Tim Cook tells employees the return to offices will begin on April 11th(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Tim Cook tells employees the return to offices will begin on April 11th
https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/4/22961592/apple-april-11-return-office-corporate-pandemic-tim-cook
572 comments
COVID made my situation worse at Apple. I worked in a satellite office (NYC), and while in the office, most folks in California were reluctant to schedule meetings later than ~2pm california time because they didn't want to keep people in the office late. When we went fully remote, suddenly it seems like any compunctions about that vanished; I would have meetings until 9pm 3 nights a week, I guess because the managers figured that we were already home.
> Having left, I forgot what it was like to be able to focus on something other than Apple
Definitely sympathize there; we weren't even allowed to leave Github issues without Legal's approval, and when I wanted to open source something (basically an HLS server I wrote to handle my home security system), I was told that a) it was too competitive with Apple because my project had to do with video, and b) there's no such thing as "my own time" with Apple, since I was salaried and well-compensated.
> Having left, I forgot what it was like to be able to focus on something other than Apple
Definitely sympathize there; we weren't even allowed to leave Github issues without Legal's approval, and when I wanted to open source something (basically an HLS server I wrote to handle my home security system), I was told that a) it was too competitive with Apple because my project had to do with video, and b) there's no such thing as "my own time" with Apple, since I was salaried and well-compensated.
> When we went fully remote, suddenly it seems like any compunctions about that vanished; I would have meetings until 9pm 3 nights a week
This is why there is a decline button next to the accept button. An outage or something disastrous, sure I'll stay online till midnight to help in anyway I can; a regular status update type meeting, no way.
This is why there is a decline button next to the accept button. An outage or something disastrous, sure I'll stay online till midnight to help in anyway I can; a regular status update type meeting, no way.
In principle, I agree, but I should point out that "No meetings outside regular daylight hours" and "My employer shouldn't care where in the world I do my job" are not compatible with each other.
In the course of a week, I collaborate literally with people in the UK, California, China, and Saudia Arabia. People are occasionally have to take meetings outside daylight hours. Best we can do is to (a) minimize the number of meetings overall (a lot more things can be done asynchronously that is often acknowledged) and (b) spread the pain fairly so nobody has to always take meetings at awkward hours.
In the course of a week, I collaborate literally with people in the UK, California, China, and Saudia Arabia. People are occasionally have to take meetings outside daylight hours. Best we can do is to (a) minimize the number of meetings overall (a lot more things can be done asynchronously that is often acknowledged) and (b) spread the pain fairly so nobody has to always take meetings at awkward hours.
Absolutely agree. Also, if you expect people to be switched on at 9pm, be flexible about them not responding first thing the next morning.
I interviewed with a company who is on the west coast. I'm in Ireland. We overlap for a few hours during their morning. Every interview was scheduled during their afternoon. I always asked to move it to an earlier spot. Seems like this conscious awareness of other people isn't automatic.
My view: if you're a global company, you need to instill in your employees a respect for time zones. You need your employees to be aware of where their colleagues are and what their "normal" working hours are. You to be intentional about this and actually say it. At a previous company the CEO actually took a minute during an all-hands to say "Look everyone, we're a global company now and we're hiring like crazy in Europe. Be respectful of timezones. If you need to talk to a colleague in Europe, do it during your morning". That was enough to ensure that most of my meetings happened before 5pm local time, and when they didn't, you'd have at least one person during the meeting say things like "let's cover X first so @raffraffraff can get off the call early" or "guys, we're going off-topic and we've got colleagues from Europe on the call". It normalised consideration.
I interviewed with a company who is on the west coast. I'm in Ireland. We overlap for a few hours during their morning. Every interview was scheduled during their afternoon. I always asked to move it to an earlier spot. Seems like this conscious awareness of other people isn't automatic.
My view: if you're a global company, you need to instill in your employees a respect for time zones. You need your employees to be aware of where their colleagues are and what their "normal" working hours are. You to be intentional about this and actually say it. At a previous company the CEO actually took a minute during an all-hands to say "Look everyone, we're a global company now and we're hiring like crazy in Europe. Be respectful of timezones. If you need to talk to a colleague in Europe, do it during your morning". That was enough to ensure that most of my meetings happened before 5pm local time, and when they didn't, you'd have at least one person during the meeting say things like "let's cover X first so @raffraffraff can get off the call early" or "guys, we're going off-topic and we've got colleagues from Europe on the call". It normalised consideration.
> spread the pain fairly so nobody has to always take meetings at awkward hours.
That was my biggest issue; obviously a late meeting or two occasionally is fine. It's a distributed team, that's a necessary evil. It just bothered me that, after COVID, they made zero attempt at even trying accommodate the satellite offices.
That was my biggest issue; obviously a late meeting or two occasionally is fine. It's a distributed team, that's a necessary evil. It just bothered me that, after COVID, they made zero attempt at even trying accommodate the satellite offices.
> In principle, I agree, but I should point out that "No meetings outside regular daylight hours" and "My employer shouldn't care where in the world I do my job" are not compatible with each other.
Not if you're all in North America. I've worked for two large, distributed companies in the last several years, where I reside in Eastern time zone. There's enough overlap between me and teammates in the Pacific time zone that evening meetings are never necessary.
Not if you're all in North America. I've worked for two large, distributed companies in the last several years, where I reside in Eastern time zone. There's enough overlap between me and teammates in the Pacific time zone that evening meetings are never necessary.
Yeah, I don't get that one. You need to be in some really extreme timezones to not have any overlap. I worked with both UK and US from Australia (not Apple) and it was possible. Occasionally I'd do a meeting at night and start later the next day, but it was always my choice.
I used to work with people from PST (-8), CET (+1) and KST (+9). The meeting planner [0] shows no "acceptable" overlap, but we made it work by doing meetings very rarely, planning them far in advance and essentially taking turns which timezone gets the late (22-23) or early (6-7) slots. This was despite the fact that there was a clear hierarchy - sometimes the boss got up at 4 or stayed up until 23 so we wouldn't have to.
[0] https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?iso=...
[0] https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?iso=...
As I said, our team is literally spread evenly around the globe (though not nearly in equal numbers). Every hour of the day is bound to be awkward for someone.
In those cases we split the meeting and someone sent in the notes async. At the level where all those people absolutely must be present... I would hope they're paid enough and have enough agency in their roles to figure out the solution.
India is 10.5 hours from both coasts of the US (for most of the year).
If two employees work at the same local times, they have to work an 11 hour day to have 30 minutes of overlap.
If two employees work at the same local times, they have to work an 11 hour day to have 30 minutes of overlap.
Try UTC+12/13 and having to regularly coordinate with Europe :)
Working with the US and Asia is fine though, always have a couple of hours of overlap.
Working with the US and Asia is fine though, always have a couple of hours of overlap.
> This is why there is a decline button next to the accept button.
Depends on your MacOS version.
In Mojave there’s actually no meaningful way to interact with an invite through a notification. There’s a dropdown but it’s not reachable. It only appears if you mouse over where the “x” button should be, which causes the button and dropdown to appear. If you move the mouse off this button both the button and the dropdown vanish.
Also, I’m afraid to click that “x” because I’m still not sure if it dismisses the notification or declines the invite.
And I still can’t figure out how to decline from the calendar with a message. I have to go to my deleted items in Mail and reply to the invite there.
Depends on your MacOS version.
In Mojave there’s actually no meaningful way to interact with an invite through a notification. There’s a dropdown but it’s not reachable. It only appears if you mouse over where the “x” button should be, which causes the button and dropdown to appear. If you move the mouse off this button both the button and the dropdown vanish.
Also, I’m afraid to click that “x” because I’m still not sure if it dismisses the notification or declines the invite.
And I still can’t figure out how to decline from the calendar with a message. I have to go to my deleted items in Mail and reply to the invite there.
I do freely decline status update meetings at unreasonable hours, and most people reading this are probably in a position where they should too. The problem is with things like design reviews and planning meetings, where declining just means people are going to make decisions without you.
I didn't feel like that was really an option. It became recurring meetings three times a week, and I got the vibe of "if you don't go, it's gonna look bad".
It may or may not have been an option. If you never try it definitely wasn't an option.
I have never worked at a FAANG myself, so this might not be something that works in those places. But what I do is to simply put "Out of Office" on my calendar outside of my core working hours. I don't even have to decline. I can honestly say that it was automated and I never even saw their invite. If someone complained about it I would tell them that I can definitely make exceptions, just need to check w/ the SO as she might have a meeting she can't move and we have the kids to take care of. I also don't react well to invites over night. I have my calendar in my head well enough to know when to wake up/be home etc. for the first meeting. So something you put on my calendar "in between" will in most if not all cases not even be seen. I do not have notifications enabled on my cell. This has so far worked without fail and only a few people have ever asked me for a specific slot and moving something. Basically the OoO reply get them to rethink and at the very least they know they gotta talk to me first and can't just plug something on my calendar and I will show up.
That said, any regular meeting someone puts on my calendar in a free slot with enough notice I will simply accept, be there and do my best to contribute. Meetings someone puts in 5 minutes before (or worse, yes this has happened during the meeting) and then ping me "are you coming" will result in a very stubborn me. Yes I would quit over someone throwing a fit for my stubbornness. No it has never been necessary. They all backpaddled.
I have never worked at a FAANG myself, so this might not be something that works in those places. But what I do is to simply put "Out of Office" on my calendar outside of my core working hours. I don't even have to decline. I can honestly say that it was automated and I never even saw their invite. If someone complained about it I would tell them that I can definitely make exceptions, just need to check w/ the SO as she might have a meeting she can't move and we have the kids to take care of. I also don't react well to invites over night. I have my calendar in my head well enough to know when to wake up/be home etc. for the first meeting. So something you put on my calendar "in between" will in most if not all cases not even be seen. I do not have notifications enabled on my cell. This has so far worked without fail and only a few people have ever asked me for a specific slot and moving something. Basically the OoO reply get them to rethink and at the very least they know they gotta talk to me first and can't just plug something on my calendar and I will show up.
That said, any regular meeting someone puts on my calendar in a free slot with enough notice I will simply accept, be there and do my best to contribute. Meetings someone puts in 5 minutes before (or worse, yes this has happened during the meeting) and then ping me "are you coming" will result in a very stubborn me. Yes I would quit over someone throwing a fit for my stubbornness. No it has never been necessary. They all backpaddled.
That no office communication on personal phone has worked wonders for me as well. And my personal numbers is for emergencies only.
Not turning up last minute meetings have also worked well. I mean I was shocked but people actually need to be told you’re not available at one ping and then they mend their ways. Start saying yes, it gets worse.
Not turning up last minute meetings have also worked well. I mean I was shocked but people actually need to be told you’re not available at one ping and then they mend their ways. Start saying yes, it gets worse.
Back in the 90s, my father had a method of pre-vacation scheduling. He announced to all his colleagues that X day before he left was the last day he was accepting new work to finish before leaving.
Inevitably, someone would come by the day before he left, and ask him if he could do one more critical thing.
He reminded them what he said, explained he was finishing work others had asked of him, and didn't have the time for their work before he left, but he'd be happy to look at it when he got back.
Next vacation announcement, that person made their requests earlier.
Scheduling has its own cultural mores and Overton window, and there's no "right." If you're unhappy with its current coverage: push it in the direction you want. People will adjust.
You can say "No" nicely and without being an asshole.
Inevitably, someone would come by the day before he left, and ask him if he could do one more critical thing.
He reminded them what he said, explained he was finishing work others had asked of him, and didn't have the time for their work before he left, but he'd be happy to look at it when he got back.
Next vacation announcement, that person made their requests earlier.
Scheduling has its own cultural mores and Overton window, and there's no "right." If you're unhappy with its current coverage: push it in the direction you want. People will adjust.
You can say "No" nicely and without being an asshole.
[deleted]
Yep, just set boundaries. If your boundaries become a problem for someone higher up, they will raise it with you. Don't ask, just do.
Too many people assume they need to take meetings whenever and they'll put up with it quietly for years, never feeling confident enough to just assert themselves or set working hours in Google Calendar.
Too many people assume they need to take meetings whenever and they'll put up with it quietly for years, never feeling confident enough to just assert themselves or set working hours in Google Calendar.
I completely agree with and get what you’re saying. It does feel like that. And if you think you won’t be getting another job you’d feel that way strongly.
But it takes just once. At the new starup I am working I simply pressed “Decline” for “all events” that were out of my timezone except the ones that happen 3-4 times a month total.
Blocked my calendar after 6pm with an automated message clearly mentioning that it was night for me and ask the person to reach out about it and that if it’s a recurring meeting I simply won’t be able to attend.
It’s been 6 months since and it has worked fine. Some other people started doing it in my country after that. Also US colleagues now ask us, earlier they assumed we will just be there.
And yes, I was ready to resign if someone even someone above me in hierarchy even so much as questioned the autonomy of my personal time that’s other than those 8 hours on weekday.
It’s not like I have too much financial cushion, I don’t. But I realised it’s not worth it and when you start saying yes to it, it keeps increasing, keeps piling up. Never stops, never comes down. Saying no sooner is better than saying no late.
Just like dictators and autocrats such companies feed on our fears. The moment we lose them they either run into the ground or they fall in line.
But it takes just once. At the new starup I am working I simply pressed “Decline” for “all events” that were out of my timezone except the ones that happen 3-4 times a month total.
Blocked my calendar after 6pm with an automated message clearly mentioning that it was night for me and ask the person to reach out about it and that if it’s a recurring meeting I simply won’t be able to attend.
It’s been 6 months since and it has worked fine. Some other people started doing it in my country after that. Also US colleagues now ask us, earlier they assumed we will just be there.
And yes, I was ready to resign if someone even someone above me in hierarchy even so much as questioned the autonomy of my personal time that’s other than those 8 hours on weekday.
It’s not like I have too much financial cushion, I don’t. But I realised it’s not worth it and when you start saying yes to it, it keeps increasing, keeps piling up. Never stops, never comes down. Saying no sooner is better than saying no late.
Just like dictators and autocrats such companies feed on our fears. The moment we lose them they either run into the ground or they fall in line.
> Blocked my calendar after 6pm with an automated message clearly mentioning that it was night for me and ask the person to reach out about it and that if it’s a recurring meeting I simply won’t be able to attend.
> It’s been 6 months since and it has worked fine. Some other people started doing it in my country after that. Also US colleagues now ask us, earlier they assumed we will just be there.
I work remotely, and did something similar while I was in Europe for a month. Worked a mostly overlapping schedule (so I could take advantage of the morning / early afternoons), and then blocked off the late evening on my calendar. Never really was a problem, and helped ensure everyone was on the same page.
> It’s been 6 months since and it has worked fine. Some other people started doing it in my country after that. Also US colleagues now ask us, earlier they assumed we will just be there.
I work remotely, and did something similar while I was in Europe for a month. Worked a mostly overlapping schedule (so I could take advantage of the morning / early afternoons), and then blocked off the late evening on my calendar. Never really was a problem, and helped ensure everyone was on the same page.
What does “look bad” mean exactly?
Never promoted? Fired?
Never promoted? Fired?
It just means “fear and inertia”, mostly unfounded and even if not simply not worth it. It’s just that.
Suffered from it long. Then one day I did the opposite and never looked back.
Suffered from it long. Then one day I did the opposite and never looked back.
This is unhelpful. Nobody gets total control of their time in employment, and some people get a lot less control than others.
Set boundaries.
Decide if someone violating them is worth quitting over. It's a competitive market, and frankly - Many of the FAANG companies are terrible to work for.
No one is saying you have total control of your schedule - but if I'm consistently asked to take a meeting at 9pm my time... I'll have a meeting with my manager, and it will consist of the following: "I will quit if they keep asking me to meet when I'd like to be reading bedtime stories to my kid".
So far - I have not had to quit, and I don't take 9pm meetings. I find your meek & bleak acquiescence unhelpful.
Decide if someone violating them is worth quitting over. It's a competitive market, and frankly - Many of the FAANG companies are terrible to work for.
No one is saying you have total control of your schedule - but if I'm consistently asked to take a meeting at 9pm my time... I'll have a meeting with my manager, and it will consist of the following: "I will quit if they keep asking me to meet when I'd like to be reading bedtime stories to my kid".
So far - I have not had to quit, and I don't take 9pm meetings. I find your meek & bleak acquiescence unhelpful.
> Many of the FAANG companies are terrible to work for.
How’s F and G and N (Netflix right?)?
Friend works at G India. Sings paeans . He moved there after 6 months at Uber (where I resigned in a week).
I have always heard shitty things about AA though so I guess that kinda settles it.
How’s F and G and N (Netflix right?)?
Friend works at G India. Sings paeans . He moved there after 6 months at Uber (where I resigned in a week).
I have always heard shitty things about AA though so I guess that kinda settles it.
All the FAANG companies have bad aspects to them. Some are more likely to have them than others. But those are averages, and I find that the biggest contributor to your workplace culture will be which specific team you’re on and not the company you’re at. (I know plenty of people at Apple and Amazon who are perfectly happy with their situation, and some at the others who aren’t. But I think the work/life balance on average tends to be worse there, yes.)
Put your work hours in your calendar and auto decline everything outside those hours. Refuse that nonsense.
thats how you get PIPed
Just finished 13 months at my new startup employer from USA. Personal time imbalance has been a polite and cold confrontation often and I simply never budged. So much that I’ve got “that reputation” here. It’s just around 400 people across the world.
Delivered my work really well. Was rated 4 out of 5 - 5 being best. No one even mentioned that part of my decision. I am fiercely professional and diligent about my work and product I own in my work hours just like I am fiercely protective of my personal time.
And yes, maybe they need me, maybe they will aks me to leave, maybe they’ll PIP me (that’d ne ridiculous though), something else.
But I’ll not budge. That simple.
With that short incomplete sentence what you’re trying to say is - and I won’t point directly at you, I’ll just try to expand/translate - one is afraid of losing the job and actually more afraid of getting another one, one is afraid of not getting that high a salary, loans/EMIs, etc. You may be right. Or that it’s just like that everywhere (this is not true at all).
So like everything else in life nothing comes free and without risk.
Delivered my work really well. Was rated 4 out of 5 - 5 being best. No one even mentioned that part of my decision. I am fiercely professional and diligent about my work and product I own in my work hours just like I am fiercely protective of my personal time.
And yes, maybe they need me, maybe they will aks me to leave, maybe they’ll PIP me (that’d ne ridiculous though), something else.
But I’ll not budge. That simple.
With that short incomplete sentence what you’re trying to say is - and I won’t point directly at you, I’ll just try to expand/translate - one is afraid of losing the job and actually more afraid of getting another one, one is afraid of not getting that high a salary, loans/EMIs, etc. You may be right. Or that it’s just like that everywhere (this is not true at all).
So like everything else in life nothing comes free and without risk.
It depends heavily on the company and the specific team/org. Where I'm at, this behavior will more likely get the manager PIP'd for not being inclusive and fostering a healthy team dynamic.
Manager wants to hire across time zones to hit their headcount? Go for it, but be they'd better be ready to make accommodations for doing so.
Manager wants to hire across time zones to hit their headcount? Go for it, but be they'd better be ready to make accommodations for doing so.
I freely decline meetings too. Usually, add a note saying it is family time or unreasonable time for a meeting.
Never been a problem.
Never been a problem.
Possibly but I've never encountered a company that felt they had control of my time after hours and wouldn't have stayed at one which did.
[deleted]
Join a union
If you work for a company that toxic you should find a new job.
> b) there's no such thing as "my own time" with Apple, since I was salaried and well-compensated.
Is there 1 FAANG company that is the most friendly/accomodating to someone who wants to develop their own software/indiegames on the side?
Is there 1 FAANG company that is the most friendly/accomodating to someone who wants to develop their own software/indiegames on the side?
Google has a thing called "IARC" (https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/releasing#...) where you make an application with details about what you're done or have done, and if it's approved, you get to own the copyright.
If you want to release it as open source and don't care about owning the copyright, there's a process you can go through to release a new open source project. If you just want to send patches to an existing project, you can generally just do that, as long as the project has an approved open source license and is not on the (short) list of disallowed projects.
If you want to release it as open source and don't care about owning the copyright, there's a process you can go through to release a new open source project. If you just want to send patches to an existing project, you can generally just do that, as long as the project has an approved open source license and is not on the (short) list of disallowed projects.
I don't currently work there, so take this with a grain of salt, that said, it would seem Google is a lot more relaxed about this sort of thing than any other large company I've seen. Lots of ex-Google employees end up doing all sorts of things and lots of Googlers participate in open source
Not FAANG, but GitHub explicitly allows employees to work on side-projects while retaining the IP rights, and you get paid Microsoft stock.
Whats hilarious is that this is definitely not the case for regular MS employees
The MS employees I've met/interviewed were literally not allowed to read open source code or sample code on Q&A websites. Of course that was mostly 5+ years ago and I don't exactly ask them if their policies have changed.
When at Microsoft I was expected to be on top of Stack Overflow for our product, and there's a whole program where if you contribute to open source you get to vote on where the monthly OSS sponsorship goes.
I've linked to WebKit source before in exec reviews and no one bats an eye. So, changed, I'd say.
I've linked to WebKit source before in exec reviews and no one bats an eye. So, changed, I'd say.
It is in California at least - you can moonlight on whatever you want when you are not on company time or equipment.
Our vacation also doesn't expire and we also don't have non-compete clauses.
Our vacation also doesn't expire and we also don't have non-compete clauses.
This is not how California law works, because you left out the (in this case very important) part where this is exclusive to things that don’t compete with your employer. If you work at a FAANG, the number of things they work on is very large and consequently they will claim large control over what you do.
Which means it will eventually be the law.
Netflix. As long as you don't compete directly with the business, the company doesn't care (at least that's how I interpreted my contract when I joined a while ago).
> As long as you don't compete directly with the business, the company doesn't care
I've found, as long as you're not making money no one cares what you're doing. As soon as money starts coming in, a lot of people are very interested in what you're doing. My totally uninformed guess would be that one of the first questions Netflix (or really any company) has about your off-company-time product is 1) does it make money and 2) how much. The answers to those questions will determine how the conversation goes from there, and how many lawyers are involved.
I've found, as long as you're not making money no one cares what you're doing. As soon as money starts coming in, a lot of people are very interested in what you're doing. My totally uninformed guess would be that one of the first questions Netflix (or really any company) has about your off-company-time product is 1) does it make money and 2) how much. The answers to those questions will determine how the conversation goes from there, and how many lawyers are involved.
Bingo. Not FAANG but it definitely works like that in Ubisoft.
Not FAANG but Red Hat employees can contribute to open source on their own time — even if it competes with something that Red Hat makes.
Does Red Hat even make proprietary software? I thought the business model was to open source everything and charge for enterprise support and cloud services?
Right, it's all open source, but you could be making after-work contributions to open source projects that might not be in the interest of Red Hat, and that's perfectly fine.
The policy is public: https://www.redhat.com/licenses/RH_CoC-June_2020_Eng.pdf
"Participation in an open source community project, whether maintained by the Company or by another commercial or non-commercial entity or organization, does not constitute a conflict of interest even where you may make a determination in the interest of the project that is adverse to the Company’s interests."
A lot of employees were concerned about losing this after the IBM acquisition, but the former CEO made a lot of promises to us especially to protecting our autonomy, and (so far) IBM has kept those commitments to us.
I cannot imagine a more open source friendly place to work. I'm constantly surprised by how other companies operate open source projects or treat their employees who want to contribute to them (at work or otherwise). Unfortunately as Red Hat gets larger, we hire more people without that love of open source and they want to do things differently, but thankfully they don't get much traction.
The policy is public: https://www.redhat.com/licenses/RH_CoC-June_2020_Eng.pdf
"Participation in an open source community project, whether maintained by the Company or by another commercial or non-commercial entity or organization, does not constitute a conflict of interest even where you may make a determination in the interest of the project that is adverse to the Company’s interests."
A lot of employees were concerned about losing this after the IBM acquisition, but the former CEO made a lot of promises to us especially to protecting our autonomy, and (so far) IBM has kept those commitments to us.
I cannot imagine a more open source friendly place to work. I'm constantly surprised by how other companies operate open source projects or treat their employees who want to contribute to them (at work or otherwise). Unfortunately as Red Hat gets larger, we hire more people without that love of open source and they want to do things differently, but thankfully they don't get much traction.
Develop or sell? No one cares unless you want to be a big name or big money.
>there's no such thing as "my own time" with Apple
Companies that aren't nearly as "cool" and pay a fraction, can be just as possessive or more so.
I am well aware of the saying "better to ask for forgiveness than permission" and how some rules are broken by everyone with a tacit understanding.
However, once when I investigated volunteering for an extremely well known and mainstream nonprofit, they gave me some required paperwork, which said that any IP created during my volunteer work belonged to them.
I didn't have a firm intention to do IT work as a volunteer or not, but I was told I had to sign to volunteer regardless.
I thought I would ask my employer if I could sign the agreement; if it was compatible with the stuff I'd already signed, that asserted ownership of work outside of regular hours, if related to the business.
At a lower level, people had no idea. It was passed up the chain all the way to the chief corporate counsel or whoever, and eventually they said no, with an air of "WTF why are you wasting my time?".
I felt like the ultimate decisionmakers can live in a different reality, where things don't happen because nobody has an incentive to tell them.
I didn't particularly mind, since I wasn't set on that particular organization to volunteer with, and I learned something.
Companies that aren't nearly as "cool" and pay a fraction, can be just as possessive or more so.
I am well aware of the saying "better to ask for forgiveness than permission" and how some rules are broken by everyone with a tacit understanding.
However, once when I investigated volunteering for an extremely well known and mainstream nonprofit, they gave me some required paperwork, which said that any IP created during my volunteer work belonged to them.
I didn't have a firm intention to do IT work as a volunteer or not, but I was told I had to sign to volunteer regardless.
I thought I would ask my employer if I could sign the agreement; if it was compatible with the stuff I'd already signed, that asserted ownership of work outside of regular hours, if related to the business.
At a lower level, people had no idea. It was passed up the chain all the way to the chief corporate counsel or whoever, and eventually they said no, with an air of "WTF why are you wasting my time?".
I felt like the ultimate decisionmakers can live in a different reality, where things don't happen because nobody has an incentive to tell them.
I didn't particularly mind, since I wasn't set on that particular organization to volunteer with, and I learned something.
This is true globally.
Remote work became anytime work.
Most arent as blatant as setting up ridiculous times in the calendar, but the same goal is achieved by more insidious means. For example, a manager assigning a task that needs to be completed before the next day at 5pm.
Remote work became anytime work.
Most arent as blatant as setting up ridiculous times in the calendar, but the same goal is achieved by more insidious means. For example, a manager assigning a task that needs to be completed before the next day at 5pm.
Woz to HP management: "Hey, I know we already sell computers, want to have a look at this one? If not, can I sell it myself?"
HP to Woz: "Sure, go for it, good luck."
Apple to their own employees: "Uh, let's see here.... how about 'No.' Does 'No' work? Good, then we'll go with 'No.'"
Gotta love the Valley. You either flame out early, or you live long enough to become the face on the telescreen.
HP to Woz: "Sure, go for it, good luck."
Apple to their own employees: "Uh, let's see here.... how about 'No.' Does 'No' work? Good, then we'll go with 'No.'"
Gotta love the Valley. You either flame out early, or you live long enough to become the face on the telescreen.
To be fair, the modern Apple is all Steve Jobs and Jobs always had this mentality that you are bashing. Seems like any Wozniak related mentality left the building when they dumped Apple II. And well can you really argue with the results? Apple was near bankruptcy trying to compete on the same plane as other personal computers.
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.
It's a reference to Apple's 1984 commercial
“You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”
They have not only become exactly what they fought against, they've refined it to perfection.
But it is a non-sequitur because Apple hasn't let any world changing tech developed by there employees to be spun out with no financial interest.
Yeah, and that's the idea behind the complaint. After getting their start thanks in part to HP's generosity, Apple's management tries to do everything possible to make sure the same thing doesn't happen at their company. It's hypocrisy in action.
Ooooo yes that makes sense
> Definitely sympathize there; we weren't even allowed to leave Github issues without Legal's approval...
This strongly anti-OSS policy makes me very sad, I occasionally see Apple employees in GitHub issues essentially saying they would fix this problem they're seeing themselves but are forbidden from participating by their employer (Apple). Seems like such a waste. Everyone has their price and priorities, definitely solving interesting problems at work and being paid well for it can outweigh satisfaction from OSS, but just seems so needless for the wealthiest organization in the world.
This strongly anti-OSS policy makes me very sad, I occasionally see Apple employees in GitHub issues essentially saying they would fix this problem they're seeing themselves but are forbidden from participating by their employer (Apple). Seems like such a waste. Everyone has their price and priorities, definitely solving interesting problems at work and being paid well for it can outweigh satisfaction from OSS, but just seems so needless for the wealthiest organization in the world.
Fair warning: my experience has been very different than yours or tombert's in most respects and some things have changed over time (some OSS contributions are now much easier, a very recent change). It is also the first company I've worked for that backed up appreciation for my efforts with compensation to match, and where my management chain cared about burnout and mental health with actions rather than empty words.
It is still primarily an on-site company. That might mean on-site an an office in San Diego, Austin, Philadelphia, NYC, etc. But in-office nonetheless.
Every team does things differently, even down to the department or individual manager level. Compared to the other FAANGs it is far more varied in most respects. Just because someone didn't like (or loves) their role doesn't mean you will feel the same way about it. If possible I recommend talking to people who work in the department you are interested in.
It is still primarily an on-site company. That might mean on-site an an office in San Diego, Austin, Philadelphia, NYC, etc. But in-office nonetheless.
Every team does things differently, even down to the department or individual manager level. Compared to the other FAANGs it is far more varied in most respects. Just because someone didn't like (or loves) their role doesn't mean you will feel the same way about it. If possible I recommend talking to people who work in the department you are interested in.
> It is still primarily an on-site company.
At some point I would like people to quit vilifying a completely legitimate business setup because it doesn't fit their world view.
I want to be in the office, and I prefer it when my coworkers are there too. I respect that not everyone feels the same - but I do think it is up to the employer to decide. So I will be picking companies that suit my preferences.
At some point I would like people to quit vilifying a completely legitimate business setup because it doesn't fit their world view.
I want to be in the office, and I prefer it when my coworkers are there too. I respect that not everyone feels the same - but I do think it is up to the employer to decide. So I will be picking companies that suit my preferences.
But there is legitimate reason to villify. I can't speak for Apple specifically, but many companies are no longer matching the CoL increases. Housing prices are steadily increasing, and so is rent. Many have to resort to longer commutes, buying cars, and such. All of these have detrimental effects to the environment, mental health or both.
Pushing people back to the office with nothing else is incredibly tonedeaf to the current state and trend of the world. This despite many of them putting up the image they care about these things.
Pushing people back to the office with nothing else is incredibly tonedeaf to the current state and trend of the world. This despite many of them putting up the image they care about these things.
You may not like hearing this but if you're a white-collar worker earning 6 figures and guaranteed to continue earning 6 figures for the rest of your career, you aren't entitled to CoL increases. Your employer is not a villain nor are they morally culpable just because they've made a business decision around how much salary increases they want to give their already privileged employees. Or a business decision regarding their work-from-home policy.
If you're not happy, leave and work for a company that better matches what you're looking for. I would be furious if my ex-employer was giving me bad references just because I wanted to work-from-home or asked for a higher salary. And I would similarly not go around vilifying my ex-employer just because they wanted to offer me a lower salary or have me in the office regularly.
If you're not happy, leave and work for a company that better matches what you're looking for. I would be furious if my ex-employer was giving me bad references just because I wanted to work-from-home or asked for a higher salary. And I would similarly not go around vilifying my ex-employer just because they wanted to offer me a lower salary or have me in the office regularly.
> I would be furious if my ex-employer was giving me bad references just because I wanted to work-from-home or asked for a higher salary. And I would similarly not go around vilifying my ex-employer just because they wanted to offer me a lower salary or have me in the office regularly.
That's not similar at all. The employer has all the power and money, not the individual. If the individual did, they wouldn't need to work anymore.
That's not similar at all. The employer has all the power and money, not the individual. If the individual did, they wouldn't need to work anymore.
> I can't speak for Apple specifically, but many companies are no longer matching the CoL increases. Housing prices are steadily increasing, and so is rent.
I can't help but wonder if this is the flip side to the Silicon Valley mantra of "if you want a raise, job hop," where hitting your four-year anniversary with the same company makes you an old-timer and gets people on HN asking you if you're stupid. (Hopefully more politely than that, but that's absolutely the subtext of some recent message threads I've seen.) If the expectation on the company side is that they shouldn't plan on on any engineering staff being there more than a few years, then maybe it tacitly selects for "give employees a big bonus and lots of perks and just don't worry about raises because there ain't nothin' you can do to keep 'em".
And, of course, there's a chicken-or-egg aspect to that: did job-hopping become the norm because companies aren't giving them enough reason to stay, or vice-versa? When I moved out to Silicon Valley close to twenty years ago, I'd have placed the blame for that particular new normal on the companies, but after having read HN for the better part of the last decade, I'm considerably less certain of that.
I can't help but wonder if this is the flip side to the Silicon Valley mantra of "if you want a raise, job hop," where hitting your four-year anniversary with the same company makes you an old-timer and gets people on HN asking you if you're stupid. (Hopefully more politely than that, but that's absolutely the subtext of some recent message threads I've seen.) If the expectation on the company side is that they shouldn't plan on on any engineering staff being there more than a few years, then maybe it tacitly selects for "give employees a big bonus and lots of perks and just don't worry about raises because there ain't nothin' you can do to keep 'em".
And, of course, there's a chicken-or-egg aspect to that: did job-hopping become the norm because companies aren't giving them enough reason to stay, or vice-versa? When I moved out to Silicon Valley close to twenty years ago, I'd have placed the blame for that particular new normal on the companies, but after having read HN for the better part of the last decade, I'm considerably less certain of that.
> I can't help but wonder if this is the flip side to the Silicon Valley mantra of "if you want a raise, job hop," where hitting your four-year anniversary with the same company makes you an old-timer and gets people on HN asking you if you're stupid. (Hopefully more politely than that, but that's absolutely the subtext of some recent message threads I've seen.)
I think that comes from misreading stats. If a company has huge growth and hires a bunch of new people, the average lifespan of an employee will obviously go down.
There's many well known Apple engineers (in OS software at least) who've been there for decades.
I think that comes from misreading stats. If a company has huge growth and hires a bunch of new people, the average lifespan of an employee will obviously go down.
There's many well known Apple engineers (in OS software at least) who've been there for decades.
Well, it comes from reading HN. :) That's clearly anecdotal, but if you're a regular reader you've surely come across the job-hopping advice here! I've seen "the way you get a raise is by switching companies" as advice over and over and over here, and I don't think it's just a small selection of malcontents I just keep running into.
Companies whose primary business is hardware seem to be more likely to keep people around for longer periods of time -- Apple, Intel, Cisco, National Semiconductor back when they were a going concern. Software companies, though, particularly ones in Silicon Valley (or following a Silicon Valley ethos)? As someone who's going to hit their four-year anniversary at their current workplace in a week, I feel like the oddball.
Companies whose primary business is hardware seem to be more likely to keep people around for longer periods of time -- Apple, Intel, Cisco, National Semiconductor back when they were a going concern. Software companies, though, particularly ones in Silicon Valley (or following a Silicon Valley ethos)? As someone who's going to hit their four-year anniversary at their current workplace in a week, I feel like the oddball.
That's certainly true about hardware companies - the cycle of product inception to release is often large enough that if you followed the "advice" here you would never actually experience the full cycle.
I work on software at a similar company - and it certainly seems to have a significantly higher "employment age" than people seem possible here - I've worked here for 4 years and still one of the "new" ones. Some of that I feel due to a good work/life balance (And decent enough pay :), and a culture I find to be pleasant (I worked with Apple employees for a while, for example, and still don't understand why people put up with the crap I saw when there's a healthy job market).
But I wonder if there's something to be said for the work itself - people have been here for ages and still doing new things - one year you may be working on texture pipelines, the next a deep dive in ray tracing. Sure, they're kinda similar, but I feel it may be more rewarding than redesigning a perfectly good UI for the 5th time, or replacing whatever javascript framework you used to use with the "New Hotness".
I work on software at a similar company - and it certainly seems to have a significantly higher "employment age" than people seem possible here - I've worked here for 4 years and still one of the "new" ones. Some of that I feel due to a good work/life balance (And decent enough pay :), and a culture I find to be pleasant (I worked with Apple employees for a while, for example, and still don't understand why people put up with the crap I saw when there's a healthy job market).
But I wonder if there's something to be said for the work itself - people have been here for ages and still doing new things - one year you may be working on texture pipelines, the next a deep dive in ray tracing. Sure, they're kinda similar, but I feel it may be more rewarding than redesigning a perfectly good UI for the 5th time, or replacing whatever javascript framework you used to use with the "New Hotness".
There is also the argument that a staff of engineers wants real data to back up decisions and policy. "because mangers like to look over your shoulder" isn't a good reason
I think what you mean is that "people who moved outside the bay area got more house for their money", but the reason they got paid so much in the first place is because housing is more expensive.
I did not. I specifically mentioned my lack of experience with Apple to signal experiences outside the bay area, or the US for that matter. In many countries, total comp has barely moved whereas housing has become way more expensive, even during COVID.
At some point I would like people to quit vilifying a completely legitimate business setup because it doesn’t fit their world view as well. But as you can guess from my lead up, I look at it from the opposite direction.
If there is no reason for software developers (or other IT professionals who don’t have to have physical access to the servers to do their jobs) to be in the office, and we have been far more productive at home than we have been in an office that requires 2 hours of commute, extra expenditures for food, an increased chance of viral infection, noise cancelling headphones so you don’t have to deal with the stupid gossip a couple aisles over just to focus on the task at hand, then should we be required to come in just because others prefer it when their coworkers are there too?
Can’t we just leave it up the choice of the people who are working how they would prefer to work? Or do we have to enforce a skeuomorphic working arrangement on everyone just because our managers like it better?
If there is no reason for software developers (or other IT professionals who don’t have to have physical access to the servers to do their jobs) to be in the office, and we have been far more productive at home than we have been in an office that requires 2 hours of commute, extra expenditures for food, an increased chance of viral infection, noise cancelling headphones so you don’t have to deal with the stupid gossip a couple aisles over just to focus on the task at hand, then should we be required to come in just because others prefer it when their coworkers are there too?
Can’t we just leave it up the choice of the people who are working how they would prefer to work? Or do we have to enforce a skeuomorphic working arrangement on everyone just because our managers like it better?
For the heads-down execution characteristic of a junior role, you’re right, collocation doesn’t matter and focus does.
Past entry level we expect engineers to also be working with their colleagues to determine what to build, when, and how. In an emergency, doing this on Zoom beats not trying at all. That’s about the best I can say for it.
If you really can’t afford to live closer than an hour to your office as a software engineer, you’re woefully underpaid. More likely that is the point in tradeoff-space that you chose.
Past entry level we expect engineers to also be working with their colleagues to determine what to build, when, and how. In an emergency, doing this on Zoom beats not trying at all. That’s about the best I can say for it.
If you really can’t afford to live closer than an hour to your office as a software engineer, you’re woefully underpaid. More likely that is the point in tradeoff-space that you chose.
[deleted]
>but I do think it is up to the employer to decide.
Why? Seriously, many other things aren't, so why should this be? I don't mean WFH should be forced to the employer and to all employees - I mean it should be up to the employee to decide.
The "completely legitimate business setup" is also a huge negative for climate change, car pollution, road congestion, family/personal life time (including time with kids), business and close residential areas rent (since people having to commute try to leave somewhat close and don't have total free choice of where to buy/rent property), and several other things.
Not to mention anachronistic from the same companies that sell "mobility" and "freedom" as achieved with mobile phones and internet services...
Why? Seriously, many other things aren't, so why should this be? I don't mean WFH should be forced to the employer and to all employees - I mean it should be up to the employee to decide.
The "completely legitimate business setup" is also a huge negative for climate change, car pollution, road congestion, family/personal life time (including time with kids), business and close residential areas rent (since people having to commute try to leave somewhat close and don't have total free choice of where to buy/rent property), and several other things.
Not to mention anachronistic from the same companies that sell "mobility" and "freedom" as achieved with mobile phones and internet services...
The relationship between employer and employee is simple. Employer pays money for some value the employee offers.
Negotiation is clearly in play before the arrangement starts, willing buyer and willing seller and so on.
After the "sale" the employer has most of the power, but the employee has a nuke - they can quit. Usually the employer doesn't want them to quit, so will make unilateral changes to the contract in the employ yes favor from time to time (ie raises etc).
Unfortunately if you are below a certain age, or of a specific skill set, the employer expects you to trigger the nuke anyway, and nothing they do can prevent that, so frankly they don't spend too much energy or money trying to make you stay.
While employees can negotiate after employment has started, they don't have much leverage other than "or I'll leave". And one can only play that card so many times before it's easier just to let you leave.
Employers have legitimate reasons for wanting non-remote workers, but those reasons don't matter to employees. Indeed most employees can't even imagine what those reasons are, or simply discount them as being meaningless. That's OK, there's a reason they are employees and not running businesses.
So to answer your question, employers decide WFH because they have all the power. They figure the upside is worth changing staff over - some will leave, for sure, but there are others out there waiting to fill that slot.
Of course other companies have different priorities and goals and are happy to employ WFH employees, so there's a home for folk who prefer that as well.
Or, if you want the autonomy, and power, (and risk) that being the employer brings you, then by all means start your own business and build a company and culture you'd like to work at.
Negotiation is clearly in play before the arrangement starts, willing buyer and willing seller and so on.
After the "sale" the employer has most of the power, but the employee has a nuke - they can quit. Usually the employer doesn't want them to quit, so will make unilateral changes to the contract in the employ yes favor from time to time (ie raises etc).
Unfortunately if you are below a certain age, or of a specific skill set, the employer expects you to trigger the nuke anyway, and nothing they do can prevent that, so frankly they don't spend too much energy or money trying to make you stay.
While employees can negotiate after employment has started, they don't have much leverage other than "or I'll leave". And one can only play that card so many times before it's easier just to let you leave.
Employers have legitimate reasons for wanting non-remote workers, but those reasons don't matter to employees. Indeed most employees can't even imagine what those reasons are, or simply discount them as being meaningless. That's OK, there's a reason they are employees and not running businesses.
So to answer your question, employers decide WFH because they have all the power. They figure the upside is worth changing staff over - some will leave, for sure, but there are others out there waiting to fill that slot.
Of course other companies have different priorities and goals and are happy to employ WFH employees, so there's a home for folk who prefer that as well.
Or, if you want the autonomy, and power, (and risk) that being the employer brings you, then by all means start your own business and build a company and culture you'd like to work at.
Spending a majority of my workday on Zoom is miserable. It is better than dying in the ICU. But spending the rest of my working life this way is unacceptable.
I, too, like the separation of the office - a pretty easy commute (less than 15 minutes) and not having to worry about managing the space myself is useful for me to get into "Work Mode" - and I very much appreciate leaving and not reading my emails until I get into work next morning. And this is effectively working remotely - while in a company building I am the only member of my team on site.
This is with a large Santa Clara-based tech company, and they have competitive rates in compensation to FAANG - though that may be misleading. For example I have had a lot of experience working adjacent to people working at Apple, and it's on my list of "Never Work Here" due to the culture, expectations of time, lack of work-life balance, and all while not compensating any more for those asks. Other friends who work for some other companies on that list, however, seem a lot happier. So in my experience lumping them together is a mistake.
Previously, I worked for a British company in the US in an office with some 4 total people on my team, that I found was a near perfect setup - the main company remote and a different timezone effectively meant all communication and meetings happened in the mornings US time, allowing the majority of the day to really get into complex stuff with no interruptions. And a small team allowed for some in-person whiteboard debugging and design discussion and bouncing ideas off people, but with a small team it wasn't a constant distraction.
I found that to be my personal "Perfect Balance" - and I feel I miss that.
This is with a large Santa Clara-based tech company, and they have competitive rates in compensation to FAANG - though that may be misleading. For example I have had a lot of experience working adjacent to people working at Apple, and it's on my list of "Never Work Here" due to the culture, expectations of time, lack of work-life balance, and all while not compensating any more for those asks. Other friends who work for some other companies on that list, however, seem a lot happier. So in my experience lumping them together is a mistake.
Previously, I worked for a British company in the US in an office with some 4 total people on my team, that I found was a near perfect setup - the main company remote and a different timezone effectively meant all communication and meetings happened in the mornings US time, allowing the majority of the day to really get into complex stuff with no interruptions. And a small team allowed for some in-person whiteboard debugging and design discussion and bouncing ideas off people, but with a small team it wasn't a constant distraction.
I found that to be my personal "Perfect Balance" - and I feel I miss that.
Does Apple have an office in Philadelphia?
Wow. Thanks for the insights.
> work at a fast-paced startup and still work on average 10/hours a week less than at Apple.
I am always floored by statements like this. I work as a principal data analyst and everything above 40 hours/week is overtime. While I have overtime included in my contract I still am able to reduce overtime (it is still being tracked to ensure compliance with local workers protection laws) if the project situation allows. On average I do something like 41 hours a week over the last few years. Including high profile client engagement or pitch situations.
I find myself having enough time to also work on my side business and do work for animal protection charities. While still being able to work in the garden and shop to relax.
> work at a fast-paced startup and still work on average 10/hours a week less than at Apple.
I am always floored by statements like this. I work as a principal data analyst and everything above 40 hours/week is overtime. While I have overtime included in my contract I still am able to reduce overtime (it is still being tracked to ensure compliance with local workers protection laws) if the project situation allows. On average I do something like 41 hours a week over the last few years. Including high profile client engagement or pitch situations.
I find myself having enough time to also work on my side business and do work for animal protection charities. While still being able to work in the garden and shop to relax.
>"While I have overtime included in my contract I still am able to reduce overtime (it is still being tracked to ensure compliance with local workers protection laws) if the project situation allows."
The people talking about working long hours at Apple are getting paid commensurately. There's a reason why people work at FAANG companies despite the constant complaints.
The people talking about working long hours at Apple are getting paid commensurately. There's a reason why people work at FAANG companies despite the constant complaints.
> The people talking about working long hours at Apple are getting paid commensurately.
Not really. Most divisions in SWE do stack ranking (unofficially). The top quintile (decile in some groups) gets a majority of compensation at review time. The bottom half is lucky to get a cost of living adjustment to their base pay. They likely will get no RSUs and little if any cash bonus.
Despite the disparity in compensation everyone on a team is expected to put in overtime. Anyone that doesn't is guilted over not being a "team player", put on a PIP, outright threatened with firing. If you get put on a PIP there is zero guidance to get off.
Not really. Most divisions in SWE do stack ranking (unofficially). The top quintile (decile in some groups) gets a majority of compensation at review time. The bottom half is lucky to get a cost of living adjustment to their base pay. They likely will get no RSUs and little if any cash bonus.
Despite the disparity in compensation everyone on a team is expected to put in overtime. Anyone that doesn't is guilted over not being a "team player", put on a PIP, outright threatened with firing. If you get put on a PIP there is zero guidance to get off.
So then that makes me wonder, why work there? For the prestige? For having a bad-ass CV entry? I've spent my 11 year career working in start-ups and companies that nobody knows about, I get paid enough to be in top 2% earners in EU, I never work more than 40h a week because that simply isn't legal for an employer to tell me to do unless it explicitly states so in my contract, and none of my contracts have so far stated that, and so I'm puzzled why such a sweat-shop deal could be appealing to people when alternatives exist with a far better work/life balance.
> So then that makes me wonder, why work there?
To be clear: It’s because they’re still being paid very, very well.
The top paying tech companies are kind of a weird bubble because they pay so well on average but they also have a huge upward range beyond that for top performers. It leads to situations where someone can be making $200-300K per year but end up feeling underpaid because someone they know is getting $600K for being a top performer at a top company.
It’s also important to put it in perspective. Relatively few engineers work at these companies in total. The vast majority of engineers work at more mainstream companies where the pay is still good (though maybe not retire early good) and the hours are reasonable. People at the big companies are working long hours to compete for those few coveted top positions and top salaries. But you definitely don’t have to work at those companies.
To be clear: It’s because they’re still being paid very, very well.
The top paying tech companies are kind of a weird bubble because they pay so well on average but they also have a huge upward range beyond that for top performers. It leads to situations where someone can be making $200-300K per year but end up feeling underpaid because someone they know is getting $600K for being a top performer at a top company.
It’s also important to put it in perspective. Relatively few engineers work at these companies in total. The vast majority of engineers work at more mainstream companies where the pay is still good (though maybe not retire early good) and the hours are reasonable. People at the big companies are working long hours to compete for those few coveted top positions and top salaries. But you definitely don’t have to work at those companies.
It's all in the compensation.
FAANG and a few fintech operations pay the big USD. The lower bound on FAANG senior software engineers is apparently above or barely overlaps the upper bound for other massively profitable companies like Intel. So you can't even achieve FAANG comp most places unless you a department director.
FAANG and a few fintech operations pay the big USD. The lower bound on FAANG senior software engineers is apparently above or barely overlaps the upper bound for other massively profitable companies like Intel. So you can't even achieve FAANG comp most places unless you a department director.
I would be wary about assuming too much on "Salary estimation" websites or what people may say on HN. There's a perception that they must be highly paid, and so only the highest paid shout about it. I know a lot of people who work for FAANG in the bay area that have a similar total income to myself (and I work for a company I'd judge to be very similar to Intel).
Also a lot of their income was stock and share bonuses, great if the stock price is constantly going up and they're growing hand over fist, but when things slow down that non-guaranteed income is the first thing to be looked at - if it's not on the contract it's not guaranteed. Sure you might be lucky, but in my experience the "Buy your house in cash of FAANG" for a mid-level engineer gravy train seems to be over if you're not already sitting on the options.
Also a lot of their income was stock and share bonuses, great if the stock price is constantly going up and they're growing hand over fist, but when things slow down that non-guaranteed income is the first thing to be looked at - if it's not on the contract it's not guaranteed. Sure you might be lucky, but in my experience the "Buy your house in cash of FAANG" for a mid-level engineer gravy train seems to be over if you're not already sitting on the options.
I totally agree that some of the published pay numbers are a little optimistic and include stock and discretionary bonus that are dependent on market performance. However, the companies in that top sphere are still a strata above most of the alternatives.
Plenty of people want to earn that extra renumeration even if it means doing grunt work or giving up on their work-life balance.
Plenty of people want to earn that extra renumeration even if it means doing grunt work or giving up on their work-life balance.
how much do you get paid and what city?
This is not accurate. Managers have to make a specific argument to not give a minimum bonus/RSU. Generally, only very low performing people will not receive RSU’s.
Higher level engineers get paid more? And that is suprising or unfair?
The issue is there's not necessarily any fair measurement of "higher level engineer". With stack ranking if you've got five people on a team only one member of the team can be the top quintile getting the majority of compensation. Even if the work of everyone is roughly the same. It's asinine.
There's also no clarity into how to be considered the top of the rankings. The only guidance from managers is to "innovate" and work more.
It's a really demoralizing system unless you're at the top of the stack. It's further demoralizing that the managers are told in no uncertain terms to make the system as opaque as possible.
There's also no clarity into how to be considered the top of the rankings. The only guidance from managers is to "innovate" and work more.
It's a really demoralizing system unless you're at the top of the stack. It's further demoralizing that the managers are told in no uncertain terms to make the system as opaque as possible.
Maybe not, but it (the post in total) a legitimate counter argument to the previous message.
My experience with apple (never worked there, but worked very closely with them for years) is there's a HUGE difference between teams.
If you're in the fancy new hotness that has VP political support, great.
If you're in a team with a manager who has your back and pushed back on extra work and raises and bonuses for the whole team, great.
But you're one of the lucky ones.
If you're in the fancy new hotness that has VP political support, great.
If you're in a team with a manager who has your back and pushed back on extra work and raises and bonuses for the whole team, great.
But you're one of the lucky ones.
when the overtime is included why not push it to the limit? i once had a contract where deployments were shit shows every other weekend. i signed up for every single one...
on more than a handful of occasions i was able to bill 20 hours over overtime at 2x rate for simply being 'available' meaning my phone was on mute in a deployment support conference call.
they happily paid and i happily pretended to care about their product.
on more than a handful of occasions i was able to bill 20 hours over overtime at 2x rate for simply being 'available' meaning my phone was on mute in a deployment support conference call.
they happily paid and i happily pretended to care about their product.
They seem very rooted in the past for lots of ideas, which is ironic given the image and culture they try to project. For example, I've heard at least one story of someone being asked lots of irrelevant CS questions for a front-end role when they interviewed there. He did fine, but he said he felt like the interview somehow felt fifteen years out of date, which really stuck with me.
What CS questions would be irrelevant for front end? I don't quite follow.
Deep questions about data structures and sorting algorithms that are perfectly addressed by the standard library in JS iirc. I understand that virtually anything in CS is or can be relevant, especially for such a competitive role. I don't think one should limit their knowledge wholly to a specific domain, but it seemed like there was so much emphasis put on these kinds of concepts that there was very little time left to put emphasis on things that actually might be relevant in the day to day. Beyond that though, I can't say. That's all I got out of it.
I feel like the binary tree questions may actually be relevant for JS, considering there aren't any the standard lib.
I imagine they're complaining about the technical interview. For the record, when I did the technical interview I didn't find it too onerous -- mostly a more advanced sort of FizzBuzz to check you could do some intermediate math and handle basic data structures and logic flow.
My understanding is that at Apple this can vary quite a lot in difficulty or depth depending on what team you're looking at, and who is interviewing you.
My understanding is that at Apple this can vary quite a lot in difficulty or depth depending on what team you're looking at, and who is interviewing you.
Indeed. My last onsite with apple concluded with a couple hours of grilling on how to write performant synchronization primitives on various real architectures. I was not interviewing for the relevant teams.
Yikes! I would sort of wonder if it was a test to see if you know scope. But for two hours?
I know its Apple but I'd definitely be prepared to walk out. In that situation that gives you the freedom to clarify the job description -- if they say it is in the description, I'd save everyone time and say I don't have that knowledge, thank them for their time, and wish them luck on their next n months of searching for their unicorn.
If it isn't, I'd probably go full stick-in-the-mud and explain that I could find the answers to those questions but it would be a waste of everyone's time: I'm an A player and I don't focus on irrelevant things that dilute abilities and ultimately the product (basically throw Steve Jobs at them).
I know its Apple but I'd definitely be prepared to walk out. In that situation that gives you the freedom to clarify the job description -- if they say it is in the description, I'd save everyone time and say I don't have that knowledge, thank them for their time, and wish them luck on their next n months of searching for their unicorn.
If it isn't, I'd probably go full stick-in-the-mud and explain that I could find the answers to those questions but it would be a waste of everyone's time: I'm an A player and I don't focus on irrelevant things that dilute abilities and ultimately the product (basically throw Steve Jobs at them).
I have a chemical engineering degree from a "Division 2" university and part of a computer science degree from a fairly low-ranked research university.
Your strategy would be an epic failure for me. Granted, nearly any strategy would be.
Your strategy would be an epic failure for me. Granted, nearly any strategy would be.
If the role was to do front-end development for internal tools, that might have not been all that irrelevant.
This is true, Apple is so secretive they try to get people into interviews without telling them the role they're interviewing for. They're so cagey and they expect you to say "yes" because they're Apple. The guy might not even have known what role he was interviewing for! It's a great way to waste everyone's time.
Maybe, that's true. There were more details that led to the impression but it's been too long ago now for me to remember them all.
There were times at Apple that people were given a "no" on the interview because, despite knowing the solution to the problem, had compilation errors in there code. I thought (and still think) that was idiotic.
> Having left, I forgot what it was like to be able to focus on something other than Apple. Incredibly toxic atmosphere on the inside. I work at a fast-paced startup and still work on average 10/hours a week less than at Apple.
Maybe it was because I worked there only during the pandemic, but I never really felt the emotional impact of Apple's toxicity. I could of course tell it was there, and if I actually cared about getting promoted or getting higher pay, I might have felt more stressed.
For example, after pointing out some areas where I thought a proposal could be improved, from that point on I just wasn't ever invited to any more design or strategy meetings. It's like I was just cut out from everything because I had the audacity to criticize something from some senior schmuck with tenure, and I wouldn't grovel and kiss whoever's ass I needed to in order to be "allowed" in those meetings from that point forward.
In hindsight I was glad I torpedoed myself right off the bat after I joined. Not actually ever having to be around any of those people in meatspace probably helped, but it was really easy for me to sit in my office at home and plug away undisturbed on the pet projects that I felt were interesting and worthwhile. What I created actually was helpful, but it was totally designed, written, and delivered in a silo. I collected my salary and stock for a year, added Apple to my resume, and then hopped on to another company with higher comp and a much healthier culture.
Now at this new place, everyone is falling all over themselves to have me in their design and strategy meetings. <shrug> Fare thee well, Apple. I hardly knew ye.
Maybe it was because I worked there only during the pandemic, but I never really felt the emotional impact of Apple's toxicity. I could of course tell it was there, and if I actually cared about getting promoted or getting higher pay, I might have felt more stressed.
For example, after pointing out some areas where I thought a proposal could be improved, from that point on I just wasn't ever invited to any more design or strategy meetings. It's like I was just cut out from everything because I had the audacity to criticize something from some senior schmuck with tenure, and I wouldn't grovel and kiss whoever's ass I needed to in order to be "allowed" in those meetings from that point forward.
In hindsight I was glad I torpedoed myself right off the bat after I joined. Not actually ever having to be around any of those people in meatspace probably helped, but it was really easy for me to sit in my office at home and plug away undisturbed on the pet projects that I felt were interesting and worthwhile. What I created actually was helpful, but it was totally designed, written, and delivered in a silo. I collected my salary and stock for a year, added Apple to my resume, and then hopped on to another company with higher comp and a much healthier culture.
Now at this new place, everyone is falling all over themselves to have me in their design and strategy meetings. <shrug> Fare thee well, Apple. I hardly knew ye.
Would love to know how it was like working at Apple? How toxic was toxic?
roastytoasty(4)
also, isn't their new campus built atop a toxic waste site?
That term could fit most of the Santa Clara Valley if you’re operating on the definition provided by the person you heard that from. I won’t link their name here, since I do not believe it is worthwhile to give them attention.
It's built on the old HP campus, so at worst it's haunted by the souls of dead graphing calculators.
You mean Sunnyvale? Lots of people live and work there already.
It's an empathy building exercise for the Foxconn employees
Maybe it's me, but I have yet to experience 'innovation' result from a conversation held over coffee or a chance encounter. I've had better luck creating connections with other parts of the business and exchanging ideas over the infrequent cocktail party where it's a mission of the night. Say all you want about open floorplans and irrelevant quiet encounters.
Having said that, every situation is unique.
Having said that, every situation is unique.
I have worked in remote companies and companies that had butt in chair requirements, so far all the remote companies have been more innovative and had more cross talk between teams than the companies that required people to be in an office all day, every day.
Of course, that's just my experience but I do have a feeling that certain type of people feel that there's more innovation around coffee and chance encounter because it's a nice story to tell oneself but it doesn't really happen.
Of course, that's just my experience but I do have a feeling that certain type of people feel that there's more innovation around coffee and chance encounter because it's a nice story to tell oneself but it doesn't really happen.
I'm interested in how you accomplish this. Everything has to be scheduled in a meeting these days, and meeting burn out over zoom is real.
Where as in the office it was just walking around and seeing someone in an elevator, the hall, "hey lets catch up" or "you have a minute" or "lets get lunch"
these types of interactions just don't happen anymore
Where as in the office it was just walking around and seeing someone in an elevator, the hall, "hey lets catch up" or "you have a minute" or "lets get lunch"
these types of interactions just don't happen anymore
In true remote companies everything happens on Slack channels and meetings are minimal. If you want to see what a team is up to, you just have to lurk their Slack channel. Basically almost everything becomes more visible because of Slack.
even slack is too much these days, I'm in so many channels. theres so much noise and if you're not part of the conversation you may miss it completely depending on if people are using threads or not.
these types of interactions just don't happen anymore
I frequently DM people on Slack with a "How was your weekend?", "Did you see <url> on HN?" or just "We haven't chatted in a while, fancy a catchup?" That works just as well, except it's much easier for people to say they're busy when they're busy than it is face to face.
I frequently DM people on Slack with a "How was your weekend?", "Did you see <url> on HN?" or just "We haven't chatted in a while, fancy a catchup?" That works just as well, except it's much easier for people to say they're busy when they're busy than it is face to face.
I go to meetings for a living. Its been a huge productivity boost to not have to walk 15 minutes across campus to meet my clients. Plus I never have to worry about not having a projector.
Although you're right, I did go back to the office the other day and spent a good hour talking to a co-worker about their Caribbean vacation. I hadn't had one of those in years. Not sure how that boosted innovation and productivity tho.
Although you're right, I did go back to the office the other day and spent a good hour talking to a co-worker about their Caribbean vacation. I hadn't had one of those in years. Not sure how that boosted innovation and productivity tho.
>Not sure how that boosted innovation and productivity tho.
I think positive interactions with co workers is a productivity boost, it makes you not hate work so much.
I think positive interactions with co workers is a productivity boost, it makes you not hate work so much.
I rarely found those kinds of interactions positive. They were often very one-sided where I felt like a captive audience with no easy out.
I really don't enjoy talking about my personal life, even benign stuff, with 99.99% of coworkers, and I've found that there are plenty of ways to have positive interactions without getting into anything remotely personal.
I really don't enjoy talking about my personal life, even benign stuff, with 99.99% of coworkers, and I've found that there are plenty of ways to have positive interactions without getting into anything remotely personal.
> Everything has to be scheduled in a meeting these days, and meeting burn out over zoom is real.
At my company, we obviously have to chat over zoom or meet, but it doesn't have to be scheduled. The way we do it is we might be chatting on slack, spitballing ideas, doing stuff in lucidchart or some other charting software, then if it seems good we talk about it over zoom. It doesn't have to be so robotic
At my company, we obviously have to chat over zoom or meet, but it doesn't have to be scheduled. The way we do it is we might be chatting on slack, spitballing ideas, doing stuff in lucidchart or some other charting software, then if it seems good we talk about it over zoom. It doesn't have to be so robotic
Agreed.
Pre-scheduling is ONE way of getting people in sync, but not the only way.
For me and my team, there is a LOT of ad-hoc communication, preferrably in public slack channels, which leads to extremely productive conversations.
Furthermore, these are SEARCHABLE, which is a godsend; if an issue comes up once, it's very likely to come up again.
And, of course, there are times when we just jump on a zoom call quickly to review something that may be quicker than a bunch of slack back-and-forth.
There has never been a time where I felt "damn, it would be easier if I were there in person". If anything, in-person communication has always been hampered by the very need for co-location (including arranging meeting rooms or whiteboard, etc), and it's always been difficult to view someone else's screen unless they connect to a projector or large TV, whereas zoom has made pair-and -group programming almost inevitable.
I understand the social side of people wanting to be co-located, but from a pure productivity perspective, my team has been significantly more productive since WFH.
Pre-scheduling is ONE way of getting people in sync, but not the only way.
For me and my team, there is a LOT of ad-hoc communication, preferrably in public slack channels, which leads to extremely productive conversations.
Furthermore, these are SEARCHABLE, which is a godsend; if an issue comes up once, it's very likely to come up again.
And, of course, there are times when we just jump on a zoom call quickly to review something that may be quicker than a bunch of slack back-and-forth.
There has never been a time where I felt "damn, it would be easier if I were there in person". If anything, in-person communication has always been hampered by the very need for co-location (including arranging meeting rooms or whiteboard, etc), and it's always been difficult to view someone else's screen unless they connect to a projector or large TV, whereas zoom has made pair-and -group programming almost inevitable.
I understand the social side of people wanting to be co-located, but from a pure productivity perspective, my team has been significantly more productive since WFH.
Burnout from face-to-face meetings is also real. If needing to schedule a meeting increases the friction needed to interrupt people, that's a win.
If you can't have a chat in some messaging software turn into a quick call, and that quick call finishes the instance it should, then I don't know what you're doing.
Frankly I do this even when I'm in the same office, because I can keep working while on a call.
Scheduled? Just have a group chat with the participants, if one person misses the call, no big deal. You should be syncing often enough that it shouldn't matter.
As for the informal meet-ups, if there's a need, you go chat then call. If there isn't a need, then there's no value lost.
Frankly I do this even when I'm in the same office, because I can keep working while on a call.
Scheduled? Just have a group chat with the participants, if one person misses the call, no big deal. You should be syncing often enough that it shouldn't matter.
As for the informal meet-ups, if there's a need, you go chat then call. If there isn't a need, then there's no value lost.
> these types of interactions just don't happen anymore
And that's a good thing! I can't tell you how much of my day was wasted with pointless "lead in" conversation that ended up being just another business meeting. Or "lets get lunch" and it ends up being just talking about work. These are the "hello" slack messages of yesteryear. A frustrating waste of time. If you want my time schedule it, do not come up to my at my desk and ask me anything related to work. SCHEDULE IT. Otherwise once you let people into your work time they consume all of it and you end up working late every single day.
I have absolutely no interest in the personal lives of my co-workers and I strongly believe that if it can't be handled in an email, or a short meeting, then it's a problem that needs to be split up. I've carried this from junior to staff engineer and it's served me well. I zone out during long meetings and regularly work during other "important" meetings. There are very few meetings that matter to me because 99.9% of them are job justification on the part of PMs who want to hear themselves talk.
Remote has been a total life changer for me, and I've done it for the last 4 years. I am far more productive, I have a far tighter reign on my schedule, and the only thing I'm missing is those "little conversations" I couldn't care less about. I want to do my 8, clock out, and go home to do the things I actually enjoy. Remote has enabled me to do this WELL. I was miserable in the office and I enjoy life far more now. I even get the opportunity to pursue continuing education because I'm now rated based on my output rather than ass-in-seat metrics middle managers love.
And that's a good thing! I can't tell you how much of my day was wasted with pointless "lead in" conversation that ended up being just another business meeting. Or "lets get lunch" and it ends up being just talking about work. These are the "hello" slack messages of yesteryear. A frustrating waste of time. If you want my time schedule it, do not come up to my at my desk and ask me anything related to work. SCHEDULE IT. Otherwise once you let people into your work time they consume all of it and you end up working late every single day.
I have absolutely no interest in the personal lives of my co-workers and I strongly believe that if it can't be handled in an email, or a short meeting, then it's a problem that needs to be split up. I've carried this from junior to staff engineer and it's served me well. I zone out during long meetings and regularly work during other "important" meetings. There are very few meetings that matter to me because 99.9% of them are job justification on the part of PMs who want to hear themselves talk.
Remote has been a total life changer for me, and I've done it for the last 4 years. I am far more productive, I have a far tighter reign on my schedule, and the only thing I'm missing is those "little conversations" I couldn't care less about. I want to do my 8, clock out, and go home to do the things I actually enjoy. Remote has enabled me to do this WELL. I was miserable in the office and I enjoy life far more now. I even get the opportunity to pursue continuing education because I'm now rated based on my output rather than ass-in-seat metrics middle managers love.
> but I do have a feeling that certain type of people feel that there's more innovation around coffee and chance encounter because it's a nice story to tell oneself but it doesn't really happen.
It seems somewhat uncharitable to assume that there are different people who believe things about how innovation happens to them, but not that there may be differences between how people innovate.
It seems somewhat uncharitable to assume that there are different people who believe things about how innovation happens to them, but not that there may be differences between how people innovate.
Your anecdata doesn’t back up large scale data: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01196-4
A lot depends on culture and process. Usually companies which had remote on day 1 do better because they get to fine tune and evolve the process over time.
A lot depends on culture and process. Usually companies which had remote on day 1 do better because they get to fine tune and evolve the process over time.
Would be really nice to see if this has held up, given it only looks at the first few months of the pandemic. I know my company has gotten much better at remote work over the past couple of years.
My experience is the exact opposite: most innovation I came across was the result of a in-person informal discussion.
So yeah, YMMV
So yeah, YMMV
Yep. I loved WFH years ago as a contractor doing hired gun work where I didn't need to interact with many folks and just mostly fixed bugs. I also loved full time WFH during the panini for the most part, although doing it in a tiny SiValley apartment sucked. Now that I'm doing architectural work and going into the office twice a week I get it. Nothing beats in person discussion for certain critical discussions.
How does the in-person part differ from zoom or phone?
If you want to see how the communication differs do this small study:
Notice how much people were talking in the first day of the war in Slack. In my experience being in a couple of slack workspaces (one for work, a couple from co-working hubs, 3 professional groups) in some people shared something, in one they created a channel for this, in some other there was one or two threads.
Now think about what was the state of almost all employees: I think the invasion was the main focus of everybody and also I assess the amount of work done these days on average is less than normal.
Now think about what is happening going into an office in that day: Everybody will talk about this. Every conversation will start with this, every chit chat before any meeting will start with that news.
If you remote communication is reflecting this then congrats your organization managed to create a good remote culture.
I am not saying one is good and one is bad. I am saying there is a big difference between them.
Notice how much people were talking in the first day of the war in Slack. In my experience being in a couple of slack workspaces (one for work, a couple from co-working hubs, 3 professional groups) in some people shared something, in one they created a channel for this, in some other there was one or two threads.
Now think about what was the state of almost all employees: I think the invasion was the main focus of everybody and also I assess the amount of work done these days on average is less than normal.
Now think about what is happening going into an office in that day: Everybody will talk about this. Every conversation will start with this, every chit chat before any meeting will start with that news.
If you remote communication is reflecting this then congrats your organization managed to create a good remote culture.
I am not saying one is good and one is bad. I am saying there is a big difference between them.
Less mental overhead and friction in terms of setting it up. 1000s of years of evolution. The experience of people who post on HN and their comfort with digital interaction may not reflect how a majority of people feel.
I wonder if there is confirmation bias in the opinions of people who are voluntarily spending a large amount of time on forums already. They had a preference for written asynchronous communication already.
I wonder if there is confirmation bias in the opinions of people who are voluntarily spending a large amount of time on forums already. They had a preference for written asynchronous communication already.
You can catch a spare minute by the coffee machine but you have to schedule zoom.
Maybe you could fire off a slack and hope for the best, but you can't really guage when a good time for a chat can be.
Async communication is good but its not quite the same to try to meet someone over slack, out of the blue, like you might in the break room.
Maybe you could fire off a slack and hope for the best, but you can't really guage when a good time for a chat can be.
Async communication is good but its not quite the same to try to meet someone over slack, out of the blue, like you might in the break room.
I send or get a “Can you zoom for 5min” SMS 4-5 times a week with my closest team members. I agree, this does establish a sense of immediacy and collaboration which the formality of scheduled meetings lack.
When we worked in the same office, the walk-in frequency was about the same.
The difference between the two is negligible though and not spending the extra 3h per day for commute and office lunch is night and day.
When we worked in the same office, the walk-in frequency was about the same.
The difference between the two is negligible though and not spending the extra 3h per day for commute and office lunch is night and day.
Really, do most employees contribute to innovation at all? Can they?
I certainly never have except in an explicit innovation job. The rest of the time I am an implementer. So keep me away from connections with the other parts of the business as that just becomes a sideways way to ask for feature requests I have no say in or other info/support requests.
I certainly never have except in an explicit innovation job. The rest of the time I am an implementer. So keep me away from connections with the other parts of the business as that just becomes a sideways way to ask for feature requests I have no say in or other info/support requests.
The far majority of people do grunt work. Only a small group actually does anything both innovative and non-obvious, which is the "use case" presented for these small talks. Most devs who are not part of that small group and find something non-obvious have to fight through many layers of bureaucracy to even get their voice heard, let alone be given time to prove their idea without having to invest their own time. This also doesn't take into account the far majority of those select people have dedicated times where they research potential innovations, and getting into that small group is also difficult.
Even supposing FAANG, fortune 100s or whatever top percentile is likely to desire more innovation, the idea spontaneous talks one supposedly only could have in the office significantly impacting the rates of innovation is pretty far-fetched and mostly just an assumption.
Even supposing FAANG, fortune 100s or whatever top percentile is likely to desire more innovation, the idea spontaneous talks one supposedly only could have in the office significantly impacting the rates of innovation is pretty far-fetched and mostly just an assumption.
tbf I think it would be an additive effect, not just a single encounter that leads to innovation
I feel like not everyone works well remotely. Meanwhile if you can work well remote, you can probably work well at a desk. So the rest of us must suffer especially at these larger firms.
I guess it depends on the desk. These open office plans kill my concentration, to be completely honest. I get at least twice as much done in my home office =/
At the office, all I did was put on headphones with white noise and stare at the screen and hope that no one came and train wrecked my chain of thought, which happened all too often. My main form of communication was Slack anyways... and I'm not embarrassed to say, I wasn't the only one. It was this, plus a Seattle commute, which was an hour+ each way because I'm not going to raise my kid in an apartment downtown (personal preference).
Now, I will totally grant you, there were plenty that could juggle chatting and typing and hopping up to meetings and retaining what happened after Scrum and the flying Nerf darts and the smell of coffee and farts and B.O. and overpowering deodorant and cologne and perfume and hairsprays and hair product and people putting fish in the microwave, etc. etc. Bless the people who can super ultra multitask and keep a train of thought like that. I am so envious... I'm not that guy =[
At the office, all I did was put on headphones with white noise and stare at the screen and hope that no one came and train wrecked my chain of thought, which happened all too often. My main form of communication was Slack anyways... and I'm not embarrassed to say, I wasn't the only one. It was this, plus a Seattle commute, which was an hour+ each way because I'm not going to raise my kid in an apartment downtown (personal preference).
Now, I will totally grant you, there were plenty that could juggle chatting and typing and hopping up to meetings and retaining what happened after Scrum and the flying Nerf darts and the smell of coffee and farts and B.O. and overpowering deodorant and cologne and perfume and hairsprays and hair product and people putting fish in the microwave, etc. etc. Bless the people who can super ultra multitask and keep a train of thought like that. I am so envious... I'm not that guy =[
> Meanwhile if you can work well remote, you can probably work well at a desk.
This is sadly not universal. I’d wagger there’s a decent number of people who could only barely work in an office.
I’ve memories of people who had issues keeping themselves and/or desk clean, and it wasn’t some cute story to laugh at, it had a direct impact on their performance and if their managers found any good excuse they’d be out pretty quick.
Then all the IRL office harrasment stuff, the one that looms at a level HR doesn’t give a fuck but you still deal with it every fucking day. Going remote makes it weirdly easier on both sides, I guess some people just couldn’t help it and now they have a private space where they can do what they need to calm down.
I’d say there’s a infinite number of circumstances, up until now we’d just think these people are just not fitted to work at any place. Working remote changes a lot of these pre-requisites.
This is sadly not universal. I’d wagger there’s a decent number of people who could only barely work in an office.
I’ve memories of people who had issues keeping themselves and/or desk clean, and it wasn’t some cute story to laugh at, it had a direct impact on their performance and if their managers found any good excuse they’d be out pretty quick.
Then all the IRL office harrasment stuff, the one that looms at a level HR doesn’t give a fuck but you still deal with it every fucking day. Going remote makes it weirdly easier on both sides, I guess some people just couldn’t help it and now they have a private space where they can do what they need to calm down.
I’d say there’s a infinite number of circumstances, up until now we’d just think these people are just not fitted to work at any place. Working remote changes a lot of these pre-requisites.
I suspect we are going to see some turmoil in the tech hiring space with stock prices taking a beating in recent months. Large companies have gotten away with paying under market price for talent because employees have seen massive gains from stock appreciation over the last decade. If total comp starts going down year over year, suddenly the more traditional, no-frills system at places like Apple, Microsoft and Amazon isn't going to look nearly as attractive, especially compared to companies one tier below that are already offering higher comp and more flexible work options.
>I suspect we are going to see some turmoil in the tech hiring space
I agree, but I don't think the disruption will go the way you or I hope it would.
Many of the companies that is "one tier" below were able to offer higher comp only because of sky high valuation from the recent bubble. Most of them aren't in the kind of cashflow positions that can sustain such high cost if the stock value correct. If we enter an economic situation where stock value go down for companies like MSFT, Google and Apple, what do you think would happen to the stock price of high flying growth companies that don't even make a profit?
And guess what, most of them are coming to the realization that you don't need to actually pay $300k+/yr to hire some IC just to build React components or spin up another Node.js microservice. I know of quite a few companies (especially the ones that took a beating on the market recently) that's already starting to pivot more aggressively to foreign developers and starting to look at engineering offices outside of the country. If anything, the past two years only made a global workforce to be easier than ever to adopt.
Basically I think given the macroeconomic that's going on, the days when barely profitable or even cashflow negative "growth" companies offering FAANG-beating compensation packages will soon be gone. The numbers just won't add up anymore.
I agree, but I don't think the disruption will go the way you or I hope it would.
Many of the companies that is "one tier" below were able to offer higher comp only because of sky high valuation from the recent bubble. Most of them aren't in the kind of cashflow positions that can sustain such high cost if the stock value correct. If we enter an economic situation where stock value go down for companies like MSFT, Google and Apple, what do you think would happen to the stock price of high flying growth companies that don't even make a profit?
And guess what, most of them are coming to the realization that you don't need to actually pay $300k+/yr to hire some IC just to build React components or spin up another Node.js microservice. I know of quite a few companies (especially the ones that took a beating on the market recently) that's already starting to pivot more aggressively to foreign developers and starting to look at engineering offices outside of the country. If anything, the past two years only made a global workforce to be easier than ever to adopt.
Basically I think given the macroeconomic that's going on, the days when barely profitable or even cashflow negative "growth" companies offering FAANG-beating compensation packages will soon be gone. The numbers just won't add up anymore.
That's what I'm seeing as a hiring manager at one of the FAANGs. A lot of our candidates are interested in us simply because we provide stability and profitability that they can't get in the hot growth companies they already work at.
Thing is, we've had a unique situation in recent years where trillion dollar companies have seen startup-like growth quarter after quarter. Of course no one can predict the future, but I personally think this growth will stabilize to more traditional levels (see the history of the tech industry up until ~2010 for example). This does not mean that the VC industry will disappear and startup bubbles will stop being a thing. It will just be slightly more "boring" to get a job at Google or Apple the same way it was at Cisco or IBM back in the day, and top talent will want to look elsewhere for more risk and reward.
> ... what do you think would happen to the stock price of high flying growth companies that don't even make a profit?
They're already down as much as 80%. If I were looking around today, I'd kill to join one of those high growth tech startups with a solid balance sheet that just got the crap kicked out of its stock.
They're already down as much as 80%. If I were looking around today, I'd kill to join one of those high growth tech startups with a solid balance sheet that just got the crap kicked out of its stock.
Pretty much none of them have a solid balance sheet, though. They are all selling hopes and dreams. When something is overvalued by a factor of 100 and goes down 80% it's still overvalued by a factor of 20.
Any names? Besides SQ I don't see many
In addition to Block there's Pinterest, Coinbase, and Roblox.
That's the big one I had in mind.
Can confirm, Google was really stingy with their RSUs compared to Apple, but the perks really aren't that good with the exception of the food, which, when speaking to current Googlers, they say the food quality has fallen precipitously. Google at the time I worked there seemed to lean heavily on its reputation to reduce total comp.
As someone who left Apple for Google, I can say that Apple was even more stingy for all but the most senior levels, where they were competitive. Their TC could come close to matching Google because the stock appreciation was greater with AAPL than GOOG, but the offer letters had lower salary and usually no performance based cash bonuses when I was there.
It’s funny to read all of these contradictory comments about which company pays better (or is more “stingy”) than others. This comment and the parent comment are saying the exact opposite of each other, but I fully believe each person’s experience.
So what explains it? I would guess both commenters got higher offers at the other company because they did so as part of the job search process instead of via the within-company promotion process.
So what explains it? I would guess both commenters got higher offers at the other company because they did so as part of the job search process instead of via the within-company promotion process.
> I would guess both commenters got higher offers at the other company because they did so as part of the job search process instead of via the within-company promotion process.
Either this, or they may be looking at the value of RSUs at vesting (vs. at grant date) to calculate their (perceived) total compensation.
In the latter case they may see wild swings depending on how much the stock went up / down since the grant, and have the perception that they are "underpaid" vs. a friend in other company.
Either this, or they may be looking at the value of RSUs at vesting (vs. at grant date) to calculate their (perceived) total compensation.
In the latter case they may see wild swings depending on how much the stock went up / down since the grant, and have the perception that they are "underpaid" vs. a friend in other company.
Apple’s cafe charges for food, and gives its interns very outdated machines. They’re much stingier than Google, or at least they were.
The food is heavily subsidized though and really good iirc.
Google's food is good too, but people bitch about it. Arguably they bitch about it partly because it's free which commoditizes its value to zero so they don't value it. At least that's why I suspect Apple charges a subsidized rate.
I saw the same thing where I used to work which also had incredible food. When something is free entitled employees whine about it.
Google's food is good too, but people bitch about it. Arguably they bitch about it partly because it's free which commoditizes its value to zero so they don't value it. At least that's why I suspect Apple charges a subsidized rate.
I saw the same thing where I used to work which also had incredible food. When something is free entitled employees whine about it.
When I was an intern I got a new, latest model (for the time) MacBook Pro. At one point I also got a maxed-out trashcan Mac Pro too that they just had hanging around, which made WebKit builds far more pleasant.
Interns often get extra perks. Regular employees didn’t get the privilege of attending executive speaker series.
Maybe I was on the wrong team :-) This was also before the trashcan debuted (Jobs was still CEO), so maybe things changed with time, new grads were still getting <$100k offers from eg Google at the time.
At least according to levels.fyi, Google is paying people at equivalent titles quite a bit more than Apple is. For example a senior engineer at Google is listed as having an average total comp of $380k, whereas at Apple it's only $310k.
Now it's entirely possible that there is title inflation at Apple, so that a "senior" engineer at Apple is less senior than a senior engineer at Google. Or perhaps the samples are skewed differently per company. But when I lived in the Valley, the word on the street was that Apple paid less well than Google as a general rule. So the observed data on levels.fyi does match with whatever I heard in real life.
Now it's entirely possible that there is title inflation at Apple, so that a "senior" engineer at Apple is less senior than a senior engineer at Google. Or perhaps the samples are skewed differently per company. But when I lived in the Valley, the word on the street was that Apple paid less well than Google as a general rule. So the observed data on levels.fyi does match with whatever I heard in real life.
we need small companies to publish their compensation data on sites like levels.fyi, so people stop dreaming about big corps expecting huge salaries and rewards. There are many companies out there, with freedom to experiment fast, learn new tech, have a great work-life balance, without the huge tech debt of these corps, and they deserve a chance to have "rockstars" "ninjas" and so forth in their ranks
At least for the subset of small that are startups, small companies vs big companies isn’t a comp discussion. You will win on comp going to the smaller guys. It’s whether you want to burn for the moon or you want to live a comfortable upper middle class life.
FAANG is 70% retirees, 30% dipole candle burners. And the 30% provide the value, while the 70% are along for the ride.
FAANG is 70% retirees, 30% dipole candle burners. And the 30% provide the value, while the 70% are along for the ride.
> FAANG is 70% retirees, 30% dipole candle burners. And the 30% provide the value, while the 70% are along for the ride.
See in 2005 when Google was gaining traction and notoriety, it was because they had the reputation of not suffering driftwood.
I was working for a giant transnational (full-on archaic org like that in "Office Space") at the time and found it really hard to fathom a company without apathy and drifters. I (foolishly) thought it ironic and dangerous that a company so determined not to suffers fools had free food, coffee, video games, table tennis, etc in the office. My office had an old crappy second-hand foosball table that was removed because it was "too much of a distraction" despite most people not using it from fear of a reprimand.
Fast foward nearly 20 years and I guess "corporate entropy" gets everyone, eventually.
See in 2005 when Google was gaining traction and notoriety, it was because they had the reputation of not suffering driftwood.
I was working for a giant transnational (full-on archaic org like that in "Office Space") at the time and found it really hard to fathom a company without apathy and drifters. I (foolishly) thought it ironic and dangerous that a company so determined not to suffers fools had free food, coffee, video games, table tennis, etc in the office. My office had an old crappy second-hand foosball table that was removed because it was "too much of a distraction" despite most people not using it from fear of a reprimand.
Fast foward nearly 20 years and I guess "corporate entropy" gets everyone, eventually.
Scott Locklin memorably declared Google to be in its "Fat Elvis" stage as early as 2011:
https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/google-as-fat-...
I work in a FAANG and I can tell you than nobody in my team is slacking. Quite the opposite. Everybody is smart and working hard, there's no way you can cruise. I think all new members work even on weekends. A colleague of mine got fired because he didn't meet expectations for his level. He would have been totally fine in other companies. Turnover is high despite the high compensation.
I'm sure it depends on the company/team, but 70% of retirees, I think it's a myth.
I'm sure it depends on the company/team, but 70% of retirees, I think it's a myth.
Oh I have lots of friends at FAANGs. I also have lots of friends no longer there. The one thing I’ve learned is that people still at the company always assume that their team is fairly typical.
So all the hard workers describe the place as hard working. All the slackers describe it as relaxing.
Among the ex-FAANG, the hard workers describe their team as slacking. I don’t have any ex-FAANG slacker friends. They just stayed.
I’ve got 10 years of friends here and I’m fairly social so I think I’ve gotten a somewhat large sample, at least (if not unbiased).
So all the hard workers describe the place as hard working. All the slackers describe it as relaxing.
Among the ex-FAANG, the hard workers describe their team as slacking. I don’t have any ex-FAANG slacker friends. They just stayed.
I’ve got 10 years of friends here and I’m fairly social so I think I’ve gotten a somewhat large sample, at least (if not unbiased).
Yes, there are way less slackers in FAANG. In the regular marketplace, a slacker who gets on the wrong side of management or just stale can usually find a comparable gig. FAANG, given recent stock market gains, pays at least twice the US average and matching that can be a serious stretch, particularly outside Bay Area.
Sounds like you're at the "N" company.
I don't know if that will have the effect you desire. It's not a secret that there are a lot of companies that pay less money than big tech. That doesn't stop people hungering for those big tech jobs. Having specific salary numbers doesn't seem likely to change the situation.
Must disagree. As someone working in an MBB, the total comp of a potential exit is 100% a daily topic of conversation.
IMO initially it's possible that folks will not be deterred but that is truly a matter of time and space for the knowledge to be available, make its way through and then impact people's behavior.
IMO initially it's possible that folks will not be deterred but that is truly a matter of time and space for the knowledge to be available, make its way through and then impact people's behavior.
It sounds like you're disagreeing with something I didn't say. The person I replied to said that if small and medium businesses published compensation information, it would cause job seekers to prefer FAANG companies less. I said that was not true -- FAANG companies will still be very attractive to job seekers even if other businesses publish their salary info. Job seekers already know that smaller companies cannot match FAANG pay, and the exact amount of the deficit is not very important.
[deleted]
Current Googler. Everything you say is correct.
> Large companies have gotten away with paying under market price
This doesn’t make any sense.
What the large companies are paying is the market price. By definition.
It’s literally not possible for all of the big companies to be paying under market price at the same time. That implies some other prevailing market price somewhere else, yet we’ve clearly seen the highest salaries come from the big companies.
The big companies are paying whatever it takes to get the talent they need. That’s market price.
This doesn’t make any sense.
What the large companies are paying is the market price. By definition.
It’s literally not possible for all of the big companies to be paying under market price at the same time. That implies some other prevailing market price somewhere else, yet we’ve clearly seen the highest salaries come from the big companies.
The big companies are paying whatever it takes to get the talent they need. That’s market price.
> Large companies have gotten away with paying under market price for talent because employees have seen massive gains from stock appreciation over the last decade.
Are you sure these places pay "below market price"? Just curious, what companies would pay significantly more than FAANG?
Are you sure these places pay "below market price"? Just curious, what companies would pay significantly more than FAANG?
Agree. It doesn’t make sense.
If they aren’t struggling to hire and retain, they’re paying market rate. It’s as simple as that.
If they aren’t struggling to hire and retain, they’re paying market rate. It’s as simple as that.
Look at sites like levels.fyi. The usual FAANG suspects aren't anywhere near the top of these comp lists these days.
I just did (in London), mostly Google/Amazon/Meta at the top, plus a few hedge funds, including Jane Street which pays insane amounts of money but who's also much more selective than FAANG.
Check entry level pay for SF and throw Lyft/Stripe/Snap on that chart.
In the month it will the best time to look for software job ever. With Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian developers cut off, companies, that used to rely on remote teams, are going to be in the hiring frenzy to replace them.
Smart ones are already in the hiring frenzy.
Smart ones are already in the hiring frenzy.
[deleted]
Apple has always been the more stringent about remote work, in terms of maintaining secrecy by keeping its workers on-premises, so this is the least surprising move.
I have to imagine a lot of that has to do with the HW work they do, as a percentage of their business?
Even regardless of the confidentiality aspect (and we all know how Apple feels about that), for a decent number of folks, they might need some decently expensive equipment that wouldn't make sense to buy for everyone individually.
At least according to how I perceive the company, the folks coming from that side of the business really run things, and so they bring the in office culture with them even to the pure software businesses.
Obviously this is a lot of speculation, but it seems like a reasonable way to explain why they are the way they are.
Even regardless of the confidentiality aspect (and we all know how Apple feels about that), for a decent number of folks, they might need some decently expensive equipment that wouldn't make sense to buy for everyone individually.
At least according to how I perceive the company, the folks coming from that side of the business really run things, and so they bring the in office culture with them even to the pure software businesses.
Obviously this is a lot of speculation, but it seems like a reasonable way to explain why they are the way they are.
That's my guess. And not just equipment, but prototypes and such.
Imagine trying to make something intuitive and comfortable. How can you even judge that remotely? First you have to ship it around(or else make tons more units), then hope video quality suffices to see everything.
In person you can get 20 people in a room and let them interact with widget x. See how they behave, hear feedback, etc.
Imagine trying to make something intuitive and comfortable. How can you even judge that remotely? First you have to ship it around(or else make tons more units), then hope video quality suffices to see everything.
In person you can get 20 people in a room and let them interact with widget x. See how they behave, hear feedback, etc.
I work in hardware, remotely. It's not really that expensive to create the extra prototypes. Dedicated lab space is more of a concern, but depending on what it is you can dedicate a small room to it.
Yes, even wireless stuff. You don't even need a portable faraday cage (but could buy one). Actually interfering is what is illegal, not just making random test electronics.
Yes, even wireless stuff. You don't even need a portable faraday cage (but could buy one). Actually interfering is what is illegal, not just making random test electronics.
I think it is safe to say that most people do not have access to any expensive equipment.
I worked for Samsung for a little bit. And even there with operating system basically borrowed from Google, only very small portion of people ever needed to use any special tools. We got some prototypes but the one time we needed to do anything was to desolder and solder again a battery for a prototype watch. And that because a mistake (charging controller circuit badly designed, not powering properly from external power when battery drained). We had one guy do this for the rest of the team and everybody else was just working on software.
I worked for Samsung for a little bit. And even there with operating system basically borrowed from Google, only very small portion of people ever needed to use any special tools. We got some prototypes but the one time we needed to do anything was to desolder and solder again a battery for a prototype watch. And that because a mistake (charging controller circuit badly designed, not powering properly from external power when battery drained). We had one guy do this for the rest of the team and everybody else was just working on software.
I don't work for Apple, but it seems they've managed to get this far without any leaks so I guess whatever they did regarding their WFH policy worked out for them?
I had to go into the office a few times over the pandemic to use some testing equipment, but that was 7 or 8 days in the last 2 years?
I had to go into the office a few times over the pandemic to use some testing equipment, but that was 7 or 8 days in the last 2 years?
My friend who works at apple (hardware/wireless stuff?) has been to the office every day, except for a brief period in March-May 2020
Makes sense when you need access to special equipment. But most of us seldom need much more than a keyboard and screen.
They also just but a (what?) $8B donut that is barely used. Pride is a powerful thing.
A lot of people have been saying that they'd rather quit their job than go back to the office, next few months are gonna be very interesting.
This is me. But my boss’s boss doesn’t want to go back to the office either and every meeting she is saying that she is working to make it so we are all remote. I’m waiting to see what happens before I jump ship.
fwiw I just quit my first full-time job out of school in part because remote work has really held back my productivity + career growth. I started in May 2020 and have only met my coworkers a handful of times, and it's depressing. Among the students and early-career tech workers I know, working-from-home is almost universally a negative rather than a positive.
The main thing about money, Bud, is that it makes you do things you don't want to do.
-Lou Mannheim
-Lou Mannheim
Why? Just what percentage of competitive job postings are full time remote?
More people are dying with Covid now than were dying most of the previous two years, minus 4 peaks of various waves.
I'm happy we're returning to normalcy, but it just makes me wonder "why now?" It's like the government and big business just decided overnight to declare "mission accomplished" when nothing substantial has changed. Last summer, for example, could have been the reopening, and we'd have better data and "science" to support it.
I'm happy we're returning to normalcy, but it just makes me wonder "why now?" It's like the government and big business just decided overnight to declare "mission accomplished" when nothing substantial has changed. Last summer, for example, could have been the reopening, and we'd have better data and "science" to support it.
Politics plain and simple. COVID protocols are very unpopular at this point and not every effective. Florida and Texas are having big inflows, california and New York huge outflows. Whatever your viewpoint this is the fact politicians see. And yes taxes and cost of living are a huge driving force not only COVID, but as long as remote work goes on people will keep moving to low cost of living and low tax states.
You don't think the fact that this country just had the largest ever COVID wave (in terms of cases), which is in the process of ending, is at all related to the decisions?
Also of the scant 40 million people remaining in California, who haven't yet moved to Texas or Florida, public support for at least some "COVID protocols" are very high [1]. I'm not sure you are giving an impartial assessment of the facts.
1: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-24/californ...
Also of the scant 40 million people remaining in California, who haven't yet moved to Texas or Florida, public support for at least some "COVID protocols" are very high [1]. I'm not sure you are giving an impartial assessment of the facts.
1: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-24/californ...
The PR Firm Impact Research sent a report to the Democrats on Feb 22, 2022 urging them to lift all restrictions & claim victory for political points. Immediately after, restrictions lifted. Do your own assessment of the facts.
Leaked memo https://punchbowl.news/impact-covid-positioning-strategy-mem...
Leaked memo https://punchbowl.news/impact-covid-positioning-strategy-mem...
So you contend that "the Democrats" (who obviously are a fully united entity who never disagree) should have kept all the restrictions even though the Omicron wave is ending?
What should they have done?
What should they have done?
It's just exposing the lie that "following the data" meant "following the polling data."
That's fine, that's how democracy works. But it erodes trust in the political bodies that made all these rules and then just overturn them on a whim.
That's fine, that's how democracy works. But it erodes trust in the political bodies that made all these rules and then just overturn them on a whim.
If the public are also "following the data", then the polling data and scientific consensus are likely to be highly correlated. I don't think it is nefarious at all that the general public and political leaders come to the same conclusions at about the same time when both are reacting same set of factors.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William J. Casey, CIA Director (1981)
It's amazing what people will ignore even though it's directly in front of their eyes.
I don't care who's in charge. I care if suggestions/mandates fit the data. As of today, daily new cases in California are 2x-4x and deaths around 2x what they were in November. If in a week they are 1x then ok, open. But before then? Further, I guess it remains to be seen but I'd suspect lifting the restrictions will just rebound the numbers. Happy if I'm wrong though. I certainly would like to go to meetups, bars, etc...
California is a big place, and that's not what the numbers look like in the Bay Area.
https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboards
https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-wastewater
I actually don't think the numbers will rebound; once everyone is protected from delta+omicron that does _not_ mean a new variant can keep appearing forever. It has to be different from both of them for immune escape, and that gets harder each time.
Also, we have antivirals now (paxlovid) which we didn't have even a month ago and are very effective.
https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboards
https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-wastewater
I actually don't think the numbers will rebound; once everyone is protected from delta+omicron that does _not_ mean a new variant can keep appearing forever. It has to be different from both of them for immune escape, and that gets harder each time.
Also, we have antivirals now (paxlovid) which we didn't have even a month ago and are very effective.
[deleted]
There was no guarantee we got it right (however you define that) six months ago. So it makes zero sense to match today's policy to the policy six months ago just because the case counts are similar. This is just cargo culted public policy.
Secondly, countless times we have seen a negative correlation between restrictions and case/death counts.
Secondly, countless times we have seen a negative correlation between restrictions and case/death counts.
Most of the serious cases/deaths are unvaccinated. Since they made that choice to endure that extra risk, there simply is no reason for the rest of us to carry on with the consequences of their choices.
Damned if they did, damned if the didn’t. Republicans have it out for the Democrats, they can’t make a decision that they won’t call out as the wrong one.
Or spin as one, even if it means apologizing for Vladimir Putin.
With covid numbers falling from the inevitable January spike after the holidays, lifting omicron restrictions was always going to happen sometime this spring. (Barring some new deadly hypothetical variant.)
But I don't doubt that both parties factor PR into all of their decisions, down to how they dress.
The implication that a PR firm could dictate that the country would remain shut down until November despite covid numbers this low is silly. But I'm sure timing and messaging and other details are informed by PR studies.
Whether from fear of losing their jobs or wanting to carry out the will of their constituents, lawmakers have to pay attention to what we think either way.
But I don't doubt that both parties factor PR into all of their decisions, down to how they dress.
The implication that a PR firm could dictate that the country would remain shut down until November despite covid numbers this low is silly. But I'm sure timing and messaging and other details are informed by PR studies.
Whether from fear of losing their jobs or wanting to carry out the will of their constituents, lawmakers have to pay attention to what we think either way.
And arguably the covid numbers were only high was because of dishonest and inflated counting.
Now they are "low" because the risk policy was changed. https://fee.org/articles/the-cdc-changed-its-covid-risk-form...
Thinking PR doesn't dictate politics is what is really silly. If PR didn't matter, we wouldn't be inundated with ridiculous propaganda 24/7. They aren't "paying attention" to us, they are manufacturing consent and telling you what to think through all forms of media.
Now, how long until this gets censored?
Thinking PR doesn't dictate politics is what is really silly. If PR didn't matter, we wouldn't be inundated with ridiculous propaganda 24/7. They aren't "paying attention" to us, they are manufacturing consent and telling you what to think through all forms of media.
Now, how long until this gets censored?
I don't see that where I am. Most people have stopped wearing masks in public. 2 months ago everyone was wearing one.
SFBA, having a lot of Asians, was already ready to wear masks without anyone asking and is probably just going to keep on doing it forever.
When I visited Ohio last summer, no one was wearing masks inside anywhere
[deleted]
Midterms is the reason and California doesn't count. The happy path is that covid recedes over spring and summer as folks spend more time outside. If another variant crops up it may hit the deep south first like Delta did since they will be inside for AC reasons. But then you are close enough to November anyway. We will still have strict test before you fly requirements for international travelers and anyone who wants to fly to the USA has to be vaccinated (except for Americans returning).
Yes, the polling changed and they follow the polls:
The message is backed by advice from Biden’s polling firm, Impact Research, which studied voter attitudes to Covid and found that most Americans are "worn out" by the restrictions and "have personally moved out of crisis mode."
In a Feb. 16 memo, the firm told Democrats to take "the win" on Covid, warning that by 49 percent to 24 percent, Americans are more concerned about it causing economic harm than infecting them or a family member, and that far more parents and teachers worry about learning loss than illness for their kids.
"The more we talk about the threat of COVID and onerously restrict people’s lives because of it, the more we turn them against us and show them we’re out of touch with their daily realities," Impact Research’s Molly Murphy and Brian Stryker wrote in the memo, which was viewed by NBC News. They warned that if Democrats continue to emphasize Covid precautions over learning to live in a world with the virus, "they risk paying dearly for it in November."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/democrats-tur...
The message is backed by advice from Biden’s polling firm, Impact Research, which studied voter attitudes to Covid and found that most Americans are "worn out" by the restrictions and "have personally moved out of crisis mode."
In a Feb. 16 memo, the firm told Democrats to take "the win" on Covid, warning that by 49 percent to 24 percent, Americans are more concerned about it causing economic harm than infecting them or a family member, and that far more parents and teachers worry about learning loss than illness for their kids.
"The more we talk about the threat of COVID and onerously restrict people’s lives because of it, the more we turn them against us and show them we’re out of touch with their daily realities," Impact Research’s Molly Murphy and Brian Stryker wrote in the memo, which was viewed by NBC News. They warned that if Democrats continue to emphasize Covid precautions over learning to live in a world with the virus, "they risk paying dearly for it in November."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/democrats-tur...
I get people are skeptical but let's be objective here. Not everything needs to be a conspiracy and an evil scheme. California and NY followed CDC guidance. We are past the Omicron phase and may be the data shows we are in the clear. If losing out people was the issue then did NY just participate in this "scheme" out of solidarity to California?
Objectively, the CDC are the dumbfucks who said not to mask up when this thing first started. They may have done that for what they felt were good reasons (they didn't want to run out of masks for frontline workers) or bad ones (the WHO didn't think aerosol transmission of COVID was possible). Their advice should be subject to more scrutiny.
The not-just-poll-driven view of this is that you also should take into account:
- for many - not all, but many - of the more vulnerable to hospitalization and death, it's now a matter of choice.
- As a result, a bigger spike in cases caused much fewer hospitalizations and deaths than previous spikes, meaning less impact on the rest of the health system.
- behavior has changed dramatically in terms of things like event attendance even in areas with more cautious government policy. Compare how many people went to movie theaters in late summer 2020 when they reopened in limited capacity in California with now. The limited capacity isn't the biggest difference, it's the behavior.
- we can see that, say, California has fewer cumulative deaths per capita than Texas or Florida despite the urban areas being somewhat denser[0] (which itself seems to play a big role), and Arizona has more than NY or Massachusets despite being far less dense and with much milder winters... but the differences aren't orders of magnitudes.
- masks are cheaper and more available than they were earlier, and treatments are becoming more widely available too
So this is a reasonable point to say "we aren't able to eliminate this thing, but fortunately, it's much less dangerous to most of us than it used to be."
But make no mistakes: the biggest factor there in terms of danger is the vaccines, which have now been available over a year.
[0] https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/cumulative-covid-1...
- for many - not all, but many - of the more vulnerable to hospitalization and death, it's now a matter of choice.
- As a result, a bigger spike in cases caused much fewer hospitalizations and deaths than previous spikes, meaning less impact on the rest of the health system.
- behavior has changed dramatically in terms of things like event attendance even in areas with more cautious government policy. Compare how many people went to movie theaters in late summer 2020 when they reopened in limited capacity in California with now. The limited capacity isn't the biggest difference, it's the behavior.
- we can see that, say, California has fewer cumulative deaths per capita than Texas or Florida despite the urban areas being somewhat denser[0] (which itself seems to play a big role), and Arizona has more than NY or Massachusets despite being far less dense and with much milder winters... but the differences aren't orders of magnitudes.
- masks are cheaper and more available than they were earlier, and treatments are becoming more widely available too
So this is a reasonable point to say "we aren't able to eliminate this thing, but fortunately, it's much less dangerous to most of us than it used to be."
But make no mistakes: the biggest factor there in terms of danger is the vaccines, which have now been available over a year.
[0] https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/cumulative-covid-1...
> masks are cheaper and more available than they were earlier
Where I live (California), nearly everyone is using surgical masks or cloth masks, which have been proven to be almost entirely decorative, or none at all, so I have trouble believing this. Perhaps for the vulnerable population.
Where I live (California), nearly everyone is using surgical masks or cloth masks, which have been proven to be almost entirely decorative, or none at all, so I have trouble believing this. Perhaps for the vulnerable population.
Counterpoint: I see a lot of (K)N95 masks on the MTA subway. At least 50% during rush hour. I think people here know about how useless the other masks are.
[deleted]
Elections coming up as well
> Elections coming up as well
This is the big one. Ever since the upset in the Virginia governor's race, the Democrats have been very eager to end COVID restrictions no matter what. The Republicans have never cared about COVID so, at the moment there's a rare bipartisan unity on this issue.
This is the big one. Ever since the upset in the Virginia governor's race, the Democrats have been very eager to end COVID restrictions no matter what. The Republicans have never cared about COVID so, at the moment there's a rare bipartisan unity on this issue.
So for example, you consider the 3 Democratic Governors of California, Oregon and Washington ending their state's various mask mandates 4+ months after the VA election to be "eager to end COVID restrictions no matter what".
Do you think the Omicron wave might have had more to do with the COVID restrictions than the VA governor's race?
Do you think the Omicron wave might have had more to do with the COVID restrictions than the VA governor's race?
> Do you think the Omicron wave might have had more to do with the COVID restrictions than the VA governor's race?
I don't.
The case numbers in many, if not most areas, are still higher than they were during the delta wave in the Summer and Fall that led to the lockdowns and restrictions being implemented in the first place.
If this were truly just about the data then you'd expect the restrictions to lift once the case counts returned to pre-delta numbers.
Edit/Clarification: I say this as someone is/was generally been in favor of a very cautious response to COVID.
I don't.
The case numbers in many, if not most areas, are still higher than they were during the delta wave in the Summer and Fall that led to the lockdowns and restrictions being implemented in the first place.
If this were truly just about the data then you'd expect the restrictions to lift once the case counts returned to pre-delta numbers.
Edit/Clarification: I say this as someone is/was generally been in favor of a very cautious response to COVID.
The current case numbers come with a lower fatality rate so the same case numbers don't suggest the same level of action as before.
Also the context of the numbers matters. They're trending down now, not up, and the variant spikes are over. In the middle of delta/omicron we didn't know what was going to happen.
And yes, there's fatigue on everyone's part. The relative lower danger of omicron, plus being past the delta spike then the omicron spike, means we're just kind of collectively over it. Citizens have fatigue, they're just not built to stay on guard for a third year. Policy makers are fatigued, they can't force people to stay home for another year to save lives from covid just like they can't force people to stop driving to save lives from car crashes.
So admitting there's a political aspect is fine, but it's a lot more nuanced than the election cycle, which is a much more contrived explanation than everyone's response to a dramatic drop in the numbers.
Also the context of the numbers matters. They're trending down now, not up, and the variant spikes are over. In the middle of delta/omicron we didn't know what was going to happen.
And yes, there's fatigue on everyone's part. The relative lower danger of omicron, plus being past the delta spike then the omicron spike, means we're just kind of collectively over it. Citizens have fatigue, they're just not built to stay on guard for a third year. Policy makers are fatigued, they can't force people to stay home for another year to save lives from covid just like they can't force people to stop driving to save lives from car crashes.
So admitting there's a political aspect is fine, but it's a lot more nuanced than the election cycle, which is a much more contrived explanation than everyone's response to a dramatic drop in the numbers.
The peak of the delta wave was 160k cases/day, and the current case levels are ~52k/day. So given that, you think most areas are having higher case loads than the peak of the delta wave? You just aren't look at the data. There is also strong reason to believe that right after a huge wave is over you can expect a relatively smooth period of time to follow since so many people will have extra immunity from having recovered from covid.
The people making these decisions are not idiots, they can look at the data and make sane and rational predictions about what might happen in the future, and then adapt if necessary.
The people making these decisions are not idiots, they can look at the data and make sane and rational predictions about what might happen in the future, and then adapt if necessary.
> The people making these decisions are not idiots
Most of the world would beg to differ. Particularly in the West, this whole situation was handled abominably and was an embarrassment at all levels. Even most doctors will tell you the CDC bungled this whole thing mightily.
Most of the world would beg to differ. Particularly in the West, this whole situation was handled abominably and was an embarrassment at all levels. Even most doctors will tell you the CDC bungled this whole thing mightily.
Can it be both? I do feel like this is at a nexus of action in fact.
Also sure its 4+months after the VA governors race but here in LA the mayoral election is up and its hot. So is the DA race...which honestly...how many voters can tell me what the DA even does outside of their exposure to law and order?
Sheer numbers of cases and deaths don't reflect the need to drop vigilance, esp to a level where no one wears masks regardless of vaccination status. Our president just announced months ago (over the holidays) that people who were unvaxxed were likely to die with a press release the equivalent of a :shrug: emoji.
This is definitely due to the wind down of the omicron cases but chance and luck is what will keep us from another wave, not droppings masks and having no vaccination mandates or having them sector by sector driven by industry.
Also sure its 4+months after the VA governors race but here in LA the mayoral election is up and its hot. So is the DA race...which honestly...how many voters can tell me what the DA even does outside of their exposure to law and order?
Sheer numbers of cases and deaths don't reflect the need to drop vigilance, esp to a level where no one wears masks regardless of vaccination status. Our president just announced months ago (over the holidays) that people who were unvaxxed were likely to die with a press release the equivalent of a :shrug: emoji.
This is definitely due to the wind down of the omicron cases but chance and luck is what will keep us from another wave, not droppings masks and having no vaccination mandates or having them sector by sector driven by industry.
People are leaving for FL and TX cause taxes you add in the salt deduction change its considerable. Have lived in FL TX and NY.
Add in weather and TX and FL are actually nice places to live for the most part.
Add in weather and TX and FL are actually nice places to live for the most part.
Texas weather is awful I have no idea where you are getting this from. I lived in multiple Texas cities and they are bad for their own reasons.
[deleted]
…aside from the flooding in both places that will decrease property values dramatically over the next few decades, I guess. Less of a concern if renting and if you don’t mind the prospect of potentially getting all your belongings destroyed at some point in the future.
People are leaving for FL and TX cause taxes you add in the salt deduction change its considerable. Have lived in FL TX and NY.
Why hasn't the Biden administration fixed this, by the way? Anyone know?
Frankly it's astonishing how few Trump-era policies have been reversed by this administration. When the GOP-dominated Congress acted to remove the SALT deduction, I always assumed it was just a bit of petty electoral revenge that would be reverted almost immediately. That appears to have been wrong. There's no shortage of similar examples, from immigration policy to idiotic "easy to win" trade wars to USPS governance, where Trump policies have survived so long that it's hard to believe that the Democrats don't agree with them.
Why hasn't the Biden administration fixed this, by the way? Anyone know?
Frankly it's astonishing how few Trump-era policies have been reversed by this administration. When the GOP-dominated Congress acted to remove the SALT deduction, I always assumed it was just a bit of petty electoral revenge that would be reverted almost immediately. That appears to have been wrong. There's no shortage of similar examples, from immigration policy to idiotic "easy to win" trade wars to USPS governance, where Trump policies have survived so long that it's hard to believe that the Democrats don't agree with them.
Because SALT deduction benefits only go to the top 5% to 10% income households.
Democrats do not really have a leg to stand on if they want to push progressive taxes. With the standard deduction at $13k/$25k, only the richest households in the solid Democrat states are affected by SALT deduction caps, and there is no reason for politicians not from those states to compromise on it.
Even the politicians from the high tax states have a tough time answering why they are holding up legislation to benefit the highest 10% of incomes of the state.
It was a pretty genius political move by Republicans.
Edit:
> There's no shortage of similar examples, from immigration policy to idiotic "easy to win" trade wars to USPS governance, where Trump policies have survived so long that it's hard to believe that the Democrats don't agree with them.
Also, a lot of these things require Senate approval which Dems do not have. When Trump was in office, all the Repubs were lockstep behind him, so he could push through a ton of stuff. Dems have not had this position since the Clinton days in the 90s.
Democrats do not really have a leg to stand on if they want to push progressive taxes. With the standard deduction at $13k/$25k, only the richest households in the solid Democrat states are affected by SALT deduction caps, and there is no reason for politicians not from those states to compromise on it.
Even the politicians from the high tax states have a tough time answering why they are holding up legislation to benefit the highest 10% of incomes of the state.
It was a pretty genius political move by Republicans.
Edit:
> There's no shortage of similar examples, from immigration policy to idiotic "easy to win" trade wars to USPS governance, where Trump policies have survived so long that it's hard to believe that the Democrats don't agree with them.
Also, a lot of these things require Senate approval which Dems do not have. When Trump was in office, all the Repubs were lockstep behind him, so he could push through a ton of stuff. Dems have not had this position since the Clinton days in the 90s.
Because SALT deduction benefits only go to the top 5% to 10% income households.
That's not a reason. Double taxation of individuals is not OK.
That's not a reason. Double taxation of individuals is not OK.
I do not see how it is “double taxation”. The whole setup of the US is that there are multiple taxing authorities, and they can all lay claim to a portion of one’s income.
There is no law that says two different governments each cannot collect x% of your income.
What reason there is for one to need to be able to reduce amounts owed to entity A simply because they also owe entity B?
Entity A and B can be a retail store, grocery store, plumber, government, whoever.
There is no law that says two different governments each cannot collect x% of your income.
What reason there is for one to need to be able to reduce amounts owed to entity A simply because they also owe entity B?
Entity A and B can be a retail store, grocery store, plumber, government, whoever.
It's double taxation if two entirely-different entities lay claim to a percentage of pretax income. The same income is being taxed twice. To my thinking, it comes down to the basic division of responsibilities between the Federal, state, and local governments. Simply adding another layer should not require additional tax funding; the question should only be how the income tax an individual pays is distributed between the layers.
Fortunately, that's one advantage to the system we have -- if you don't feel that Sacramento and Washington, DC should both get a crack at your income, you can always move to a state with no income tax. I did.
Fortunately, that's one advantage to the system we have -- if you don't feel that Sacramento and Washington, DC should both get a crack at your income, you can always move to a state with no income tax. I did.
Not so much. Average house in Illinois about 350k. At that you pay about 10k property tax. Salt limit reached.
You have to forego the standard deduction if you want to itemize And take advantage of SALT deductions. Which means you have to owe more federal income tax than $12.5k for single filers and $25.1k for married filers.
This link goes into more detail:
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/07/what-is-the-salt-cap-and-w...
This link goes into more detail:
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/07/what-is-the-salt-cap-and-w...
Yeah, but that was just the property tax — the SALT cap applies to the total state and local taxes.
Tack on the 5% income tax rate, and you'll hit the cap pretty easily. For example, a single person making any amount (with that property tax amount) will hit the cap. Ditto for a couple each making $145k.
Tack on the 5% income tax rate, and you'll hit the cap pretty easily. For example, a single person making any amount (with that property tax amount) will hit the cap. Ditto for a couple each making $145k.
And they still have $10k of SALT to deduct. The more you increase the cap, the more it benefits richer people (on a nationwide perspective).
There are a handful of states with extremely high taxes (IL/NJ/CT/CA/NY/MD/etc), but they are solidly Democrat. I do not envision the other Democrat states who would not benefit from SALT cap increases to care about going out on a limb for them.
There are a handful of states with extremely high taxes (IL/NJ/CT/CA/NY/MD/etc), but they are solidly Democrat. I do not envision the other Democrat states who would not benefit from SALT cap increases to care about going out on a limb for them.
I'm no expert, but I would imagine this would be part of a larger package that would have plenty of goodies for other D-leaning states. You don't have to convince folks in Louisiana that SALT cap removal is in their best interest — you just package it up in a bill large enough to get a big enough coalition of supporters.
Which is what Dems tried with the Build Back Better bill, but Repubs were able to successfully pit Democrat vs Democrat because increasing the SALT caps is easy to advertise as decreasing taxes for the rich.
This is a great article summarizing what I am trying to say.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/591378-salt-change-likel...
> Critics grumble that raising the cap on SALT deductions runs counter to what they say is the main political rationale for passing the legislation: addressing wealth inequality.
Repubs really put Dems in a bad spot with this one.
This is a great article summarizing what I am trying to say.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/591378-salt-change-likel...
> Critics grumble that raising the cap on SALT deductions runs counter to what they say is the main political rationale for passing the legislation: addressing wealth inequality.
Repubs really put Dems in a bad spot with this one.
> When the GOP-dominated Congress acted to remove the SALT deduction, I always assumed it was just a bit of petty electoral revenge that would be reverted almost immediately
The thing with capping SALT is that it is all of petty electoral revenge, a structural incentive to state policies Republicans like, and, because of who is individually impacted by first-order effects of the cap, a political trap for Democrats.
The thing with capping SALT is that it is all of petty electoral revenge, a structural incentive to state policies Republicans like, and, because of who is individually impacted by first-order effects of the cap, a political trap for Democrats.
I think it's helpful to think of elections as not replacing governments entirely, but swapping out a very small publicly facing segment.
Manchin was citing its reversion as a sore spot
> makes me wonder "why now?"
Today's episode of the Scientific American's podcast "COVID Quickly" (https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/the-push-...) had an interview with Flu pandemic historian John Barry. (The interview is the second half of the episode.)
They asked him how he'd define when a pandemic is over, and he said there's a science aspect to it, but it's largely when "people stop paying attention to it".
They also said the 1918 flu pandemic had 4 waves, and most of the US put restrictions in for wave 2. For wave 3, some areas did and some didn't. By wave 4, which was approximately as severe, NO cities put restrictions in place. Some histories of the flu pandemic don't even mention the 4th wave.
We seem to be following a very similar pattern now. Maybe 2 years (and/or 4 waves) is roughly society's attention span for a pandemic.
Today's episode of the Scientific American's podcast "COVID Quickly" (https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/the-push-...) had an interview with Flu pandemic historian John Barry. (The interview is the second half of the episode.)
They asked him how he'd define when a pandemic is over, and he said there's a science aspect to it, but it's largely when "people stop paying attention to it".
They also said the 1918 flu pandemic had 4 waves, and most of the US put restrictions in for wave 2. For wave 3, some areas did and some didn't. By wave 4, which was approximately as severe, NO cities put restrictions in place. Some histories of the flu pandemic don't even mention the 4th wave.
We seem to be following a very similar pattern now. Maybe 2 years (and/or 4 waves) is roughly society's attention span for a pandemic.
That’s contingent on the number of waves being four and the number of years being two though.
I have no expectation covid is done. At a certain point you have to pay attention if it’s bad enough. (It isn’t now)
I have no expectation covid is done. At a certain point you have to pay attention if it’s bad enough. (It isn’t now)
That influenza virus didn't go anywhere, it's still with us, but people stopped caring after the worst of the pandemic.
COVID-19 will now do the same. That's a bad but predictable outcome of short term thinking.
COVID-19 will now do the same. That's a bad but predictable outcome of short term thinking.
Spanish flu’s mega waves stopped though. My point is if covid keeps swamping us then we won’t be able to ignore it.
Easy to say “I’m done with covid” at the bottom of a wave, which is where most of the world is now. (Referring to the popular attitude, not you)
Easy to say “I’m done with covid” at the bottom of a wave, which is where most of the world is now. (Referring to the popular attitude, not you)
Hasn't influenza been around for like 1000+ years?
Influenza has existed in human populations for a long time, yes. However the 1918 pandemic was a novel H1N1 influenza A probably from birds. It was never eliminated in humans and continues to kill people to this day. We "learned to live with it" because up front capital costs are distasteful to idiots who can't see past the next quarter.
That’s contingent on the number of waves being four and the number of years being two though.
I have no expectation covid is done. At a certain point you have to pay attention if it’s bad enough.
I have no expectation covid is done. At a certain point you have to pay attention if it’s bad enough.
I didn't use death rate for supporting closing and I won't use death rate for supporting opening.
Covid's main threats for most people are:
* Filling up hospitals to the point they stop functioning (that's been true here in Canada).
* Putting 10% ~ 20% of workers everywhere, including hospitals, out of commission for weeks at a time while they're acutely sick with Covid or infectious to others.
* Disabling some large % of people temporarily or permanently due to lingering symptoms of the virus.
The death rate for covid is significant but not substantial enough in itself to cause the world to lock down. The points above though, are.
Covid's main threats for most people are:
* Filling up hospitals to the point they stop functioning (that's been true here in Canada).
* Putting 10% ~ 20% of workers everywhere, including hospitals, out of commission for weeks at a time while they're acutely sick with Covid or infectious to others.
* Disabling some large % of people temporarily or permanently due to lingering symptoms of the virus.
The death rate for covid is significant but not substantial enough in itself to cause the world to lock down. The points above though, are.
> The death rate for covid is significant but not substantial enough in itself to cause the world to lock down. The points above though, are.
For USA the death rate is still higher than times when we were not RTO.
For USA the death rate is still higher than times when we were not RTO.
The people dying of COVID and the people working from home are different cohorts. We have a vaccine, anti-virals, and natural immunity. Will the WFH cohort see an increase in deaths due to RTO? Certainly. We’ll also see more car accidents. The world has never been free of risk, and we are now emerging from the pandemic with a newly integrated risk model for this disease. It’s going to be touch and go for a while — years — but it’s important to remember that flattening the curve was always the goal. COVID Zero was never in play.
> The people dying of COVID and the people working from home are different cohorts. We have a vaccine, anti-virals, and natural immunity
Well, yes. The people dying were always generally unvaccinated.
Well, yes. The people dying were always generally unvaccinated.
> * Putting 10% ~ 20% of workers everywhere, including hospitals, out of commission for weeks at a time while they're acutely sick with Covid or infectious to others.
This one seems like a dubious point to me, services during the early-2020 lockdowns were much more impacted than they were during the Omicron spike which saw much less enforced lockdown but much more "shit, all our employees are sick" closures.
Completely agree with the hospitalization concerns, and I would add that the calculations also changed a lot re: protecting others after widespread vaccine availability.
This one seems like a dubious point to me, services during the early-2020 lockdowns were much more impacted than they were during the Omicron spike which saw much less enforced lockdown but much more "shit, all our employees are sick" closures.
Completely agree with the hospitalization concerns, and I would add that the calculations also changed a lot re: protecting others after widespread vaccine availability.
The underlying assumption seems to be that future waves will be mild because Omicron was mild, either intrinsically or due to improved immunity. I hope it’s the case, but time will tell if this is true.
Alternatively, they’re planning to more reactively bring us into the office when we’re in a lull and have us WFH when we’re in a wave.
Alternatively, they’re planning to more reactively bring us into the office when we’re in a lull and have us WFH when we’re in a wave.
> More people are dying with Covid now than were dying most of the previous two years, minus 4 peaks of various waves.
There is a huge difference between "dying with COVID" and "dying from COVID".
There is a huge difference between "dying with COVID" and "dying from COVID".
That was true from the beginning. Legacy bureaucracies like the CDC are just recognizing what was clear in 2020.
The last wave amplified the difference. In the UK for example the last wave doesn't show up in the ICU patients chart [1], while it's clearly seen in the death chart [2]. The last wave seems to simultaneously correspond to a sudden spike in death statistics [2] and a sudden drop in excess mortality [3]. Point being, "deaths with COVID" doesn't mean a causal relationship any more, you need to look at other statistics to see how many people are dying as a result of COVID.
[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
[2]: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
[3]: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
[2]: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
[3]: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
It's quantitatively much different now.[0] There's been a crowd pushing the idea that the hospitalization numbers are highly misleading for two years now, and they're trying to claim that they were right all along based on numbers that are only happening after a year or vaccination campaigns and a less-lung-oriented strain emerging.
"About 7% of L.A. County’s total staffed ICU beds are taken up by COVID-19 patients, compared with 15% during the summer Delta wave and more than 50% last winter. "
"In early November — before Omicron swept around the world, and Delta was still dominant — 75% of coronavirus-positive patients countywide were in the hospital for COVID-related medical issues, Ferrer said.
By late December, the same was true for 45% of coronavirus-positive hospitalized patients, Ferrer estimated."
"During last winter’s COVID-19 surge, about 80% of coronavirus-positive patients in the emergency department at L.A. County-USC Medical Center were being admitted to the hospital, and nearly half of those went to the ICU, Spellberg said. Now, about a third of coronavirus-positive patients are admitted, and 20% to 25% are going to the ICU."
[0] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-07/fewer-co...
"About 7% of L.A. County’s total staffed ICU beds are taken up by COVID-19 patients, compared with 15% during the summer Delta wave and more than 50% last winter. "
"In early November — before Omicron swept around the world, and Delta was still dominant — 75% of coronavirus-positive patients countywide were in the hospital for COVID-related medical issues, Ferrer said.
By late December, the same was true for 45% of coronavirus-positive hospitalized patients, Ferrer estimated."
"During last winter’s COVID-19 surge, about 80% of coronavirus-positive patients in the emergency department at L.A. County-USC Medical Center were being admitted to the hospital, and nearly half of those went to the ICU, Spellberg said. Now, about a third of coronavirus-positive patients are admitted, and 20% to 25% are going to the ICU."
[0] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-07/fewer-co...
Well, excess mortality was high earlier and is now low. The current Covid strain is both more infectious and less deadly so we should expect this change
> There is a huge difference between "dying with COVID" and "dying from COVID".
The distinction you're making isn't new - it's literally years old at this point.
The distinction you're making isn't new - it's literally years old at this point.
No, people were always saying it but have only accidentally become correct now due to sufficient vaccination and omicron's lower fatality. The risk of death from COVID is now a bit less than the flu.
Note it's still bad, you don't want to catch it. But you don't want to catch the flu either. People who think the flu is nothing are confusing it with a common cold - I got a flu Jan 2020 and couldn't get out of bed for days.
Note it's still bad, you don't want to catch it. But you don't want to catch the flu either. People who think the flu is nothing are confusing it with a common cold - I got a flu Jan 2020 and couldn't get out of bed for days.
This line of argument doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny. First of all, it's quite pedantic and naive to assume that governments and medical bodies in the richest and most advanced countries haven't worked through similar issues of causality with innumerable other diseases. More to the point, the peaks in COVID deaths magically align with proportionately large spikes in all cause mortality not seen in prior years that have yet to be explained by anything else.
Here in New Zealand a gang member was shot to death and was recorded as a covid death because he tested positive posthumously. This is apparently in line with international practices. If you don't see the absurdity in that then I don't know what to say.
I assume it’s this story https://www.1news.co.nz/2021/11/11/new-lynn-shooting-victim-...
It’s not really true if you read further into it. Think about it - if you get nasty infection while under surgery - was cause of death surgery or infection.
It’s not really true if you read further into it. Think about it - if you get nasty infection while under surgery - was cause of death surgery or infection.
I have looked into it, and what I said is absolutely true. From your linked article,
> "The clinical criteria will continue to be guided by WHO definition which is basically to report any death where the person had an acute Covid-19 infection regardless of what the cause of death might be," Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield told RNZ.
The death was reported as a "death with covid" in accordance with WHO guidelines. Again, if you don't see the absurdity then you can't be helped.
> Think about it - if you get nasty infection while under surgery - was cause of death surgery or infection.
How on earth is this relevant? The victim was not showing symptoms and did not undergo surgery.
> "The clinical criteria will continue to be guided by WHO definition which is basically to report any death where the person had an acute Covid-19 infection regardless of what the cause of death might be," Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield told RNZ.
The death was reported as a "death with covid" in accordance with WHO guidelines. Again, if you don't see the absurdity then you can't be helped.
> Think about it - if you get nasty infection while under surgery - was cause of death surgery or infection.
How on earth is this relevant? The victim was not showing symptoms and did not undergo surgery.
As I said - read further - they confirmed later by a coroner.
You two are disagreeing because the article is terribly ambiguous on the key question about "acute COVID" and "cause of death".
You're missing the point. The case was still counted in covid stats, because that is the accepted method from the WHO.
It's important to record died with covid. We might later find out there's a mental component. Maybe he experienced covid madness and undertook riskier behavior.
There is still the determination that he was shot, so it's not like we are going to forever think these deaths were just attributed to covid.
There is still the determination that he was shot, so it's not like we are going to forever think these deaths were just attributed to covid.
Covid helping to do the job our police and military can't.
> More to the point, the peaks in COVID deaths magically align with proportionately large spikes in all cause mortality not seen in prior years that have yet to be explained by anything else.
In the UK they are in fact inversely correlated for Omicron. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30558089
In the UK they are in fact inversely correlated for Omicron. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30558089
Very few states record COVID deaths properly.
How do you remove people who die in the hospital for other reasons but have a mandatory COVID swab done and are positive?
How do you remove people who die in the hospital for other reasons but have a mandatory COVID swab done and are positive?
The person you responded to mentioned all-cause mortality. Remove the base rate, then you're left with excess deaths. How do you explain excess deaths if they are not covid?
And that's not to say an explanation other than covid is impossible, but it would need to be compelling.
And that's not to say an explanation other than covid is impossible, but it would need to be compelling.
> How do you explain excess deaths if they are not covid?
Delayed medical care because of Covid fear. I missed my annual physical two years ago and ended up with a heart attack I barely survived last October. People were delaying routine screenings such as mammograms, physicals, and other preventative care.
There are also increases in suicide, deaths of despair, especially in younger people. Addiction especially.
Nobody wants to talk about vaccine injuries and related deaths. But that is non-zero.
Delayed medical care because of Covid fear. I missed my annual physical two years ago and ended up with a heart attack I barely survived last October. People were delaying routine screenings such as mammograms, physicals, and other preventative care.
There are also increases in suicide, deaths of despair, especially in younger people. Addiction especially.
Nobody wants to talk about vaccine injuries and related deaths. But that is non-zero.
Suicide rate was lower in 2020 and 2021 than it was prior to the pandemic.
Out of curiosity, in what way did missing a physical cause or lead to your heart attack?
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-...
If you just look at the all-cause mortality increase, it neatly works around this problem, and looking at it that way gives a staggeringly higher number than the official tolls
If you just look at the all-cause mortality increase, it neatly works around this problem, and looking at it that way gives a staggeringly higher number than the official tolls
Covid sucks. My toddler (for various shitty reasons I was unable to prevent) got it three times in the last 12 months.
Even vaccinated (and never testing positive), the immune response I got from taking care of a highly infectious toddler screaming in my face was terrible and really brutal. I’m not old, fully functional immune system, etc. and it had me out for weeks, brain fog, exhaustion, off and on high fever, you name it. I suspect I still am suffering side effects from the last infection in Jan.
If I hadn’t been fully vaccinated just before the first time he got it, I’d probably be dead.
Pretending that someone who was not as strong or healthy, gets it, then dies didn’t ‘die from Covid’ is probably disingenuous at least 90% of the time.
We all die eventually, it’s the norm for whatever obvious change occurred to be blamed for it, not ‘inevitable entropic reality’ or whatever.
At the end of the day, someone has to made a judgement call about the appropriate factor in a complex system.
Even vaccinated (and never testing positive), the immune response I got from taking care of a highly infectious toddler screaming in my face was terrible and really brutal. I’m not old, fully functional immune system, etc. and it had me out for weeks, brain fog, exhaustion, off and on high fever, you name it. I suspect I still am suffering side effects from the last infection in Jan.
If I hadn’t been fully vaccinated just before the first time he got it, I’d probably be dead.
Pretending that someone who was not as strong or healthy, gets it, then dies didn’t ‘die from Covid’ is probably disingenuous at least 90% of the time.
We all die eventually, it’s the norm for whatever obvious change occurred to be blamed for it, not ‘inevitable entropic reality’ or whatever.
At the end of the day, someone has to made a judgement call about the appropriate factor in a complex system.
> If I hadn’t been fully vaccinated just before the first time he got it, I’d probably be dead.
Statistically speaking, that isn’t true.
Statistically speaking, that isn’t true.
Statistically, people don’t have a screaming peak infectious toddler in their face without a mask let alone proper PPE for an hour+ (before I could even attempt basic precautions).
Statistically, Li Wenliang shouldn’t be dead either.
The statistical results reflect the range and distribution of the entire populations exposure and immune responses, which by their nature have outlier situations and responses.
Most diseases, the more exposure you get, the more chance it has to take hold before the immune system can fight it, and the worse it gets.
I’m pretty confident, but I guess the only way we could know for sure is find a statistically significant population of infected toddlers and unvaccinated otherwise healthy middle aged adults to hold them for an hour.
Statistically, Li Wenliang shouldn’t be dead either.
The statistical results reflect the range and distribution of the entire populations exposure and immune responses, which by their nature have outlier situations and responses.
Most diseases, the more exposure you get, the more chance it has to take hold before the immune system can fight it, and the worse it gets.
I’m pretty confident, but I guess the only way we could know for sure is find a statistically significant population of infected toddlers and unvaccinated otherwise healthy middle aged adults to hold them for an hour.
> a statistically significant population of infected toddlers and unvaccinated otherwise healthy middle aged adults to hold them for an hour.
Oh yeah we did that, it was 2020. Turns out basically none of the toddlers died, and for the middle-aged adults, "probably be dead" is > 51% chance, not < 1% as it was in reality.
Oh yeah we did that, it was 2020. Turns out basically none of the toddlers died, and for the middle-aged adults, "probably be dead" is > 51% chance, not < 1% as it was in reality.
So how many people are currently dying because of covid?
In the US, the 7 day average is around 1700 per day. Weird denialists will claim it's overcounted, but it tracks quite well with excess deaths.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/corona...
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/corona...
For the UK see my comment here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30558089
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30558089
Probably whatever you want the number to be. If somebody dies while Covid-19 positive you can either blame it on COVID or you can blame it on other conditions or somewhere in between.
Doctors already have a protocol for this since senior citizens often die of multiple causes. Turns out there is usually one “proximal” cause (the “killing blow”) and multiple “distal” causes. Presumably, they use the same evaluation protocol here to determine primary cause of death.
This great tiktok doc broke it down a year and a half ago.
https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPdAAjux1/
This great tiktok doc broke it down a year and a half ago.
https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPdAAjux1/
A very under-appreciated point.
Given how hard “with vs. from” is to tease apart, excess mortality is a good way to look at things, eg
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/17/us-excess-deat...
You also need to take into account the fact that that most of the deaths in the US are amongst the unvaccinated (something like 20:1 last I checked) so your personal risk of death, if vaccinated, is very different from the overall death rate.
Given how hard “with vs. from” is to tease apart, excess mortality is a good way to look at things, eg
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/17/us-excess-deat...
You also need to take into account the fact that that most of the deaths in the US are amongst the unvaccinated (something like 20:1 last I checked) so your personal risk of death, if vaccinated, is very different from the overall death rate.
Deaths and cases are both dropping sharply, and since deaths lag cases, the deaths should be expected to continue to drop steadily for a few more weeks.
Something substantial has definitely changed. That's not the same as knowing there won't be future variants or spikes. But if there's ever a time to get back to normal, now would be it. It's not total victory and may never be, but at some point we either declare that we can live with this while having normal lives, or we're tacitly declaring that we never intend to.
Something substantial has definitely changed. That's not the same as knowing there won't be future variants or spikes. But if there's ever a time to get back to normal, now would be it. It's not total victory and may never be, but at some point we either declare that we can live with this while having normal lives, or we're tacitly declaring that we never intend to.
> Something substantial has definitely changed.
Yeah, it's called midterm elections are coming up and the Democrats are staring down the barrel of getting absolutely crushed if they continue on with mask and vaccine mandate policies.
Yeah, it's called midterm elections are coming up and the Democrats are staring down the barrel of getting absolutely crushed if they continue on with mask and vaccine mandate policies.
That's nonsense. Mandates are going away because (1) mid-January was the predictable post-holiday travel and gathering spike, (2) several weeks later the numbers were predictably down, and then (3) lawmakers needed several more weeks to feel safe enough about the trend to act on it.
Lifting mandates now leaves enough time for another spike (followed by more restrictions) to arise before the elections. By your thinking that timing would be a disaster.
Lifting mandates 6-7 months from now would maximize the impact on the election and minimize the risk that restrictions will have to be rolled back before the election.
Everything is obviously political, but the conclusion that lifting mandates right now is strategically tied to elections in 8 months is so far from logical that I can't imagine arriving at it, only starting with it. The covid numbers provide a simple, logical explanation.
Lifting mandates now leaves enough time for another spike (followed by more restrictions) to arise before the elections. By your thinking that timing would be a disaster.
Lifting mandates 6-7 months from now would maximize the impact on the election and minimize the risk that restrictions will have to be rolled back before the election.
Everything is obviously political, but the conclusion that lifting mandates right now is strategically tied to elections in 8 months is so far from logical that I can't imagine arriving at it, only starting with it. The covid numbers provide a simple, logical explanation.
What peer-reviewed research is being used to inform policymakers on this recent shift? And I'm referring to COVID-19 reports, not political ones.
If you look around the world, many countries are lifting all measures. And they definitely are not affected by US elections. They are affected by hospitalization, ICU and death numbers that are falling as infections are rising.
They are affected by their own elections though.
Everything is, that’s hardly a conspiracy.
No one in the thread (except for you) has used the word 'conspiracy.'
GP above is clearly claiming an election conspiracy with Democrats in the U.S. Calling out international actions showing similar behavior only makes the claim more conspiratorial.
No, the claim was that mandates were being abandoned not because it was scientifically prudent, but because of a nearing election.
That’s how it should be, no? If constituents want to end a policy then their representative should work to do exactly that.
Lots of constituents don't want to wear a seatbelt.
Lots of constituents want to drink before the age of 21.
Lots of constituents want to buy alcohol after midnight and on a Sunday before noon.
Lots of constituents want lots of things that the reps clearly ignore. Where do you draw the line of "as it should be" and "those damn gov't bastards!!"?
Lots of constituents want to drink before the age of 21.
Lots of constituents want to buy alcohol after midnight and on a Sunday before noon.
Lots of constituents want lots of things that the reps clearly ignore. Where do you draw the line of "as it should be" and "those damn gov't bastards!!"?
The evidence probably supports that if the majority of constituents support something that isn't clearly unconstitutional it does tend to happen. See weed legalization in many states which at least in Massachusetts passed in a ballot question with the legislature kicking and screaming through the whole process.
Yet in Mississippi when we had a ballot initiative for medicinal marijuana supported by 2/3rds of everyone, not only did they not pass legislation then (it's tepidly being addressed now, over a year later), but the Mississippi Supreme Court stripped us of our citizen's ballot initiatives because of poorly written legislation in the 90s, which also hasn't been corrected over a year later. But I don't claim to live in a representative democracy these days anyway.
And arguably each and every one of those things should be legal.
That was my point. The people want, but the reps deny.
It's not a representative gov't at all. I forget the term for it, but if you speak it in public to the sheeple that still want to believe in representative gov't, you become the bad guy in the conversation.
It's not a representative gov't at all. I forget the term for it, but if you speak it in public to the sheeple that still want to believe in representative gov't, you become the bad guy in the conversation.
I disagree with that conclusion.
I think the problem is most people agree with those government restrictions, or at least did in the recent past. Laws and traditions have sticking power.
I think the problem is most people agree with those government restrictions, or at least did in the recent past. Laws and traditions have sticking power.
[deleted]
To say nothing of the fact that a great deal of behavior is driven by individuals and individual businesses whatever government mandates and recommendations are. There are exceptions like airplanes/airports but in a lot of places, including places that aren't Texas or Florida, people are doing what they want to.
The pandemic is over because we as a society have decided it is over and most people accept the number of covid deaths as part of being in society. Numbers and science matter less than what we are willing to live with. People that don't agree will continue to protect themselves as much as possible.
The death rate is a trailing indicator so it's not the right thing to look at when considering what you should do in the future.
Deaths tend to lag behind peaks of cases and we recently passed the peak of our biggest wave by far (official numbers for this peak are around 800k/day in the US, vs 250k for previous peak in jan 2021, but this doesn't account for the likelihood that many cases didn't get reported due to widely available at-home testing and other factors). Deaths going forward for people who catch it now will probably be far lower.
> More people are dying with Covid now than were dying most of the previous two years
That's surprising. Do you have a source?
That's surprising. Do you have a source?
That stat has been widely reported, in the U.S. at least. There are more deaths from Covid occurring currently in the U.S. on an average daily basis that at any prior time in the pandemic.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/24/health/covid-deaths-now-y...
NY Times, Washington Post, and other media have similar stories.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/24/health/covid-deaths-now-y...
NY Times, Washington Post, and other media have similar stories.
I'm confused, the graph they show in the article refutes the headline.
It's common these days for the headline - and sometimes first paragraph - of an article to be utterly contradicted by the body of the article.
CNN does it constantly. The headline and first para is editorial, the remainder is reportage. Totally untrustworthy.
CNN does it constantly. The headline and first para is editorial, the remainder is reportage. Totally untrustworthy.
"More than 2,000 Covid-19 deaths have been reported in the United States each day for the past month"
This is 2 weeks old and already out of date. Numbers are in freefall. It's now at 1,357. And cases have dropped sharply and consistently for a few weeks which means the (lagging) drop in deaths will continue for a few weeks.
This is 2 weeks old and already out of date. Numbers are in freefall. It's now at 1,357. And cases have dropped sharply and consistently for a few weeks which means the (lagging) drop in deaths will continue for a few weeks.
What? The daily average is still at 1,800.
Worldometers says 1,357 for the 7-day average. But regardless of differences in sources and collections, the trends are the same.
It's still about four airplanes worth of people crashing daily, to put it into perspective.
Not to mention people under immunosuppression or legitimately unable to get vaccinated (e.g. allergies or immunodeficient) - these poor souls are effectively locked into their homes as a permanent jail.
Not to mention people under immunosuppression or legitimately unable to get vaccinated (e.g. allergies or immunodeficient) - these poor souls are effectively locked into their homes as a permanent jail.
Yeah its only World Trade Center tower 1 every day. Its not like we'd go to war over those numbers.
>> these poor souls are effectively locked into their homes as a permanent jail.
Why do you believe this to be true? Seems exaggerated to me.
Why do you believe this to be true? Seems exaggerated to me.
I know a couple of people who are in exactly that predicament. They're scared shitless of catching the virus - and they need 24/7 at-home assistance, which means at least five people that could potentially catch and transmit the virus.
Must we then have vaccinated people join them out of some sense of solidarity?
There are people confined to wheelchairs yet we allow others to walk.
There are people confined to wheelchairs yet we allow others to walk.
Being vaccinated does not prevent the spread or infection, it only reduces the severity of symptoms, so this doesn't work. Having a vaccinated person sit with them is just as unsafe as an unvaccinated person. Testing, with a period of isolation before contact, is the only safe method. This is what I have to do with my mom.
That is misinformation. The current US daily death rate is significantly lower than the January 2021 peak.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/#graph-...
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/#graph-...
The CDC excess deaths count shows the Omicron peak was about the same as any prior peak. Note that the CDC excess deaths data has a tendency to rise until it is at least 12 weeks old, due to state bureaucracy, as explained on their page.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
CNN is basically a tabloid at this point.
You are not their customer.
The customer for these shows are companies sponsoring ads. If you are not paying for the product you are the product.
If you don't like the source, there are plenty of other sources saying the same thing.
Everything is a tabloid, including government reporting. We won't know how many people have died of COVID unitl the academics start studying excess deaths and get into years long fights over the minutiae of "with" and "of." We still don't have exact numbers on any modern genocides and likely won't ever.
I never expected a "free democracy" to run into basic stalinist subversion of facts, but here we are.
I never expected a "free democracy" to run into basic stalinist subversion of facts, but here we are.
> but here we are.
2 years into just 2 weeks to stop the spread of information.
2 years into just 2 weeks to stop the spread of information.
From Covid != With Covid
From your article:
>The people dying from Covid-19 now tend to be younger than before, and they're overwhelmingly unvaccinated, experts say.
To be honest, I'm at the point now where the vaccine has been available for a year. Everyone who was going to get it has had it, and you're not likely to change the minds of those who won't get it. As heartless as this sounds, I'm tired of waiting for those people to come around. They are making the choice to not get it, let them live with whatever the consequences may be instead of keeping shit closed/restricted just because that group is making poor choices.
Edit: I realize that some people can't get it for various medical reasons, and I empathize with them. It's everyone else I'm referring to.
>The people dying from Covid-19 now tend to be younger than before, and they're overwhelmingly unvaccinated, experts say.
To be honest, I'm at the point now where the vaccine has been available for a year. Everyone who was going to get it has had it, and you're not likely to change the minds of those who won't get it. As heartless as this sounds, I'm tired of waiting for those people to come around. They are making the choice to not get it, let them live with whatever the consequences may be instead of keeping shit closed/restricted just because that group is making poor choices.
Edit: I realize that some people can't get it for various medical reasons, and I empathize with them. It's everyone else I'm referring to.
That's one approach. Another is to pay attention to what they're saying and try a different approach to persuasion. It turns out it's not actually that hard to convince a lot of them if you just treat them like human beings. Perhaps even enough to achieve herd immunity and moot the rest.
A good recent video on the subject with something resembling science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va0RCgbywGc
A good recent video on the subject with something resembling science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va0RCgbywGc
Deaths this week in California are higher than at any time in 2020, when every office and school was closed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/corona...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/corona...
I don't understand that trend happening in California since it doesn't match the rest of the country and doesn't line up with a spike in cases a few weeks prior.
But what's different between 2020 and now:
- We understand covid risk, treatment, etc. better now. There's a box around it. In 2020 we didn't know what would happen, if there would ever be a vaccine, or what variants might do. We don't know what the next variant will be, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, but "variant" is a less scary word if only due to having been through two of them and come out.
- In 2022 the deaths are more voluntary than in 2020. Of course some people can't get a vaccine or remain at higher risk despite a vaccine. And it's a tragedy that the world will remain more dangerous for some, maybe permanently. But after 2 years of on and off measures we know we can't keep it up forever.
I'd be all for making it a social convention to wear masks (at certain times) going forward every flu season, which some cultures already did before covid. While wearing a mask I didn't get my annual cold last winter, which was awesome. If you de-politicize it and think of it as a piece of cloth, it stops being a big deal. But keeping stuff closed needs to stop.
But what's different between 2020 and now:
- We understand covid risk, treatment, etc. better now. There's a box around it. In 2020 we didn't know what would happen, if there would ever be a vaccine, or what variants might do. We don't know what the next variant will be, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, but "variant" is a less scary word if only due to having been through two of them and come out.
- In 2022 the deaths are more voluntary than in 2020. Of course some people can't get a vaccine or remain at higher risk despite a vaccine. And it's a tragedy that the world will remain more dangerous for some, maybe permanently. But after 2 years of on and off measures we know we can't keep it up forever.
I'd be all for making it a social convention to wear masks (at certain times) going forward every flu season, which some cultures already did before covid. While wearing a mask I didn't get my annual cold last winter, which was awesome. If you de-politicize it and think of it as a piece of cloth, it stops being a big deal. But keeping stuff closed needs to stop.
> I didn't get my annual cold last winter, which was awesome
The best theory of why some people are asymptomatic with covid is previous coronavirus infections, from the common cold, so maybe this isn't the best approach. ;)
Our immune systems weren't designed with a clean room in mind. There are a few childhood cancers and problems that are possibly caused by not having enough exposure to pathogens, like leukemia, blood cancers, allergies. So, I think it's complicated.
The best theory of why some people are asymptomatic with covid is previous coronavirus infections, from the common cold, so maybe this isn't the best approach. ;)
Our immune systems weren't designed with a clean room in mind. There are a few childhood cancers and problems that are possibly caused by not having enough exposure to pathogens, like leukemia, blood cancers, allergies. So, I think it's complicated.
> 2020
That's a convenient time window. If you extend it even one month into 2021, you include the large winter surge.
> at any time in 2020
It looks like today's 7-day average deaths in CA (192) is below the Dec 31, 2020 number (250).
That's a convenient time window. If you extend it even one month into 2021, you include the large winter surge.
> at any time in 2020
It looks like today's 7-day average deaths in CA (192) is below the Dec 31, 2020 number (250).
Is a random image on imgur really a source? Really?
[deleted]
My understanding (which could be wrong!) is that the current absolute death amounts are high, but the actual rate of deaths per-infection is low. This is because the trend in variants has (so far) been towards more-infectious but less-fatal, along with improved knowledge of treatments... so we have a vast number of people infected but they're mostly-surviving.
Said deaths are also extremely focused in unvaccinated people, meaning that outside of the immunocompromised (whose situation sucks here), it's at least mostly people who chose the risk.
Said deaths are also extremely focused in unvaccinated people, meaning that outside of the immunocompromised (whose situation sucks here), it's at least mostly people who chose the risk.
It’s not like they just decided - they did, they actually just decided. The change in cloth mask guidance proves it: no new data, we always knew they were ineffective.
Cloth masks are estimated to be in the 50-60% effectiveness range. To me, that's quite effective, not ineffective. Especially when applied across an entire population.
I think you're off by an order of magnitude (5-6%) if you're referring to the risk of infection vs not wearing a basic, correctly worn surgical mask. And this is pre-omicron; omicron is far more transmissible.
Happy to be corrected.
Happy to be corrected.
You're both right - by the time Omnicron rolled around it was evident that cloth masks were not as effective at preventing transmission.
That said, cloth masks were always recommended for gen pop given the low availability of N95 surgical masks. They're still better than nothing, and we're still learning more about this disease so it's subject to change even further as more observations are made.
That said, cloth masks were always recommended for gen pop given the low availability of N95 surgical masks. They're still better than nothing, and we're still learning more about this disease so it's subject to change even further as more observations are made.
That 50% plus number is highly contested. The study cited for that does not necessarily support that conclusion.
No. Cloth masks are understudied and probably don’t do much. What does do a lot, probably, is a dynamic where millions of people wearing ineffective masks thinking they are effective, and making bad choices entirely due to that bad assumption, like not wearing an N95, closing distance with people, or going indoors when it could have been avoided.
https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/mask-studies-reach-a...
https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/mask-studies-reach-a...
Estimated effectiveness is not empirical evidence. There's nothing scientific about just guessing random numbers.
There are a few cloth masks in this data set showing around 50% filtration of test particles smaller than Sars-Cov-2:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M0mdNLpTWEGcluK6hh5L...
N95s and similar are obviously better but cloth masks do ok. Also remember they changed guidance to recommend cloth+surgical masks, which everyone laughed at. Lo and behold that combination tests in the 80% filtration range.
So cloth masks work, the guidance for double masking was valid, and the N95 recommendations more valid still.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M0mdNLpTWEGcluK6hh5L...
N95s and similar are obviously better but cloth masks do ok. Also remember they changed guidance to recommend cloth+surgical masks, which everyone laughed at. Lo and behold that combination tests in the 80% filtration range.
So cloth masks work, the guidance for double masking was valid, and the N95 recommendations more valid still.
I didn't laugh at the double masking guidance, I just laugh at the false equivalencies made across the CDC's guidance that refers to "masks" as though there's not a universe of difference between a re-used, sporadically worn, bacteria filled cloth mask and a clean, properly fit, N95. Total fail.
Well there's new data it's just not health related.
"In fact, support for mask mandates has reached its lowest level since we began asking in August 2021. Now, a narrow majority (51%) support their state or local government requiring masks in public places compared to the roughly 63% that had over the last 6 months."
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/axios-ipsos-coronavir...
"In fact, support for mask mandates has reached its lowest level since we began asking in August 2021. Now, a narrow majority (51%) support their state or local government requiring masks in public places compared to the roughly 63% that had over the last 6 months."
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/axios-ipsos-coronavir...
> "no new data"
There is literally new data every day. Case counts change, hospital usage changes, etc. The change in mask guidance is also not universal - it is dependent on that exact data. The CDC maintains a county-by-county map of the data so you know exactly what the guidance is each day based on the latest data.
If you want to keep up with the data, the map is not a bad place to start: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/covid-...
There is literally new data every day. Case counts change, hospital usage changes, etc. The change in mask guidance is also not universal - it is dependent on that exact data. The CDC maintains a county-by-county map of the data so you know exactly what the guidance is each day based on the latest data.
If you want to keep up with the data, the map is not a bad place to start: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/covid-...
There was no new data to support a change in guidance on cloth masks. The argument made is that omicron was the factor which warranted the updated guidance on cloth masks. There is no data to support the idea that cloth masks were suddenly uniquely unsuited as countermeasures.
Edit: The CDC is so infuriating. They still link the term “masks” to this page, that shows a picture of some useless facial decorations on the same page discussing N95 respirators. If we had a sane CDC, all imagery and messaging would be around N95s. They have killed thousands of people with the implicit lie strewn across all their messaging that there some kind of meaningful equivalency to be made between all masks. The unqualified term “mask” should have been struck from the messaging two years ago. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si...
Edit: The CDC is so infuriating. They still link the term “masks” to this page, that shows a picture of some useless facial decorations on the same page discussing N95 respirators. If we had a sane CDC, all imagery and messaging would be around N95s. They have killed thousands of people with the implicit lie strewn across all their messaging that there some kind of meaningful equivalency to be made between all masks. The unqualified term “mask” should have been struck from the messaging two years ago. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si...
Deaths lag hospitalizations which lag infections. Policy is operating on what the expected amount of deaths in 3+weeks will be, not the current amount
There are also differences now in how many people are either vaccinated, or have recovered from covid vs a year ago
There are also differences now in how many people are either vaccinated, or have recovered from covid vs a year ago
Why not now? We have to return to normalcy eventually so what do we gain by waiting? Everyone is going to be exposed to the virus occasionally so whether that happens in an office or somewhere else hardly matters.
I refuse to get infected no matter how much political people seem to want me to
I could refuse to get into any car accidents. But refusing to drive or be a passenger or pedestrian near cars isn't a way I can live my life. So, ultimately, I've decided that I don't refuse to get into any car accidents.
>I refuse to get infected
Avoiding COVID just isn't possible unless you're prepared to curtail social interactions to the point at which you're barely living. I leave my apartment about once a week (yay depression) yet I still got Omicron. You're deluding yourself if you think it's avoidable.
Avoiding COVID just isn't possible unless you're prepared to curtail social interactions to the point at which you're barely living. I leave my apartment about once a week (yay depression) yet I still got Omicron. You're deluding yourself if you think it's avoidable.
Who knows if the next variant will be milder (common talking point about how viruses evolve to be more contagious/less deadly) or worst (the unknown and media fear mongering... not to mean theyre equivalent), but if the trend points to anything it's that things peak twice a year. Around January/February and August/September. Not to mention, America is in an election year and the economy is tetering, so everything is about optics and giving people some feeling of autonomy over their lives at the very least :/
There are reasons to believe "this time is different". Omicron was a huge wave through the population that had the potential to consume all the "fuel" (non-immune people), making future waves much more difficult to get started. I don't think anyone thinks covid is going away, but moving to an endemic stage.
Some numbers to back up that claim would be nice. Make sure to discern between cases where COVID is the primary reason for dying and where it is not.
As a data point, Denmark have been without restrictions since first of February 2022. There are still 20.000 infections daily, but most with very mild symptoms.
There are 1.600 hospitalized, which is considerable more than December, where there were about 600.
So number wise it doesn't make a lot of sense to remove restrictions, but I'm personally very happy having the old normal back.
As a data point, Denmark have been without restrictions since first of February 2022. There are still 20.000 infections daily, but most with very mild symptoms.
There are 1.600 hospitalized, which is considerable more than December, where there were about 600.
So number wise it doesn't make a lot of sense to remove restrictions, but I'm personally very happy having the old normal back.
Yes, deaths are higher than they were the same time a year ago. Cases are still very high. Things only look better relative to the January peak. Everyone just decided they had enough.
> More people are dying with Covid now than were dying most of the previous two years
Assuming you meant "from," not "with," this is clearly not the case in Santa Clara county, the location of Apple's HQ. The current daily average is 5 per day. It briefly peaked at 10, but the non-surge average is around 2. As others have said, deaths lag, so they'll likely be back to ~3 by April.
Assuming you meant "from," not "with," this is clearly not the case in Santa Clara county, the location of Apple's HQ. The current daily average is 5 per day. It briefly peaked at 10, but the non-surge average is around 2. As others have said, deaths lag, so they'll likely be back to ~3 by April.
[deleted]
It seems like a crucial thing to deal with surges is to dramatically increase hospital capacity. Making health care universal would fund it.
What blocks any expensive investments in US standard of living is the cost. The costs is so high, it's almost as much as the cost of inaction and that's too damn much.
See also climate change.
What blocks any expensive investments in US standard of living is the cost. The costs is so high, it's almost as much as the cost of inaction and that's too damn much.
See also climate change.
agree; when I look at https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2022/03/friday-february-e... I don’t come to the conclusion that now is the best time.
[deleted]
As hospital occupancy goes down, the major public health reason for restrictions goes down as well.
Something I read[1] that resonated a few months ago:
> Dying from Covid is more or less optional at this point. If you want to remove the risk of dying, get the vaccine. If you want to take the risk, don’t.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29561158
This is a bit reductive -- people in some countries may not have easy access to the vaccine, people whose immune systems don't respond to the vaccine may need still-scarce antiviral treatment to maintain a mortality rate on par with the vaccinated, and in the US there may still be people who genuinely cannot logistically manage getting the vaccine.
But this is something I've been thinking about a bit lately: when will be the "tipping point" after which more than 50% of all US covid deaths will have been a personal choice?
We're at about 950k deaths now. The "everyone will be eligible to schedule an appointment" date was in April 2021 (at about 570k deaths). So maybe another 3 months?
> Dying from Covid is more or less optional at this point. If you want to remove the risk of dying, get the vaccine. If you want to take the risk, don’t.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29561158
This is a bit reductive -- people in some countries may not have easy access to the vaccine, people whose immune systems don't respond to the vaccine may need still-scarce antiviral treatment to maintain a mortality rate on par with the vaccinated, and in the US there may still be people who genuinely cannot logistically manage getting the vaccine.
But this is something I've been thinking about a bit lately: when will be the "tipping point" after which more than 50% of all US covid deaths will have been a personal choice?
We're at about 950k deaths now. The "everyone will be eligible to schedule an appointment" date was in April 2021 (at about 570k deaths). So maybe another 3 months?
Every wave now is also very likely to be less of a strain on the health care system than the last.
The virulence of the virus isn't changing that much, the biggest effect is that most people have gained immunity.
The fact that 90% of the people in hospitals are unvaccinated though while vaccination rates are at least >60% everywhere is a sign though that the unvaccinated population still has failed to achieve a level of immunity equal to vaccination.
They're going to just accumulate immunity the hard way though with more human casualties and death. There isn't a lot to be done about that though.
Eventually the rates of unvaccinated in the hospital with each wave will start reflecting the population rate of unvaccinated and we'll be at pretty much 100% seroprevalence finally.
The virulence of the virus isn't changing that much, the biggest effect is that most people have gained immunity.
The fact that 90% of the people in hospitals are unvaccinated though while vaccination rates are at least >60% everywhere is a sign though that the unvaccinated population still has failed to achieve a level of immunity equal to vaccination.
They're going to just accumulate immunity the hard way though with more human casualties and death. There isn't a lot to be done about that though.
Eventually the rates of unvaccinated in the hospital with each wave will start reflecting the population rate of unvaccinated and we'll be at pretty much 100% seroprevalence finally.
The threat to hospitals is essentially gone now that immunity is widespread thanks to vaccines and recoveries. All that most restrictions were ever intended to do was to stop everyone getting sick at once, which would have resulted in mass casualties from lack of healthcare resources.
> More people are dying with Covid now than were dying most of the previous two years, minus 4 peaks of various waves.
I'm not disagreeing with your point, however IIRC this is heavily concentrated among unvaccinated individuals, and I believe that Apple/Google/etc employees are overwhelmingly vaccinated. I would be shocked if these companies didn't have accommodation processes in place for individuals who are still at high risk.
I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, but there's no guarantee that the same trends/statistics exist in this sub-population.
I'm not disagreeing with your point, however IIRC this is heavily concentrated among unvaccinated individuals, and I believe that Apple/Google/etc employees are overwhelmingly vaccinated. I would be shocked if these companies didn't have accommodation processes in place for individuals who are still at high risk.
I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, but there's no guarantee that the same trends/statistics exist in this sub-population.
not in the united states. the early 2021 was the peak, and was never surpassed in the recent uptick.
> Last summer, for example, could have been the reopening, and we'd have better data and "science" to support it.
Things trended well last summer, but 1) everybody expects a lull in warm weather and 2) vaccination numbers were still low. It was reasonable at the time to hold onto precautions hoping the unvaccinated people would come around before fall. And good thing too, because delta proved to be a real pickle before being displaced by omicron.
At some point, it becomes obvious that a large number of people just won't bother getting vaccinated, and you can't realistically keep asking the entire country to go out of their way to protect the people who won't protect themselves.
We'll see another wave in the fall, either omicron or some new variant, and hopefully our vaccines will stay ahead of it.
Things trended well last summer, but 1) everybody expects a lull in warm weather and 2) vaccination numbers were still low. It was reasonable at the time to hold onto precautions hoping the unvaccinated people would come around before fall. And good thing too, because delta proved to be a real pickle before being displaced by omicron.
At some point, it becomes obvious that a large number of people just won't bother getting vaccinated, and you can't realistically keep asking the entire country to go out of their way to protect the people who won't protect themselves.
We'll see another wave in the fall, either omicron or some new variant, and hopefully our vaccines will stay ahead of it.
A lot has changed in the last year? Loads of people have been vaccinated that weren't a year ago (even if they were eligible then).
Kids became eligible to be vaccinated only a few months ago, which even if it wasn't actually risky to them it was a major concern for many parents.
Right about that time, the omicron wave hit, and ever since late december we've known it was very likely we'd peak and then crash on cases.
So we didn't return to normal last summer because loads of people weren't vaccinated yet, and kids weren't eligible. We didn't return once kids became eligible because omicron was looming. And we didn't return during omicron peak because hospitals were overwhelmed.
Kids became eligible to be vaccinated only a few months ago, which even if it wasn't actually risky to them it was a major concern for many parents.
Right about that time, the omicron wave hit, and ever since late december we've known it was very likely we'd peak and then crash on cases.
So we didn't return to normal last summer because loads of people weren't vaccinated yet, and kids weren't eligible. We didn't return once kids became eligible because omicron was looming. And we didn't return during omicron peak because hospitals were overwhelmed.
Under 5s still aren’t eligible.
>More people are dying with Covid now than were dying most of the previous two years, minus 4 peaks of various waves.
And these people are overwhelmingly unvaccinated. At this point, it's been a year that vaccines have been available. You're not going to change their minds, and the rest of us - heartless as this sounds - shouldn't continue to be held back just because of other people's stubbornness. They made the decision not to get it, they should live with whatever consequences may result from that choice.
Edit: I realize that some people can't get it for various medical reasons, and I empathize with them. It's everyone else I'm referring to.
And these people are overwhelmingly unvaccinated. At this point, it's been a year that vaccines have been available. You're not going to change their minds, and the rest of us - heartless as this sounds - shouldn't continue to be held back just because of other people's stubbornness. They made the decision not to get it, they should live with whatever consequences may result from that choice.
Edit: I realize that some people can't get it for various medical reasons, and I empathize with them. It's everyone else I'm referring to.
The midterm elections is the only reason.
Numbers of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths are all way down and still dropping. Vaccinations have turned out to be highly effective both against severe disease and long COVID. The Omicron variant is far less deadly than the Delta variant and has almost completely replaced the Delta variant.
The difference is now almost everyone dying is unvaccinated, and almost everyone unvaccinated (in the Western industrialized world) is that way by choice.
We cannot force these people to vaccinate for their own good, but neither can we be held hostage by them.
We cannot force these people to vaccinate for their own good, but neither can we be held hostage by them.
Midterm elections coming up. The (political) science has changed.
The only thing that matters is death rate for those that are vaccinated.
I remember when we used to care about hospitals overflowing.
We didn't care about hospitals being overwhelmed by influenza in 2018.
https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
I feel like that was always BS and just a scam to rationalize our poorly resourced yet highly paid hospitals. Wait times at ER were always bad, the pandemic just made it slightly more bad. The underlying problem was always there.
There is hardly any threat of that at this point. At least not in areas with high vaccination rates.
What about the death rate for people who can't be vaccinated?
They’re free to lock down indefinitely, if they want.
Also, the flu!
Also, the flu!
Not everyone survives. That's life. You can't expect society to shut down to protect the tiny percentage of people who can't be vaccinated or are immunocompromised. That's never been an expectation of society before so why would it be one now?
It has been. The reason these people survive is because vaccines are required for everyone as a child (in the US). Without that they would catch mumps, measles, polio, etc.
And wearing a mask inside public spaces is not shutting down society.
And wearing a mask inside public spaces is not shutting down society.
>vaccines are required for everyone as a child (in the US)
Do continue please
Do continue please
RTO should’ve begun the minute it was shown that vaccines stop deaths.
given that you have to be vaccines to rto at Apple it didn’t really make sense to wait this long anyway
given that you have to be vaccines to rto at Apple it didn’t really make sense to wait this long anyway
but it’s all rural Trumpist counties at this point; ostensibly, the people lying in the bed they made for themselves don’t typically work for Apple
>> it’s all rural Trumpist counties at this point
Do you have any idea how parochial you sound when you make generalizations in this manner?
Do you have any idea how parochial you sound when you make generalizations in this manner?
You’re right, a 3 times higher infection and death rate in Trump-voting counties may be insufficiently absolute for a broad generalization
Likely vaccination rate.
It's not "mission accomplished." It's more like our withdraw from Afghanistan--admission of defeat. Omicron was like the Taliban taking Kabul in 2 weeks. We just lost to Covid--at least for now.
Essentially everyone has an immune response to covid now--either by vaccination or because you already had. That is why case number are cratering. The immune response effectiveness will fade, but all evidence points to long lasting protection against severe infections.
Last summer was the re-opening a la "mission accomplished." Then omicron evaded previous immune responses. Why won't that happen again? It might, but less of the population is vulnerable b/c Omicron spread to more of the population. There was a big group of unvaccined protected by heard immunity.
Post Omicron how many people haven't gotten a vaccine or covid? Probably less than 10% of the public.
Essentially everyone has an immune response to covid now--either by vaccination or because you already had. That is why case number are cratering. The immune response effectiveness will fade, but all evidence points to long lasting protection against severe infections.
Last summer was the re-opening a la "mission accomplished." Then omicron evaded previous immune responses. Why won't that happen again? It might, but less of the population is vulnerable b/c Omicron spread to more of the population. There was a big group of unvaccined protected by heard immunity.
Post Omicron how many people haven't gotten a vaccine or covid? Probably less than 10% of the public.
I have the same questions. We've seen government and businesses try to be aggressive on relaxing lockdown policy in the past, and then quickly re-implement restrictions when the next wave of infections hit. Multiple times I've seen schools, government, offices set terms that had to be met before moving to the next 'phase' and every time those terms avoided their expectations they just declared that it was a bad plan to begin with, scrapped it, and moved on to implement whatever policy they wanted regardless of the current status.
I check https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html to track how things are going. I don't like that, with ~2,000 people dying each day and Spring Break around the corner, the strongest push to reopen is happening now.
"Why now?" Just speculation, but: Because midterm elections are this year, because consumer spending is up and inflation is rising and the government wants to encourage the economy to remain strong, because businesses are seeing lower performance from employees especially regarding sensitive work, because ICUs have capacity and vaccines are readily available.
I check https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html to track how things are going. I don't like that, with ~2,000 people dying each day and Spring Break around the corner, the strongest push to reopen is happening now.
"Why now?" Just speculation, but: Because midterm elections are this year, because consumer spending is up and inflation is rising and the government wants to encourage the economy to remain strong, because businesses are seeing lower performance from employees especially regarding sensitive work, because ICUs have capacity and vaccines are readily available.
>> More people are dying with Covid now than were dying most of the previous two years, minus 4 peaks of various waves.
You can’t just exclude the data that disproves your point. The peaks were the original variant, Alpha(?), Delta and now Omicron. Deaths in this wave are extremely lower than in any other wave due to severity, immunity and vaccinations. Hospital stays are reduced and shorter. The original point of avoiding covid en masse was to prevent the healthcare system from being overwhelmed. Although it varies from place to place the healthcare systems in highly vaccinated countries are no longer seeing that kind of pressure even with high case numbers (still lots of pressure but not enough to risk overwhelming the system entirely).
You can’t just exclude the data that disproves your point. The peaks were the original variant, Alpha(?), Delta and now Omicron. Deaths in this wave are extremely lower than in any other wave due to severity, immunity and vaccinations. Hospital stays are reduced and shorter. The original point of avoiding covid en masse was to prevent the healthcare system from being overwhelmed. Although it varies from place to place the healthcare systems in highly vaccinated countries are no longer seeing that kind of pressure even with high case numbers (still lots of pressure but not enough to risk overwhelming the system entirely).
Deaths are currently at around 2,000 PER DAY in the United States. That is not in any way, shape, or form "extremely lower" than earlier waves. The Omicron wave was equal to the initial wave in severity, and we're still not out of it.
Interesting. Deaths in the US are still a lot higher than I realised. I was basing my thoughts on UK data which I’m more familiar with and I thought would be relatively similar to the US but surprisingly not.
No politicians and news channels in the UK telling people not to get vaccinated.
I think you're both right, but sort-of arguing different issues. Here's two points:
* Covid deaths per-day are at-or-near their highest ever levels
* the current wave is less dangerous
These sound contradictory, but aren't: deaths are high, death rates aren't -- if you catch Covid you're more likely to survive than ever before, but you're also more likely to catch Covid. This is because we're (currently) in a wave of a high-infection low-mortality variant.
* Covid deaths per-day are at-or-near their highest ever levels
* the current wave is less dangerous
These sound contradictory, but aren't: deaths are high, death rates aren't -- if you catch Covid you're more likely to survive than ever before, but you're also more likely to catch Covid. This is because we're (currently) in a wave of a high-infection low-mortality variant.
Hard to see it going any other way given the massive real estate investments they have made.
Yes, they need to prove that commercial real estate still holds any value at all, though I'm not convinced seeing this incredible shift towards remote economy. I think they just burned a bunch of money to be honest. Maybe in 15 years we will see the Apple campus converted to high quality free public housing, which would be a good outcome for all and certainly would create more value for society than it does now.
> need to prove that commercial real estate still holds any value at all
You've hit the nail on the had, the entire human civilisation could reorganise around smaller cities without the commute to be more healthy, less polluting and more environmentally friendly
Instead we are witnessing whole COVID-is-gone theater only to protect parasite investors that 'invested' in assets that don't produce anything
You've hit the nail on the had, the entire human civilisation could reorganise around smaller cities without the commute to be more healthy, less polluting and more environmentally friendly
Instead we are witnessing whole COVID-is-gone theater only to protect parasite investors that 'invested' in assets that don't produce anything
If "real estate" were the real reason, that'd just be an example of throwing good money after bad.
Personal investments in Bay Area housing by senior execs.
Bingo!
Wanna bet upper management and board members spend some of their money buying up nearby or distant-but-commute-friendly property just before a new "campus" is announced? Not the actual land the campus will be built on, of course. That would be a conflict of interest.
Wanna bet upper management and board members spend some of their money buying up nearby or distant-but-commute-friendly property just before a new "campus" is announced? Not the actual land the campus will be built on, of course. That would be a conflict of interest.
The concept of an exec being the landlord of a new grad hire or owning intern housing is truly techno-feudalism.
This is exactly it. We've been spending money in our suburbs for too long and it's killing the restaurant businesses that they own.
The Gov of New York has basically come out and said exactly that.
The Gov of New York has basically come out and said exactly that.
> The Gov of New York has basically come out and said exactly that.
Looked it up, came up with this[0].
[0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ny-gov-kathy-hochul-says-p...
Looked it up, came up with this[0].
[0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ny-gov-kathy-hochul-says-p...
I think that is one variable but I also think senior execs want to walk into buildings with large groups of people that are less than them on the pecking order.
Getting your ass kissed all day can not feel the same remote as in person.
You can't replicate remotely the feeling of taking the elevator to your office with everyone you pass on the way knowing you are a big deal in the company.
This is all about "collaboration", wink wink.
Getting your ass kissed all day can not feel the same remote as in person.
You can't replicate remotely the feeling of taking the elevator to your office with everyone you pass on the way knowing you are a big deal in the company.
This is all about "collaboration", wink wink.
Nobody is immune from the Sunk Cost Fallacy
Just look at the butterfly keyboard or removing all the ports but usb-c.
even Thinkpads fell to the chicklet keyboard movement.
I suspect that at the root of all of these companies with massive office investments insisting that everyone gets back to the office as soon as possible is something to do with taxes.
Something like deductions that cannot be taken when those facilities are not used or not used enough in the development of income.
Something like deductions that cannot be taken when those facilities are not used or not used enough in the development of income.
[deleted]
Do they share HR offices too!
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/02/google-tells-employees-to-re...
I certainly expect the HR heads of the big tech companies know each other and talk now and then. Even if they're not colluding in some illegal way, I'd actually be a bit surprised if they weren't discussing COVID-related matters.
To be honest, I’d be way more pissed if my HR and Facilities teams weren’t talking to their peers in the industry and sharing learning/best practices throughout all this.
Not HR, but their finance teams got together and decided what needed to be done to protect their real estate investments.
There's no need to collude when you can just notice how the wind is flowing; expect a flood of these announcements over the next weeks.
Apple didn't just decide to do it because Google did, they'd already decided it was coming, and perhaps moved up the announcement now that someone (Putin? Google?) took the news cycle.
Apple didn't just decide to do it because Google did, they'd already decided it was coming, and perhaps moved up the announcement now that someone (Putin? Google?) took the news cycle.
This is a great opportunity for start ups to eat the lunch of big companies by hiring all the talent that doesn’t want to commute.
I'm so glad that Covid cares about the economy.
I also hate the obsession with in office work. I know for many people there's a social aspect to being in the office, but honestly I don't consider 4 hours of commuting each day to be worth the socializing aspect of in office work.
I also hate the obsession with in office work. I know for many people there's a social aspect to being in the office, but honestly I don't consider 4 hours of commuting each day to be worth the socializing aspect of in office work.
I hate the obsession with remote work. I commuted 10 minutes by bike and loved it. Remote work is hell for me. I’ll never pursue work at a remote company ever. I would happily take a pay cut to work in an office again.
You know you can still simulate that commute, right? People who miss the boundaries of the office environment away from home, the social aspects, the prospect for promotions, sure. That all makes sense. But the commute? There’s nothing stopping you from biking those ten minutes before your remote job. During the quarantine you had more time than before to bike, and probably less traffic to boot.
And as an aside- did you have your own office or cubicle, or was it open layout?
And as an aside- did you have your own office or cubicle, or was it open layout?
I worked in a large open office. I also live in a tiny apartment that’s designed to be lived/slept in, not 24 hours a day in.
Thanks for the tip though.
Thanks for the tip though.
If you liked commuting so much as an escape from the tiny apartment, then maybe you should seriously try simulating it, and bike more often?
And as always, remote during pandemic is different from remote in normal times. In normal times you could work remotely from a co-working space, from a cafe, from a library, from any public space with decent internet and private rooms to take calls in. Why commit to going back into the open office?
You're welcome!
And as always, remote during pandemic is different from remote in normal times. In normal times you could work remotely from a co-working space, from a cafe, from a library, from any public space with decent internet and private rooms to take calls in. Why commit to going back into the open office?
You're welcome!
Good tips again, but I get quite a bit of exercise — 40-50 mile a week runner.
> Why commit to going back into the open office?
Because I like working in an open office with other people. The same as the pro-remote work crowd does not enjoy in an office. Neither is right or wrong — they are preferences. My plan is to find a company with employees who share my preferences.
> Why commit to going back into the open office?
Because I like working in an open office with other people. The same as the pro-remote work crowd does not enjoy in an office. Neither is right or wrong — they are preferences. My plan is to find a company with employees who share my preferences.
It’s rare to find people who truly prefer the open office layout over having a personal office, or a cubicle, or a shared cube with one’s team. That’s a unique opinion that you’re free to have. For many, the depredations of the open office is a driving reason towards remote, but you uniquely do not have that hang-up. Enjoy!
I’m not sure it’s that rare. It’s just that the remote working evangelists are just so damn vocal about it.
It’s not about remote vs. in office. It’s about open office vs. other types of office plans. The anti-open office threads on HN were something else. Perhaps with RTO, they will have a comeback.
I’m with you! Can’t wait to get some face to face time and actively turning down fully remote work.
From the article, in office is 3 days per week -
> We will then begin the hybrid pilot in full on May 23, with people coming to the office three days a week — on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday — and working flexibly on Wednesday and Friday if you wish.
> We will then begin the hybrid pilot in full on May 23, with people coming to the office three days a week — on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday — and working flexibly on Wednesday and Friday if you wish.
Though personally I'm fully remote, everything I've read and seen suggests something like this is going to be extremely common. Most employees seem to want to come into an office on a semi-regular basis but not 5 days a week. And, if you're going to do that, you probably want some level of coordination whether it's at a company, facility, or team level.
Can confirm. We do something like this (2 days in, 3 days remote). We have one mandatory day and then each team has a designated day where their whole team is present. I never minded going into the office anyway because I live in a fairly small apartment, so it's nice to have dedicated space away from home. The only downside I've experienced so far is that the all-teams day can be very chaotic, with more disruptions than ever before because everyone tries to plan everything that is more than a little involved for that day.
I'd think Tu-Wed-Thur in the office would be better, as having more time contiguous seems like it'd make more sense somehow?
[deleted]
I think the cat is out of the bag for remote work and most companies are going to have to settle differently
So much for big orgs adopting fully remote as an option eh? I really thought that had a chance…
Can anyone list some medium-to-biggish orgs with fully remote options? Is there a website somewhere that might have a list?
Can anyone list some medium-to-biggish orgs with fully remote options? Is there a website somewhere that might have a list?
I think you'll find that it's available at most large-ish tech companies but how common it is varies a lot. At some, it will be quite normal. At others, it will be the rare person with some specific background or skills.
It still amazes me that some of the biggest (and many might argue innovative, progressive) companies like Apple but also Google and others, still struggle with basic tenets of 'work' and its future. Remote work is here to stay (and is not new, by the way); that part of the debate is settled. What remote looks like, however, is going to be an amalgamation of opinions made between CEOs and executive leadership and their HR departments across many companies and the response people have to it thru retention, etc.
Having led, grow, and work on remote and hybrid-remote teams for 12+ years now, I almost feel like I just repeat myself all the time when I say the right answer is about flexibility and choice at the team and individual levels, not at a corporate mandate level. And also, maybe it goes without saying, focus on results and outcomes rather than arguing how the sauce has to be made. People will be creative in many settings and supporting them and helping them navigate how they work best (whether that is in an office part-time, full-time, or fully remote) is going to be winning solution. Not biblical commandments like "Thou shalt be in the office 3 days a week."
Having led, grow, and work on remote and hybrid-remote teams for 12+ years now, I almost feel like I just repeat myself all the time when I say the right answer is about flexibility and choice at the team and individual levels, not at a corporate mandate level. And also, maybe it goes without saying, focus on results and outcomes rather than arguing how the sauce has to be made. People will be creative in many settings and supporting them and helping them navigate how they work best (whether that is in an office part-time, full-time, or fully remote) is going to be winning solution. Not biblical commandments like "Thou shalt be in the office 3 days a week."
It will be interesting now that competitors know that all they have to do to appeal to a large segment of the workforce is simply not require a commute.
Yep, freedom of movement and where (and when) I'm allowed to work is worth probably an additional $20-30k a year to me. So, startups, pay attention.
Like I've said before, they need to justify their multi-billion dollar campus. Barring that, I think we'd be seeing quite a different situation.
Apple Park doesn't even house the majority of Apple employees in the Bay Area. They could easily keep that campus at 100% occupancy if it was just about justifying that investment.
If remote really works and the market is fair, then this is a good opportunity to see evidence in its favor. Somehow, I don't think fully remote companies will find it easy, unless they have some secret formula for finding remote talent. Companies like GitLab (fully remote) continue to be outliers.
> If remote really works and the market is fair
2 MASSIVE “ifs” there.
Remote wasn’t a choice for the vast majority of people over the past 2 years — it was thrust upon them. And despite what the pro-remote people will say, a huge number of them didn’t thrive because of it. They may have been more productive but they were also more miserable. Remote “worked” because it was the way companies stayed in business - it essentially had to work, even if it sucked for a ton of people. When remote truly becomes a choice then we’ll start to see whether it really works or not.
And then there’s the old saying about markets staying irrational longer than most of us can stay solvent.
2 MASSIVE “ifs” there.
Remote wasn’t a choice for the vast majority of people over the past 2 years — it was thrust upon them. And despite what the pro-remote people will say, a huge number of them didn’t thrive because of it. They may have been more productive but they were also more miserable. Remote “worked” because it was the way companies stayed in business - it essentially had to work, even if it sucked for a ton of people. When remote truly becomes a choice then we’ll start to see whether it really works or not.
And then there’s the old saying about markets staying irrational longer than most of us can stay solvent.
People and companies have thrived on remote work. People are actually able to find a much better work life balance having worked remotely. Remote worked! Businesses thrived.
You might be miserable because of covid and living through a pandemic. Time is generally tough right now.
I would recommend to you and others to work on your social life outside of work. The pandemic showed that a lot of people don't actually have friends and their whole life is their work. If that's what you want, then fine.
You might be miserable because of covid and living through a pandemic. Time is generally tough right now.
I would recommend to you and others to work on your social life outside of work. The pandemic showed that a lot of people don't actually have friends and their whole life is their work. If that's what you want, then fine.
The problem is that often what is best for employee's quality of life and mental health is not aligned with the best for the company. If there is 1% better output from a worker if they're at the office, but they suffer 50% less mental health, compared to WFH, then guess what the company is going to chose.
I'm currently making a killing as a remote contractor for several places that won't allow their own developers to work remotely. These places are just making it easy to poach their own talent.
I recall hearing about the Slack channel Apple employees were using to push for long-term remote work.
I wonder if Apple will try to retain remaining employees with a cost of living wage increase.
I wonder if Apple will try to retain remaining employees with a cost of living wage increase.
This is Cook not supporting Russia sanction which pushed gas price higher and higher, by making victims of higher gas price and increasing pressure against Russia sanction from Apple employees.
Which begs the question, does Cook support Ukrainian and on the side of whole world, or is he on the side of invasion? Why is he not helping the sanction, but instead ordering more gas consumption?
Which begs the question, does Cook support Ukrainian and on the side of whole world, or is he on the side of invasion? Why is he not helping the sanction, but instead ordering more gas consumption?
No.
I don't know how else to say this, but... No.
I don't know how else to say this, but... No.
I really hope this date sticks. As a single person, along with many of my single colleagues, we don't get much social interaction and being stuck inside for the past two years has really hurt our mental health. I am all for heads of families working from home to be with their families, this is beautiful, but I can't do that.
Why not work on having a social life outside of work? The pandemic didn't make meeting new people easy.
Think if you worked remotely without covid restrictions, and with a healthy social life outside of work. Wouldn't that be good?
Think if you worked remotely without covid restrictions, and with a healthy social life outside of work. Wouldn't that be good?
I have no idea what that is.
Back to the office? No thank you.
The original headline is different from this one and more nuanced.
Ironically and funnily enough, i expect the ('Apple-made') TV Show 'Severance' to become a reality.I suspect it already is, hyperbolically speaking.
"We have hundred of billions of real estate deprecating in value because they're mostly abandoned"
Why is it Mon,Tue,Thu? Weird to have flexible Wednesday in the middle.
Why not Tue,Wed,Thu with Monday and Friday flexible?
Why not Tue,Wed,Thu with Monday and Friday flexible?
Gotta justify the Bilions of $$$ spent on the new campus, while trying to prevent a CMBS collapse
An open season on Apple employees starts now. Recruiters, take notice...
You may be wrong.
I'm staunch in favour of remote. I like it, it works. But I recognise the benefits of in-person. I would wager that what most people like me want is a bit of control of their schedule and to be able to work in a hybrid manner. The end.
I know as that's what I was going to ask my boss, before he dragged us all back in to the office and stopped remote completely in Nov-21. Most of our team have left and I'm just about to leave.
Hybrid is a reasonable way forward. 100% on-site isn't given everything that's happened, and those are the companies who will lose their employees.
I'm staunch in favour of remote. I like it, it works. But I recognise the benefits of in-person. I would wager that what most people like me want is a bit of control of their schedule and to be able to work in a hybrid manner. The end.
I know as that's what I was going to ask my boss, before he dragged us all back in to the office and stopped remote completely in Nov-21. Most of our team have left and I'm just about to leave.
Hybrid is a reasonable way forward. 100% on-site isn't given everything that's happened, and those are the companies who will lose their employees.
Hybrid work solutions are good only for those who _want_ to do them. For everyone else, they're a compromise, also known as "the worst of both worlds".
Telling employees that they _need_ to be in the office on days X, Y, and Z destroys most of the utility of remote working. They even chose Monday, Tuesday Thursday so people couldn't have a four day long block for working or traveling elsewhere.
If Apple cared about flexibility, they'd do this, in order of "how much do they care":
- Employees choose if they want to come into an office at all, figuring out their work dynamics on a per-team basis
- If a number of days per week in-office is required, employees gets to choose those days
- The company chooses the days the employee comes in (which is what Apple chose)
Telling employees that they _need_ to be in the office on days X, Y, and Z destroys most of the utility of remote working. They even chose Monday, Tuesday Thursday so people couldn't have a four day long block for working or traveling elsewhere.
If Apple cared about flexibility, they'd do this, in order of "how much do they care":
- Employees choose if they want to come into an office at all, figuring out their work dynamics on a per-team basis
- If a number of days per week in-office is required, employees gets to choose those days
- The company chooses the days the employee comes in (which is what Apple chose)
I think someone below me said it best. You can set all the rules you like, but in the end, "cohesive teams will self organise" to make it work.
We didn't have to set any guidelines, we just did what was needed. If that meant we could fly 5 days a week at home. Fine. If, when lockdown easedup, it meant choosing to come in 1 or 5 days a week, we self organise towards that. And it's fine.
Our team proved we could do that over 2 years, so the sudden yank back into the office was a slap in the face, and destroyed our team. I'm still bitter about it.
Just know that if that's your policy, that's what you're risking. It may not manifest as quick as it did with our team, but the internal cracks will be there that you'll need to manage, if you can at all.
And I don't agree with your "worst of both worlds" wasn't our situation. We were all in agreement about things would be and it worked. In that situation, you declare that as a core part of your organisation and new employees can choose whether they want to be a part of that or not.
We didn't have to set any guidelines, we just did what was needed. If that meant we could fly 5 days a week at home. Fine. If, when lockdown easedup, it meant choosing to come in 1 or 5 days a week, we self organise towards that. And it's fine.
Our team proved we could do that over 2 years, so the sudden yank back into the office was a slap in the face, and destroyed our team. I'm still bitter about it.
Just know that if that's your policy, that's what you're risking. It may not manifest as quick as it did with our team, but the internal cracks will be there that you'll need to manage, if you can at all.
And I don't agree with your "worst of both worlds" wasn't our situation. We were all in agreement about things would be and it worked. In that situation, you declare that as a core part of your organisation and new employees can choose whether they want to be a part of that or not.
I think your second paragraph there is the critical point that large companies (including the one I work at) miss or purposefully ignore: let the employee control when (and how many) days they are in. Cohesive teams will self organise something suitable for their productivity, non-cohesive teams won't get any better by frustrating x % of the members. But, fundamentally, large companies simply lack trust in their employees so do not want to allow this.
Also, they have a lot of real estate costs to justify. Nothing like physical tech debt for anchoring your company in the past.
Also, they have a lot of real estate costs to justify. Nothing like physical tech debt for anchoring your company in the past.
Hybrid is a reasonable way forward
Only if you're willing to lose a significant fraction of your employees.
Only if you're willing to lose a significant fraction of your employees.
Anyone who has moved or bought a house outside of commuting distance in the past 2 years is never going back. I know I'm not.
software engineers in awfully high demand
so we'll see how that works out for them
so we'll see how that works out for them
Thanks, Tim. I sure love inflation, don't you?
midterms soon. new marching orders out.
Love that all the companies (see also Google, Twitter) are utilizing the WW3-panic to sweep these announcements under the rug. How thoughtful!
And props to Apple for adding that Friday PR synergy to the mix!
Edit: my best attempt at a good faith argument here is this: it was a move that was supposed to be in sync with Biden's SOFU comments on returning to the office, but other breaking news affected the plan.
And props to Apple for adding that Friday PR synergy to the mix!
Edit: my best attempt at a good faith argument here is this: it was a move that was supposed to be in sync with Biden's SOFU comments on returning to the office, but other breaking news affected the plan.
I work at a company you've heard of that did something similar (their announcement was on HN) and, at least in my case, the announcements had been made internally a few weeks beforehand.
It is always possible for there to be multiple plausible reasons for something, and the least generous assumptions can be frequently incorrect
It is always possible for there to be multiple plausible reasons for something, and the least generous assumptions can be frequently incorrect
It's not about current employees as much as future recruiting.
PR requires internal employees. That leads me to the logic that, for most companies, PR is targeted at non-employees.
PR requires internal employees. That leads me to the logic that, for most companies, PR is targeted at non-employees.
[deleted]
It's interesting to consider the group psychology aspect. During the 2020 summer protests, many also said that the huge crowds were not spreading covid. Maybe this is similar. When there is a larger issue people are focusing on, concerns about covid get pushed to the backburner. The real test will come when the Ukraine-Russia war subsides.
I'm sure the fact that protests are outside with the majority participants likely being mask wearers based on their affiliations also added to the risk calc.
"huge crowds were not spreading covid OUTDOORS" is the right take. Indoors is a recycled hellscape of germs. Viral load is a real thing. I went to several outdoor concerts and didn't catch covid however I'm going to continue to work remote.
It's easier to believe the singular "COVID isn't real" than it is to understand the plurality of viral load, HVAC, particulate sizes, mask ratings...
That's the challenge.
That's the challenge.
large crowds of people who do not take covid seriously, who socially disincentivize transmission precautions (e.g. sturgis) seem to spread covid.
on the other hand, large crowds that do take covid seriously, and socially encourage those precautions, appear to not spread covid as much.
where's the group psychology aspect?
on the other hand, large crowds that do take covid seriously, and socially encourage those precautions, appear to not spread covid as much.
where's the group psychology aspect?
At Google, not only are many still worried about COVID, but we just finished the complete shitshow known as Perf, there is war in Ukraine, so they thought this was a brilliant time to announce this as if it's supposed to "cheer us up" or something.
I am really starting to question if my values align with Google's anymore.
I am really starting to question if my values align with Google's anymore.
are you suggesting they wait for the conflict in Ukraine to resolve before making announcements? your comment sounds paranoid.
What a straw man. And thanks for the mental eval!
Love your attitude towards the odd comments. Keep it up dude
I forgot what Google's RTO policy is, but Twitter still allows fully remote work, it's more of an optional RTO.
I've added that Twitter caveat IRL convos. It's an important distinction and one that I applied them for.
That said, I still think all 3 PR departments subscribed to the same strategy, even though Twitter missed an opportunity to build positive PR b/c their policy is good.
That said, I still think all 3 PR departments subscribed to the same strategy, even though Twitter missed an opportunity to build positive PR b/c their policy is good.
You can look at any announcement and say "utilizing mid-term elections to sweep these announcements under the rug... swap out mid-terms with holidays, COVID, hurricanes, natural disasters, oil price swings, etc etc etc.
If you go looking for it, you will find it. Doesn't make it true though.
If you go looking for it, you will find it. Doesn't make it true though.
Fast followers? Or do you think the decision was synchronized at the top?
Tasty hiring for remote firms! Flee from Apple’s iron clutches!!
Mostly /s
Mostly /s
Is it /s though? This may be the only time in the next 20 years that remote-progressive companies have a unbeatable advantage over Apple and Google. If I'm a top-tier firm, I'm poaching as many Apple and Google remote employees that I can possibly take.
Unfortunately, this just seemed to lead to the most politically connected folks going remote and directors friends and favorite hires getting the perk.
At three trillion market cap, I guess they just realized it doesn't really matter if attrition shoots up and they'll always have enough people to fill the trenches. Lots and lots of people left around the same time.
Having left, I forgot what it was like to be able to focus on something other than Apple. Incredibly toxic atmosphere on the inside. I work at a fast-paced startup and still work on average 10/hours a week less than at Apple.