resume are usually glossed over. On top of that, I have ins with the good-old-boys club to the point that, generally, I'm not actually looking for work, I get called up. I do think I know my side of the business, am good at it, and put in hard work, and that is why I continue to get calls.
Case in point, my current gig. I was fresh off the plane from 4 weeks in New Zealand, just starting to unpack, when I got called up. I wasn't planning on looking for work for a while longer, but when called I didn't want to endanger that networking relationship by passing on it.
In short, my plan would be to travel for a decent period of time, and begin to put out feelers for work as that winds down. I've never been to Greece1, and summer is coming...in fact I was just talking to my dad and he saw round trip tickets to Istanbul for ridiculously low prices.
1Pandemic allowing, of course.
Life is too short to spend it all whiling away at work. You must find time for yourself, for your family, for your mental health. Slow down, smell the roses, all that. There is just too much world to explore, in my opinion. It seems to me that the pandemic and lockdowns have caused more people to come to that realization. I'm actually seeing a lot of turnover in the engineering and management staff at my current project, which I think might be related.
A temporary doubling of people quitting their jobs would be noticeable but not very meaningful in the long run. It's pretty clear companies want workers in office and will pay a premium to make it happen.
There's a big difference between being restless -- i.e. going for a bunch of job interviews -- and actually switching jobs.
Articles like this highlight the very plausible idea that the post-Covid reawakening will include a lot of "Wanna hire me?" conversations. Perhaps even over meals with someone's expense account picking up the tab.
But as other posters say, a lot of that may be momentary flirtation. Plenty of exploring; not so much movement.
Articles like this highlight the very plausible idea that the post-Covid reawakening will include a lot of "Wanna hire me?" conversations. Perhaps even over meals with someone's expense account picking up the tab.
But as other posters say, a lot of that may be momentary flirtation. Plenty of exploring; not so much movement.
Gig 'em Aggies!
Literally just one person's opinion. No data. No analysis. And the actual claim is weaker than the title suggests. I'm not sure why this is here. HN commentators regularly have better takes, even.
I've thought about this too tbh. Personally, having lived on extended lockdown for some months now, I've entertained the idea of taking a sabbatical. There's no joy for me anymore.
It's an interesting subject, irrespective of strong or weak claims. There's no doubt of a collision between workplaces attempting to put people back in their cubicles regardless of their wishes, workplaces attempting to make remote work permanent and sustainable, and workforce lifestyle changes becoming easier (at least for psychological reasons, even in the absence of concrete factors).
I don't assume that companies that prefer remote work are "better": it can be a cynical cost-cutting measure that causes more misery (due to communication problems, loneliness, externalization of costs like computers and broadband access, discrimination, off-hours demands etc.) than going to the office like in the old days.
I don't assume that companies that prefer remote work are "better": it can be a cynical cost-cutting measure that causes more misery (due to communication problems, loneliness, externalization of costs like computers and broadband access, discrimination, off-hours demands etc.) than going to the office like in the old days.
Literally just one person's opinion
There's more to it than that. From the article: "an associate professor of management at Texas A&M University..."
No data. No analysis.
"...who’s studied the exits of hundreds of workers."
There's more to it than that. From the article: "an associate professor of management at Texas A&M University..."
No data. No analysis.
"...who’s studied the exits of hundreds of workers."
You seem to have confused a claim with data. Please check the article again and let me know where the data is.
Working as a bartender or cook at a restaurant? Doubt we will see a mass resignation. Unless people decide they are tired of shit treatment.
Working in IT or some similar position at a modern company? I bet we would see a larger number of people quitting. Why go back into the office? Why commute? Why do anything like that when COVID has shown that remote work is a viable option. Any company that cannot accept the new fact that workers want to be able to work remotely is going to struggle to find talent.