[HN Gopher] Wall Street grudgingly allows remote work as bankers...
___________________________________________________________________
Wall Street grudgingly allows remote work as bankers dig in
Author : arcanus
Score : 121 points
Date : 2021-11-24 13:02 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.md/ujxAx
| mabbo wrote:
| Like all industries that can move to remote, I suspect we will
| soon see a split. Some companies will embrace it, some won't. And
| that's not to detract from either side of that choice. It's just
| a choice that has to be made.
|
| What's going to be more interesting is what this does to the
| market rate for labor compensation between these two pools.
| Simply put: if you want me to be in the city from 9-6 every day,
| while your competitor says I can live anywhere and remote in,
| you'd better be paying me extra to cover my increased rent (in
| the city) or increased time (commuting). Or put another way, your
| competitors can compensate me less and I'll consider it a better
| deal.
|
| If the advantage of face to face is actually significant, then
| we'll see the remote firms slowly die off. If it's not, then
| they're going to be here permanently. Or they might just take
| over.
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| > Or put another way, your competitors can compensate me less
| and I'll consider it a better deal.
|
| It seems a lot of people disagree with you:
|
| > In an accompanying survey of more than 1,200 technology
| professionals, Hired found that 75% of employees would begin
| looking for a new job if their salary were to decrease, while
| 45% of candidates disagreed with using the cost of living of
| the employee's location as a baseline.
|
| https://www.zdnet.com/article/tech-jobs-salaries-are-flatten...
|
| I'm one of them. If my work is bringing in $X in revenue
| whether I'm sitting in a chair in an office building you're
| leasing or at home, I don't see why my share of that should be
| any less.
|
| Put another way, if I'm worth $Y to you sitting in an office,
| and I can accomplish the same work at home, from anywhere, just
| as effectively, why should I get paid any less?
| jxidjhdhdhdhfhf wrote:
| But what if you turn that around? If you are currently remote
| but considering an offer from a place that's in-office,
| wouldn't you want a higher wage to compensate you for the
| extra hassle of commuting? That's extra free time you're
| never getting back.
| randallsquared wrote:
| There are people who prefer to work in an office, and some
| who have that preference even if it puts them on a train
| for an hour or two a day. As long as we don't get
| legislation to force employers one way or another, I'd
| expect employees to self-select into those who like being
| around others all day, and those who prefer to work in a
| private office. It's a serendipitous solution we've been
| presented to all those open plan offices that a certain set
| hate: you can have your own private office with a view, but
| you'll pay for it yourself.
| tdfx wrote:
| But shouldn't the employees that require extra subsidies
| (office space, commuting reimbursement, office
| utilities/supplies) receive the same overall compensation
| as those working from home with lower expense to the
| company? It seems to me that if being in the office is an
| optional preference for some, they should carry the cost
| of it.
| randallsquared wrote:
| Yes, that was my poorly-explained point: given that some
| people prefer to add the cost and time of commuting
| (possibly in order to rub elbows or attend happy hour),
| and others prefer to add the cost of a home office
| (possibly in order to retain focus or make lunch for the
| family), the costs might turn out similarly, and
| therefore I hope that remote working doesn't result in
| systematically lower salaries for those who prefer it.
| TrainedMonkey wrote:
| Your compensation could change because of market forces,
| modern salaries are a product of supply and demand.
| Previously both supply and demand for high paying jobs was
| restricted to relatively small geographic areas. Now that
| remote working is in the supply can move out of high cost
| areas. However, the converse is also true, the demand can
| reach people who were not previously eligible. Some of those
| people would be happy with a significantly lower compensation
| package.
|
| So to summarize, your compensation could decrease because
| there are now a lot more people competing for your job. Or it
| could increase because there are a lot more companies
| competing for your services.
| inherently_juxt wrote:
| I'm on the other side of the coin. I view the associated
| costs of working in an office as built into my salary. For
| example, if I go to an office, I suddenly now have to buy
| gas/repairs for my car, I have to buy office clothes, and I
| have suddenly lost days per year to commutes. If I work from
| home, I see myself as freed from those costs.
|
| Put another way, I see my salary as the sum of the cost of
| the work that I do PLUS the costs associated with me getting
| the job done. Working from home is simply more economical
| (and my work/life balance is significantly improved).
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Never underestimate the gap between what people _say_ they
| will do and what they 'll _actually_ do.
|
| If you poll employees about literally any topic where one
| answer benefits them and the other answer doesn't, people are
| going to respond with a preference for the answer that
| benefits them.
|
| But in the real world, they still have to go out and find
| that better job that pays more and doesn't factor their
| location into cost of living. They're out there, but there
| far more rare than these articles suggest.
| [deleted]
| jimmytucson wrote:
| > you'd better be paying me extra to cover my increased rent
|
| The corollary of what you said is to pay remote employees with
| the same title less, which they won't all accept... especially
| the ones living in the same geo area due to the fact that they
| were commuting before the pandemic or are still occasionally
| commuting in and haven't moved to a lower COL area yet.
| macintux wrote:
| It will be interesting to see whether companies can make a
| hybrid model work reliably. I tend to think that combining
| remote with on-site leads to worse results, because it's easy
| to leave the remote people out of the loop.
| murph-almighty wrote:
| The one true hybrid work model for tech (in my opinion
| anyway) is to just have everyone meet in-person in some
| cadence for sprint planning/PI planning/whatever your cycle
| is. Everybody syncs up every so often, and then you leave
| everyone the fuck alone while they go work. Zoom can handle
| one-off meetings for pairing or other quick questions, but
| planning out work/carving out architecture solutions is
| something better done face to face.
| krageon wrote:
| The odds are overwhelming that you do not and will never
| work on the kind of problems where such a minute advantage
| (if it even exists, which I doubt) makes any kind of
| difference to the bottom line. Most business related coding
| is at the end of the day exceedingly trivial. Requiring any
| sort of on-site time is a thought that belongs in the past.
| pgwhalen wrote:
| I agree most business related coding is trivial, but all
| of the things that a software engineer does that surround
| the coding are not trivial. All of the best software
| engineers I know recognize this, and all of the less
| effective ones depend on them to fill in these gaps.
|
| I'm sure this varies by company.
| paxys wrote:
| Ultimately it's the employees that will make the choice, not
| the company. My wife works for a large NYC-based bank which has
| been trying to mandate 100% return to office since October
| 2020. They keep pushing it back by a month or two at a time due
| to employee backlash, and a year later still maintain that
| things will be back to "normal" soon. It's become a running
| joke among employees.
| snicker7 wrote:
| At a certain income threshold, rent becomes irrelevant. The
| difference in top decile salaries between, say, NYC and
| Pittsburgh is far more significant than the slight difference
| in a rent.
| syshum wrote:
| I think the bigger effect is this will create I believe a new
| round of Off Shoring for a set of jobs that used to be
| considered immune or at least resistant to off shoring.
|
| I could be wrong but your statement of "if you want me to be in
| the city from 9-6 every day, while your competitor says I can
| live anywhere and remote in, you'd better be paying me extra to
| cover my increased rent" will hold true for for the global
| workforce as well, and I am not just talking the traditional
| off shore to India or china, but it could be that EU companies
| find cheaper information workers in US Mid West, or US
| Companies finding cheaper employees in EU, or Australia , etc
|
| The high salaries of NY, LA, Silicon Valley, etc I think will
| be the first losses in this battle, many companies have already
| told their employees that if you choose to go remote to a Lower
| cost of living state your salary will be adjusted to reflect
| that.
|
| It will be interesting but the employees pushing for full time
| remote should be advised to be careful what they wish for, as
| they just might get it and not like the consequences
| TrueGeek wrote:
| The companies I've seen adjusting salaries are adjusting for
| "market rate" of salaries, not CoL. This can result in moving
| to an area with a higher cost of living and a lower salary.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| "Cost of living" was always code for "employer bets you
| will accept lower pay because you will not have a better
| option ".
| mrep wrote:
| Pay is usually max(COL, local market rate). You don't need
| a super high COL if the local market is very competitive,
| but COL can raise the pay because you still need to
| convince people to move to your location and most people
| won't do that if it has an abnormally higher cost of living
| without a corresponding pay increase.
| greiskul wrote:
| > many companies have already told their employees that if
| you choose to go remote to a Lower cost of living state your
| salary will be adjusted to reflect that.
|
| But at the same time, that makes the company vulnerable to
| the employee seek another company that will allow the remote
| work with a better compensation. Unless the ceos get together
| and conspire to suppress wages like they have done in the
| past, it is really uncertain how the workforce landscape will
| shape itself in the near future.
| ericmay wrote:
| It's also going to give rise to a class of services to
| undermine this. You can just have your official address be
| wherever and so long as the tax benefits make sense
| financially you'll make more money with a fake address in a
| state with no income tax while mostly living somewhere
| else.
|
| I think this leads to stronger evidence for property tax as
| the primary form of taxation. If you're paid in crypto and
| not paying property tax on that PO box that like 18 other
| people use for separate companies (address as a service or
| AAAS lol) the company won't know, the state government
| won't know either. Even if you're paid in cash it's hard to
| really track down.
|
| So we will continue to wind up with different types of tax
| havens throughout the world. The long-term ramifications
| IMO are that nice places to live are going to charge very
| high property taxes and very high costs for obtaining
| citizenship, and you'll pay that for safety and security
| and for things that you enjoy (maybe it's walkable, maybe
| there are lots of parks, maybe the security is strong,
| maybe everybody looks like you or something).
|
| I'm not arguing the ethics of this or anything, I'm not
| sure where I stand or what makes sense - just an
| observation.
| [deleted]
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > You can just have your official address be wherever and
| so long as the tax benefits make sense financially you'll
| make more money with a fake address in a state with no
| income tax while mostly living somewhere else.
|
| Do you not expect governments to use their powers to
| issue subpoenas to banks or get location history from
| mobile networks or license plate readers to figure out
| this fraud if their tax revenues suffer?
|
| A few years ago, Connecticut had Newegg send them a list
| of all purchases shipped to the state, and then mailed
| everyone a tax bill with penalties for failing to pay use
| tax. The onus was on the recipients to prove they already
| paid the use tax.
| ericmay wrote:
| > _Do you not expect governments to use their powers to
| issue subpoenas to banks or get location history from
| mobile networks or license plate readers to figure out
| this fraud if their tax revenues suffer?_
|
| Well let's not be so hasty to call this fraud. I don't
| know the legal details but lots of individuals and
| corporations do things for financial/tax reasons that
| undermine the spirit of law and we don't call it fraud.
| Also things can change. I think there is a more broad
| discussion to have here on taxes and such. Like why am I
| paying more in taxes than Buffet (contrived example)?
| Isn't _that_ fraud?
|
| But I think the underlying thing to noodle on is what if
| a lot of people do it and just ignore the government? Or
| how will the government know if you're paid in BTC from
| an overseas company? That's where I think property taxes
| (and probably sales taxes) come into play because the
| police or tax authority can show up at the door and seize
| the property.
|
| And in the case of San Francisco PO box let's say I buy a
| 2 bedroom house and then it costs whatever and I say ok I
| rent it out to 15 people with 15 bunk beds and rent it
| out for whatever + something so I profit (hell maybe it's
| even a co-op) and then you just tell your company that's
| your address and where you reside but you drive around in
| a van full-time or just 1 month in SF, spend 8 months in
| Oklahoma and 3 months in New York or whatever.
|
| From SF/CA perspective you are living and paying taxes
| there, but the point is that your company pays you the
| _higher wage_ while not living there (and taxes are
| deducted and soforth) but you 're saving by getting the
| higher wage without the cost of living (again this would
| be a financial calculation to see if it's worth it and
| all that so I don't want to argue details at the moment
| b/c idk). In a sense you're tricking your company because
| they have this policy of "if this is where you live and
| pay taxes then here's your paycheck" but the actual
| living part doesn't need to be done where you "live".
|
| Another example is living in Texas or Florida where
| there's no income tax. Set up a PO box, say that's your
| address, and there ya go. (Over-simplifying it a bit).
|
| _No doubt_ in my mind that schemes like this are
| occuring. Question is what happens when everybody does
| it? And what does the world look like when every _person_
| has access to the equivalent of a tax haven and is
| instead choosing where to live based on other factors?
|
| A couple things:
|
| > _why can 't we just regulate #of people in a house._
|
| Well, tell that to the families of service workers who
| can't afford rent. What's the right number of people per
| address? Etc.
|
| > _The onus was on the recipients to prove they already
| paid the use tax. "_
|
| Sure but if you live somewhere else you can just decline.
| What will Connecticut do when 50,000 people living all
| over the world just don't pay the tax? What will the U.S.
| do if there are millions? It seems like it's hard enough
| to go after corporations and they have big legal entities
| and property in the U.S. to seize and litigate over.
| Hell, maybe you get enough people doing it and law firms
| start representing people with medium net worths and so
| now every time you go after someone it costs so much
| money you go bankrupt over the tax. The problem for the
| governments is ability to enforce, which is why I think
| long-term everything rests on enforcement of property
| taxes. And you'll pay property tax because you want
| roads, police, etc. and if you don't pay the tax then
| they can block you from your property. Probably in-person
| sales taxes as well because you can also enforce those
| decently enough.
|
| The scenario is like a lion trying to crush ants. It's
| probably not effective.
|
| Also please don't take this as an anti-anything
| statement. I'm just trying to think through and predict
| future outcomes and just have some fun with scenarios :)
| I pay all of my taxes, and probably pay too much even...
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >Well let's not be so hasty to call this fraud.
|
| I am going to refer to it as fraud, because that is the
| usual way the word is used in the context of the legal
| consequences one opens themselves up to making
| intentionally false claims about your residence in order
| to evade taxes. The law does not require anyone to pay
| taxes on unrealized gains of stocks, so no, it is not
| fraud if Buffett does not pay tax on unrealized gains of
| stocks.
|
| >A couple things: > why can't we just regulate #of people
| in a house.
|
| I never wrote this, so I am not sure who you are
| responding to.
|
| >It seems like it's hard enough to go after corporations
|
| It is not hard if they are evading taxes by committing
| clear fraud with no plausible deniability, such as
| claiming they were physically in one place when in
| reality they were in another place. The news articles you
| see are for cases where there is a lot of gray area in
| the law.
|
| >The problem for the governments is ability to enforce
|
| It is called freezing bank accounts. It is where much of
| the power of the US comes from, and many times why
| opposing entities who do not trust each other choose to
| do business in the US.
| ericmay wrote:
| > I am going to refer to it as fraud, because that is the
| usual way the word is used in the context of the legal
| consequences one opens themselves up to making
| intentionally false claims about your residence in order
| to evade taxes.
|
| > The law does not require anyone to pay taxes on
| unrealized gains of stocks, so no, it is not fraud if
| Buffett does not pay tax on unrealized gains of stocks.
|
| You're not violating the technical aspect of the law
| anymore than Buffet would be. Can you tell me the proper
| amount of time someone must live somewhere in order for
| them to truly live there? Pass a law? Those won't work.
| Already people are doing this - what do you think people
| who are living in vans do? They claim residence
| somewhere, maybe their parent's house and then they just
| live in the van or maybe they have some other place they
| stay. People do this with Florida to evade New York City
| taxes, etc.
|
| > I never wrote this, so I am not sure who you are
| responding to.
|
| Just pre-empting a response. Long story short the first
| answer many have is legislation but it is too burdensome
| to address any actual issues.
|
| > It is not hard if they are evading taxes by committing
| clear fraud with no plausible deniability, such as
| claiming they were physically in one place when in
| reality they were in another place. The news articles you
| see are for cases where there is a lot of gray area in
| the law.
|
| I think you're operating in the current model but not
| thinking about what can and is likely to happen in the
| future. The U.S. already can't go after many people who
| are outright breaking the law. Once this reaches a
| critical mass it's basically like trying to stop people
| from pirating songs. It's just not going to work. The
| lion and ant thing is really great here to help
| visualize.
|
| Also, who is to say where you really live? Ok maybe you
| _do_ live with 14 other people in bunkbeds in San
| Francisco. Is (insert company) going to fly /drive/walk
| someone out there and show up and check on you? It's
| impossible to enforce. So you can definitely draw a Bay
| Area salary and effectively live somewhere else. You can
| even do it in other countries. Plenty of digital nomads.
| Have you ever heard of one being prosecuted?
|
| > It is called freezing bank accounts. It is where much
| of the power of the US comes from, and many times why
| opposing entities who do not trust each other choose to
| do business in the US.
|
| The dysfunction and instability of the stability of the
| U.S. democracy is eroding power like this, for better or
| worse. You can't freeze a Bitcoin address, etc.
| wbsss4412 wrote:
| I think on the whole you make a very good point, but don't
| underestimate the impact of time zones & differences in
| language & culture.
|
| Communication may not be geographically limited anymore, but
| there are still barriers to overcome.
| bko wrote:
| > while your competitor says I can live anywhere and remote in
|
| I think most companies still consider your location when
| determining your pay. Facebook does for instance, even going as
| far as tracking your IP to make sure you're being honest. If
| you choose to move to a lower cost city, they'll adjust your
| wage. Not sure about the other way around.
|
| That'll probably eventually change, but it could be a useful
| indicator. The median employee that chooses to live in X may be
| more productive that the median employee that chooses to live
| in Y. But that's yet to be seen
| Dyac wrote:
| Any Facebook employee that wished to would surely find it
| trivial to use a VPS or something to mask their true
| location.
| credit_guy wrote:
| Technology is not always the solution. If your employer
| asks you to affirm something, and you do that, and then
| cheat (because, let's say, cheating is technologically
| trivial), then you take a huge risk. A lot of people will
| not take that risk. It's enough to make example of 1 or 2
| people who are caught, and the rest will fall in line in no
| time.
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| Is my opinion, the company is cheating the employee by
| paying them less for the same work just because they live
| somewhere else.
| jkljkljkl1 wrote:
| No one forces employees to accept the terms offered
|
| edit: it's not cheating because the game is still of
| negotiation until it's in agreement, if you break an
| agreement, I see that as a cheat. No one made you accept
| the job or the pay.
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| 'Nobody forced them into slavery, why didn't they just go
| somewhere else?'
| xyzzyz wrote:
| People actually were forced into slavery, and actually
| are not forced to work for Facebook.
|
| Do you often exploit slaves as a rhetorical tool?
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Slavery, by its very definition, involves force. From
| _Merriam-Webster 's_ dictionary:
|
| Someone who is legally owned by another person and is
| forced to work for that person without pay
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| That's the point I was trying to make. Generally
| employees do not actually have much of a choice, if any.
| Especially if they have families to provide for so the
| distinction is rather moot
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Employees can find another job. Or they can choose to
| have no job, and potentially starve to death etc. But the
| latter is the default of the human condition, and has
| little to do with the whims of corporations.
| jkljkljkl1 wrote:
| Employees have numerous options? Slaves cant just get a
| new master, it was criminal to escape?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Slavery isn't just chattel slavery, it comes in many
| forms, including wage slavery.
|
| The abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass had
| this to say on the subject[1]:
|
| > _[E]xperience demonstrates that there may be a slavery
| of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its
| effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of
| wages must go down with the other_
|
| From Wikipedia[1]:
|
| > _Douglass went on to speak about these conditions as
| arising from the unequal bargaining power between the
| ownership /capitalist class and the non-ownership/laborer
| class within a compulsory monetary market: "No more
| crafty and effective devise for defrauding the southern
| laborers could be adopted than the one that substitutes
| orders upon shopkeepers for currency in payment of wages.
| It has the merit of a show of honesty, while it puts the
| laborer completely at the mercy of the land-owner and the
| shopkeeper"_
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#History
| jkljkljkl1 wrote:
| Working at FB isn't wage slavery, though, is it? If they
| can work there, cant they go get a similar job?
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| Facebook probably has really good data on IP geolocation,
| probably much much better than anyone, both through data
| users willingly provide and data from attackers they are
| certain to be fending off constantly. They'll know you're
| on a VPS.
| enra wrote:
| You and the company still needs to know/decide which locale
| you get taxed in and which regulation to follow.
|
| Even in California, SF has different payroll taxes and
| regulation than other cities in the area. Massachusetts
| requires employers to open a unemployment account in state.
| If the employee moves to a state the employer doesn't have
| a employees previously, you need to register in the state
| and it might mean you have to now pay sales taxes on
| revenue in the state.
|
| So unless you become an independent contractor and deal
| with this things yourself, the employer needs to know where
| you live most of the tax year.
| kgxkgxkhxoh wrote:
| More and more remote companies use PEOs. No need to
| incorporate in 50 states, you just pay someone else to.
| truffdog wrote:
| I worked at a company that switched to a PEO, people
| seemed weirdly outraged.
| enra wrote:
| We use it too, but doesn't change the fact the the
| employer needs to tell the PEO where the employee is
| located. PEO also have limits, like MA example, the
| company still needs to open the unemployment accounts
| directly with the state. Sales tax is another thing that
| you have to do directly.
|
| My point was that main reason companies need to know
| where the employee is compliance, employment law, taxes
| and potentially IP protection. While the employer
| wouldn't care about the location because of pay scale,
| they still need to know for other reasons.
|
| Until we can all live in some United Kingdom of the
| Internet, the unfortunate fact is that local laws apply
| to companies and employees when the employee resides in
| the jurisdiction.
| sopooneo wrote:
| I believe Facebook could catch them if it wanted.
| inherently_juxt wrote:
| Don't you have to give them your legal address when you
| start working for them?
| selectodude wrote:
| Playing games with your employer probably isn't the best
| idea if you're looking for a long term relationship with
| them.
| numpad0 wrote:
| I wouldn't be so confident as to think Facebook won't catch
| me lying for years.
| 88913527 wrote:
| Practically, what does this look like? There's $3M beautiful
| coastal homes in my area, and a few miles inland, you can get
| what might be called a 'starter home' for $900k. Is my wage
| going to be based on the extremely expensive coastal area, or
| the marked up, but still comparatively affordable inland
| area? It's all the same 'location' if we're talking at the
| county level.
| dsizzle wrote:
| I would think they use a metro-area scheme similar to what
| the government uses for their employees
| https://www.federalpay.org/gs/locality
|
| Because, I mean, waterfront property has a premium
| everywhere, and even in the same exact "starter home"
| location I'm sure you could teardown and fit a $3M home.
| Those choices aren't determined by the metro area.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _I think most companies still consider your location when
| determining your pay. Facebook does for instance, even going
| as far as tracking your IP to make sure you 're being honest.
| If you choose to move to a lower cost city, they'll adjust
| your wage. Not sure about the other way around._
|
| Truthfully, I don't see this working out in the long run.
| Companies like Facebook are making desperate grabs to keep
| control over how work is done and how it is compensated, but
| I believe market forces will kill efforts like ZIP code based
| compensation.
|
| In reality, if you're top tier talent, you can command top
| tier compensation no matter what your ZIP code is. Facebook's
| strategy relies on every other company colluding with them to
| suppress compensation based on locality.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > Truthfully, I don't see this working out in the long run.
| Companies like Facebook are making desperate grabs to keep
| control over how work is done and how it is compensated,
| but I believe market forces will kill efforts like ZIP code
| based compensation.
|
| I think you're right, but I don't think the end game is
| that everyone gets FAANG-level salaries everywhere.
|
| When companies realize that they can hire people for a
| fraction of SF Bay Area salaries while still paying them
| 20-30% more than their local salaries, the overall
| compensation structure will slide downward toward that
| number.
|
| Then the next step is when they realize they can hire
| foreign people in similar timezones at another lower step
| on the compensation ladder (while still paying more than
| their local jobs would offer). The compensation then slides
| further down toward this average.
|
| > In reality, if you're top tier talent, you can command
| top tier compensation no matter what your ZIP code is.
|
| Works in theory, not as much in practice. There's still
| value to having people collaborate in person (I say this as
| someone who has primarily worked remote long before COVID).
| Companies paying top dollar have a lot of leverage to get
| employees to move and work in-person still.
| inherently_juxt wrote:
| If I were looking for work and I were a top tier candidate, I
| would not let companies play games by determining pay based
| on my location. I'd work with a company that pays me well no
| matter where I choose to live. After all, where I live should
| only concern them if there's some kind of tax implication.
|
| Top tier candidates aren't stupid, and ones that would
| willingly subject themselves to that are probably just
| looking for a year or two stint to bolster their resumes.
| Either that or they aren't as smart as they make themselves
| out to be.
| mabbo wrote:
| I think some companies might do that. I think they'll wind up
| losing money as a result.
|
| If you're willing to pay more for identical work because your
| employee chose to live somewhere more expensive, you're
| encouraging your employees to live in the most expensive
| places.
|
| On the other hand, if you offer a fair wage for the work done
| regardless of location, your employees get better _value_ by
| living somewhere inexpensive, which lowers the required
| compensation for the same employee.
|
| I think Facebook is simply creating more problems for
| themselves by bothering with this.
| bko wrote:
| > If you're willing to pay more for identical work because
| your employee chose to live somewhere more expensive,
| you're encouraging your employees to live in the most
| expensive places.
|
| I think the salary adjustments aren't so extreme that
| you're actually indifferent from living in an expensive
| place. Also, most employees aren't unattached 20 year olds.
| I choose to live in a high cost area because my family is
| here and this is where I grew up.
|
| > On the other hand, if you offer a fair wage for the work
| done regardless of location, your employees get better
| value by living somewhere inexpensive, which lowers the
| required compensation for the same employee.
|
| Would you be okay if the 'fair wage' was based on a global
| developer workforce? For instance, median programmer salary
| for the UK is ~$41k while the US is $74k, not to mention
| salaries in developing countries. Everyone assumes that
| fair consistent salaries will just take inflated San
| Fransisco levels and apply them globally when in reality,
| its more likely that we readjust all salaries based on
| lowest cost of living.
| tshaddox wrote:
| If the cost of living adjustment were "perfect" then it
| wouldn't encourage employees to live in any particular
| place, right? Presumably the whole point is to give each
| employee the same "effective compensation" for their
| particular place of residence. Of course, it's not so easy
| to agree on what the ideal method of cost of living
| adjustment would be.
| indecisive_user wrote:
| The thing is that even if the cost of living adjustment
| was perfect, that still incentivizes living in a high
| cost of living area.
|
| It's much easier to move from an expensive city to an
| inexpensive city than vice versa since your savings will
| go much further in the inexpensive city.
| hansvm wrote:
| A "perfect" CoL adjustment can't exist. If it's fairly
| applied across distinct individuals then it won't be
| perfect for some of them, and if it's applied
| consistently to a fixed individual that person has enough
| tweakable parameters to warp the situation to their
| advantage and actually prefer one location over another.
| E.g.:
|
| (1) Bob is optimizing long-term savings, and Joe is
| optimizing purchasing power for nearby activities like
| bars and restaurants. After subtracting other comparable
| expenses, any salary surplus strategy which is a
| "perfect" cross-city CoL adjustment for Bob will when
| applied to Joe cause him to prefer a cheaper CoL location
| because his dollars will go further. Supposing the
| employer doesn't have power to discriminate based on such
| preferences, no fair CoL adjustment is perfect for both
| individuals.
|
| (2) Bob is still optimizing long-term savings. MegaCorp
| chose a "perfect" CoL adjustment based on Bob's preferred
| standard of living, but the multiplicative nature of
| price increases in a high CoL city means that Bob can
| save a ton of money with a mild decrease in his standard
| of living. He's incentivized to live somewhere more
| expensive because doing so will maximize his potential
| savings with minimal impact elsewhere in his life. If the
| employer isn't discriminating based on what's paid for
| rent and other expenses, the CoL adjustment is gameable.
| vincnetas wrote:
| Compensation should be adjusted to value created not
| expenses incurred.
| erik_seaberg wrote:
| Most of tech either isn't remote or hasn't been for very
| long, so strong candidates with large scale prod experience
| are still concentrated in markets where these skills are
| most valued and attainable. If you want those candidates,
| you have to compete with offers from local big tech.
| jollybean wrote:
| "you'd better be paying me extra to cover my increased rent"
|
| I have some sorry news for Americans thinking this way on this
| one: you just outsourced yourselves.
|
| There are people 2x as smart and who will work 2x as hard for
| 1/2 the salary among remaining 7 Billion people on this planet
| and if the bank can hire them instead of you, eventually they
| will.
|
| In some aspects, relationships do matter, so those have face-
| to-face types of interactions will be obviously harder to
| displace.
|
| The US saw a giant outsourcing of manufacturing, and now that
| US Megacorps are globalized and not locally owned, they don't
| have any reason to care about local talent, the same will start
| to happen in services.
|
| I do however think that communicating matters a lot, and people
| will just find themselves back at the office.
|
| I don't think people realize how quickly this can happen.
|
| Now that we can work 'remote' - everyone is thinking about all
| the projects they can do for x% the cost, they're looking to
| trim the budget, and there's a pile of solid applications from
| Canada, Taiwan, Poland, Brazil, Spain on their desks.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _There are people 2x as smart and who will work 2x as hard
| for 1 /2 the salary among remaining 7 Billion people on this
| planet and if the bank can hire them instead of you,
| eventually they will._
|
| I've worked with remote developers from Eastern Europe and
| Southeast Asia in US companies, and talent in those areas can
| command SV-level compensation.
|
| Truth is, if you can compete with domestic US talent, you can
| command US-level compensation, either through immigration or
| the "outsourcing" you're trying to spook people with.
|
| If the work being done doesn't require talent that commands
| US-level compensation, then that work was already outsourced
| 20 to 30+ years ago.
| halfmatthalfcat wrote:
| In every post about remote work, this argument always gets
| trotted out. The easiest retort is "if it were that
| advantageous for companies, it would have happened already."
|
| Outsourcing has been around for decades now and the
| overwhelming evidence is that it only gets you so far. "You
| get what you pay for."
|
| Sure there's probably some offshore/nearshore firms that hire
| great developers but the lions share of them are low-skilled,
| associate-level developers that are usually paraded around as
| senior/architects. I say this as someone whose worked in a
| large consulting firm and had to work with numerous
| offshore/nearshore teams.
| butMyside wrote:
| If you think they can just write off millions of real people
| you're deluded.
|
| Only 5% of the US population hunts.
|
| Until society as is collapses, we're reliant on this
| logistics system. The powers that be know that.
|
| Workers have all the power. There's just a 24/7 media blitz
| saying otherwise.
|
| Look at Linux, Godot, Blender, Jupyter, etc... I was
| deploying containers as BSD jails in 2005; k8s isn't new...
| political corruption obliging us to policing of agency to
| serve aristocrats is the reason software companies exist, not
| to produce software. We can do that as a species just fine.
| csa wrote:
| > I have some sorry news for Americans thinking this way on
| this one: you just outsourced yourselves.
|
| > There are people 2x as smart and who will work 2x as hard
| for 1/2 the salary among remaining 7 Billion people on this
| planet and if the bank can hire them instead of you,
| eventually they will.
|
| > In some aspects, relationships do matter, so those have
| face-to-face types of interactions will be obviously harder
| to displace.
|
| I have some sorry news for non-Americans who think most of
| the high-paying American jobs (especially at banks) have
| anything to do with being smart or working hard or getting
| paid half as much.
|
| Those personal, face-to-face relationships referred to matter
| a lot. As humans, they will always matter.
|
| The main way that remote will impact workers is by allowing
| people (mostly Americans or folks who could live/work here
| via a visa) who would already be naturally good fits for the
| job to live and work in a different place, but probably close
| enough to travel to meetings and clients as necessary (with a
| lot of necessary).
|
| Back office work may be sent abroad or (more likely)
| contracted out, but the core of the businesses that involve
| trust and/or personal relationships will be collocated for
| many many decades to come.
| sokoloff wrote:
| The context you trimmed off your quoted line completely
| changes the meaning of what you quoted.
|
| It was "Simply put: if you want me to be in the city from 9-6
| every day, while your competitor says I can live anywhere and
| remote in,"
|
| Companies requiring employees to be in the city 9-6 aren't
| off-shoring and probably aren't out-sourcing that work.
| DrBazza wrote:
| Well, I worked for "megabank" back in the 00s and they tried
| to outsource to India. It failed miserably, and cost more
| than it saved. Time zones didn't work. Language problems.
| Lack of communication.
|
| There's a reason London and New York work well together. Time
| zones and language. And a relatively short plane hop.
| krageon wrote:
| You responded to something the author did not write using a
| quote taken entirely out of context. While the text of your
| message is fair and probably true (although outsourcing comes
| with chunky quality issues that frankly have not been solved
| yet), it is not at all topical.
| jollybean wrote:
| I disagree that it was out of context either of the
| comment, or in the issue at large.
|
| It doesn't matter that in this comment, the particular
| context was ostensibly 'move to the city to work in the
| office then get paid more'.
|
| It's irrelevant - excessive demands in whatever form will
| be acquiesced by hiring better talent, elsewhere.
|
| American workers making any kinds of special demands are
| going to get outsourced.
|
| The tone of the article (and others is): "American Workers
| Leverage Over Big Corps" just like in this article: "Wall
| Street _Grudgingly_ etc. ". We saw the same with Apple
| yesterday.
|
| In reality, the articles should be: "American Corps.
| looking overseas to diversity talent". Because that's
| what's about to happen. Anyone who thinks that these
| companies have any loyalty to their local nations, founding
| staff or culture, (and this applies broadly to the modern
| world) is mistaken.
| hallway_monitor wrote:
| It is possible to find companies that indeed do have
| loyalty. Personally, I have long ago resolved not to work
| for companies that outsource (offshore, same thing)
| engineering. It seems there may be a resurgence here in
| America of people willing to put their money where their
| mouth is: Buy local, hire local, keep the money here.
| krageon wrote:
| > I disagree that it was out of context [...] of the
| comment
|
| It is not about your opinion, you are quite simply not
| responding to the posted comment. Because charitable
| reading of _your_ comment required it, I have read the
| original comment that you claim to speak of again.
|
| That comment says:
|
| - Remote work can be done for a lower salary, because you
| can live anywhere
|
| - If you demand that I come to the office, you should pay
| for the difference
|
| You have responded to these points by saying that if you
| want more money, cheaper workers can be found "elsewhere"
| (i.e. abroad, so remote). This is not topical, because
| you address a claim that was never made.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| > There are people 2x as smart and who will work 2x as hard
| for 1/2 the salary among remaining 7 Billion people on this
| planet and if the bank can hire them instead of you,
| eventually they will.
|
| I think the bank can and does hire them already. In big tech
| companies, a lot of employees come from developing countries
| and they're paid the same market rate as anyone else (and
| companies pay for their relocation).
| jollybean wrote:
| Moving staff from China or Poland to the US is a non-
| trivial exercise with all sorts of limitations, and FYI,
| that definitely lowers the local market rate.
|
| The 'True Shift To Remote' is a big game changer because
| institutionally, people at the office had a kind of
| existential value proposition: "We are Here!" - but that
| prop is distinctly diminished if they don't think they have
| to be.
|
| BigCorps are making the shift.
|
| It will be interesting to see it play out.
| dymk wrote:
| Having worked for years with overseas contractors, I'm really
| not too concerned about my job security
| amf12 wrote:
| The problem with overseas contractors is - you get what you
| pay for. There are still excellent contractors out there
| who charge more, but still less than what employees get
| paid here. The second problem is discoverability. It is
| difficult to find those excellent contractors from all the
| not-so-good ones out there.
| [deleted]
| jollybean wrote:
| So being a 'contractor' and 'not connected' is a problem.
|
| But once they have the PM, designers, architect and devs.
| 'on staff' and all 'over there' - then _you_ are the 'not
| connected' contractor.
|
| Moreover 'they' are getting better across the board.
|
| Japan made crap until they made the best cars in the world.
|
| China made crap but now they have the top 5G gear and all
| of the patents, and would wipe out a big chunk of Western
| companies were it not for 'security' and other issues.
|
| Americans are fairly instantly replaceable with Canadians,
| Aussies, Brits, and almost as easily replaceable with
| French, Italian and Germans etc.
|
| 'Remote Work' is like an 'unlimited, free H1B' program.
|
| Many jobs are safe, but many are not.
| 62951413 wrote:
| In typical SFBA companies I meet mostly token Americans. So
| there's a huge foreign workforce with many years of local
| experience, a non-trivial proportion with already with
| citizenship. With the current trends in American politics
| I'd expect a large number of them to be open to going back
| home for only $100K or so. I would. Living 10-11 time zones
| from CA is a big deal though.
| lekanwang wrote:
| I'm finding with the teams I'm working with that the junior
| employees are the ones most impacted by not working from an
| office, but they often don't realize what they're missing -- the
| less formal forms of mentorship, stronger community, interacting
| with more people that's not on their team and in their role,
| overhearing context, the ability to have a 3-min quick chat with
| a senior person without a scheduled meeting, and developing that
| stronger sense of "what good looks like." I'm really concerned
| that we're going to have a two-tiered system where a bunch of
| people early in their careers are going to feel stuck in a few
| years and not even realize why.
| dv_dt wrote:
| This seems like it would be taken care of fine by formalizing
| some remote training, mentorship, and pair programming
| activities. Something that better work environments already
| think about, remote or not. Not sure why this would be some
| sort of unsolvable problem.
|
| Edit: also a remote culture of hopping onto a one-on-one voice,
| vid, and/or screenshare helps too.
| activitypea wrote:
| Any ideas how we could fix this?
| dsizzle wrote:
| In my hybrid office, the juniors are also mostly the ones going
| into the office, so maybe they've appreciated your point.
|
| I also observe that they are also the ones hanging out outside
| the office, so I would guess this is part of it too. Seniors
| tend to compartmentalize "work friends" vs friend-friends.
| getYeGone wrote:
| As a junior employee (1 year experience, entirely remote),
| you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. I've been having a
| miserable time working remote for all the reasons you've
| mentioned. It doesn't help that my team seems to really lean
| into independent work. The biggest thing that I wish I had was
| more opportunities to learn from senior devs.
|
| Now that I feel like I have enough experience to find a new
| job, I will be looking for a workplace with a strong emphasis
| on in-person work & collaboration.
| bamboozled wrote:
| This is true, so much so we just don't hire juniors because we
| haven't figured out how we'd manage, we're fully remote. If We
| did hire juniors I'd probably want them co-located near me
| somehow.
|
| Ultimately I think people will work more in offices again for
| this reason and for the reason that even the company I work
| for, which has always been remote first has a large group of
| people who live in the same city, they meet in person more
| often and seem to call much more of the shots and receive
| promotions more than others.
| guenthert wrote:
| How well do those, now remote working, bankers understand
| computer security? How well do those who are not 'best in class'?
| How high do they prioritize it? That will be the limit IT can
| strive for.
|
| Happy hacking!
| bob331 wrote:
| Barclays lost half of my team including me because they wouldn't
| go remote. Their loss I got a 50% pay rise
| chadash wrote:
| While I do think that attitudes towards remote work have
| fundamentally changed, it'll be interesting to see how things
| shake out over the next 5-10 years. I suspect that as people
| start to go into the office more, there will be pressure to do so
| for your career to advance, in many fields. If your boss's boss
| works in the office, who is more likely to get a promotion, the
| person that works from home or the person who goes in and eats
| lunch with them once a week? In an ideal world, the answer would
| be "the one who does better work", but we don't live an ideal
| world.
| krageon wrote:
| You can have lunch with someone once a week and still work from
| home. These kinds of issues are not related, it just requires a
| different attitude and approach to networking within your own
| company. No matter what, if you are more social you will make
| more money. It is not required to be in the office to be
| perceived well by your peers.
| sokoloff wrote:
| You're totally right, of course, but there's a massive power
| in changing from one default to another. With remote working,
| the overwhelming default is not "I'll have a casual lunch
| with my boss' boss a couple times a month." where a 50-person
| company with everyone on-site, you're likely to eat with your
| boss' boss a couple times a week in the cafe.
| time_to_smile wrote:
| > as people start to go into the office more, there will be
| pressure to do so for your career to advance
|
| China's "lying flat" movement is already starting to take a
| hold in the West, and I think as the reality of climate
| catastrophe and other systemic breakdowns continue to remain
| visible in the post-pandemic world, there will be an
| increasingly large number of people that have absolutely zero
| interest in "career advance".
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if everything you say happens for the
| subset that is still clinging to the fantasy that career can
| create meaning. However I think this group will represent an
| increasingly small number of workers, especially in the new
| generation arriving to the work for now.
| Ancalagon wrote:
| I think that all depends on how much longer people give money
| real value.
|
| Edit: And I'm not insinuating people would instead give
| something like crypto real value. More along the lines that
| as these economic systems fall apart, the abstractions they
| were built upon will mean less and less until a house is a
| house and farmland is farmland and no amount of tokens or
| gold will buy that from somebody else.
| downrightmike wrote:
| Modern day advancement is usually done when you hop to a new
| job anyways.
| sokoloff wrote:
| In some cases, those lunches will lead to doing better work.
| Partly from having better, more full picture of the pressures
| your grand-boss is facing, from having direct opportunities to
| ask questions or get guidance, and partly (a minor part
| probably) from a willingness to give a little bit extra at a
| critical moment to someone that you have a more personal
| relationship with.
| MrPatan wrote:
| What's a "promotion"? Is it like quitting and getting a nicer
| job in another company?
| cm2187 wrote:
| The problem is that if everyone doesn't come back in the office
| you just end up spending your time on zoom in an office desk
| which negates the whole point. Working in a large bank in europe
| where we observed the same, between a third and half of the staff
| decline to come back
| Animats wrote:
| _Wall Street banks posted record profit and revenue during the
| pandemic, as government stimulus supported consumers stuck at
| home and companies sought to do deals, proving to bankers and
| traders that they have little need to work out of the office the
| way they used to. The attendance numbers are low. The financial
| industry employs 332,100 people in New York City. In October,
| only 27 percent of those people came in daily._
|
| That says it doesn't make economic sense to bring people back to
| the office.
|
| The executives pushing for that may be the ones on the way out.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| Economic sense for the big companies, but probably not for
| cities and local businesses.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >She often woke up at 4:30 a.m. to drive from her home in New
| Jersey, catch a bus into Manhattan, hop on the subway, squeeze in
| a workout and get to Jefferies' trading floor by 7:30 a.m. Work
| dinners ran late into the night, and redeye flights to London
| were common.
|
| >For Ms. Batchelor, Jefferies's new policy means coming in to the
| office three days a week. Although she plans to travel to
| meetings when necessary, Ms. Batchelor said she was grateful to
| spend more time with her children and cut back on her long
| commute. "I didn't know what I was missing," she said.
|
| Sometimes I wonder if journalists compete to get the most eye
| rolling quotes. As if anyone would believe this woman with 3
| children was not fully aware of the tradeoffs they were making in
| exchange for the higher pay.
| protastus wrote:
| > As if anyone would believe this woman with 3 children was not
| fully aware of the tradeoffs they were making in exchange for
| the higher pay.
|
| I believe her. Life doesn't have an open enrollment period
| every year where you're presented multiple career and lifestyle
| options, and asked to choose one. Instead, one generally
| converges into a local optimum and breaking out can involve
| significant energy and risk.
|
| From the perspective of remote work, the pandemic helped a lot
| of people break out of their local optimum.
| onion2k wrote:
| _As if anyone would believe this person was not fully aware of
| the tradeoffs they were making in exchange for the higher pay._
|
| In my experience working with highly motivated, highly paid
| people they often _aren 't_ particularly self-aware or
| introspective. In their mind it's not a tradeoff; they usually
| believe that every job in their industry is like theirs. I
| suspect this is due to the fact that they've worked long hours
| and said "Yes" to every request from the beginning of their
| careers. They genuinely don't understand that things could be
| different.
|
| This is why so many businesses are struggling with remote
| working. They honestly don't get that people can work
| differently.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > I suspect this is due to the fact that they've worked long
| hours and said "Yes" to every request from the beginning of
| their careers.
|
| Also, "say yes to and do everything your boss/the police says
| to you" was ingrained into children for centuries.
|
| The cost of that obedience propaganda, however, never showed
| up until modern day cutthroat capitalism.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >they usually believe that every job in their industry is
| like theirs.
|
| It was, for the woman in the article. But no one forces them
| to be in that industry, other than their desire to earn high
| wages.
| coralreef wrote:
| And no one forced her to take a break and take conscious
| perspective of how we live our lives.
|
| This is a common experience: we all take things for granted
| or assume that things have to be done a certain way, simply
| because that's the way we've been doing it for so long.
| onion2k wrote:
| _no one forces them to be in that industry, other than
| their desire to earn high wages_
|
| Changing career later in life is a risky thing to do,
| especially if you don't have much in the way of
| transferable skills. Wanting to avoid poverty isn't quite
| the same as a "desire to earn high wages". People might
| know they'd happy on low- or mid-level wages but fearful of
| ending up with no wages. That's a reasonable concern.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| People who work in Manhattan and fly often to London
| aren't in category of ending in poverty, more like having
| less paid (but still above average) and less stimulating
| job.
|
| Of course if one has so messed up life priorities that
| job and life satisfaction coming from it is their #1
| concern, way above raising their own kids, then its
| another of those sad stories later.
|
| People are fearful of many things, usually not in very
| rational or smart way. One thing about being a proper
| adult (and a good parent) is to understand which fears
| are real and address them, and which are just some self-
| illusions because folks can't get their mind straight and
| sort out themselves and their lives (for the lack of
| better words).
| throwvirtever wrote:
| > But no one forces them to be in that industry, other than
| their desire to earn high wages.
|
| High wages are definitely a factor but being competitive
| and feeling energized by trades paying off count as well.
| It's a combination of high reward, betting excitement, and
| the pleasure of crushing your competition in a context
| where score is easily kept (in dollars).
|
| If those are the things you enjoy, it's difficult to find
| all that in other industries.
| smoe wrote:
| Not that I disagree with the point on journalists behavior, I
| think while people are to a degree aware of the tradeoffs they
| are making initially, over time they normalize everything and
| get basically Stockholm syndromed and peer pressured into their
| situation.
|
| Early in my career I met a manager type guy in his late 30s
| that prided himself of only having taken a week of vacation in
| 4 years and was fully convinced that those kind of things are a
| pre-requisite of success for everyone. He got a lot more
| relaxed about life a couple years later after divorce and
| bankruptcy, having to start many things from scratch.
|
| So I do buy that people can have a revelation about changing
| lifestyle, even if initially it was a conscious decision to
| prioritize career over family.
| acdha wrote:
| I don't think that's a fair summation: it's really common for
| people go with what's familiar without critically examining it
| and both economics and psychology are rife with studies showing
| how people make decisions less than purely rationally. Some of
| the most famous examples are related to that quote above:
| people buy larger houses thinking about the times they'll use
| extra amenities while ignoring how infrequently they do so or
| how much time they're spending every day commuting to where
| they could afford that wish list, or downplaying how much time
| they spend commuting because they want to think they have a 45
| minute commute rather than an hour and are thus "running late"
| almost every day, etc.
|
| Even very smart people do this kind of thing -- I'm thinking of
| someone I knew who has a math Ph.D. but chronically misjudged
| their bank account -- because they aren't approaching it as a
| rigorous analytical problem but are just running along on
| habit, what their peers are doing, and often the stories they
| tell about how it'll get better once they're further along in
| their career. If you've been telling yourself that the long
| hours will get better once you have experience, then that
| promotion, then at the next job, ... it's not hard to just keep
| doing what you've been doing, especially if you're well paid
| enough to say it's worth it because you'll retire early.
| toss1 wrote:
| >>Sometimes I wonder if journalists compete to get the most eye
| rolling quotes.
|
| They definitely select the most eye-catching/rolling quotes out
| of an interview, been there, done that, been astonished at the
| way the article turned out.
|
| That said, however, this is NOT unusual. When I worked at IBM
| in Manhattan, my manager lived in Poughipse, and woke up at
| 4:30 every morning to catch the train, slept on the way in, and
| was in the office before I was, and I lived about 40 blocks
| away. And he most definitely did NOT make the big banking
| salary and bonuses.
|
| A lot of people want the suburban quality of life for their
| kids, and were willing to sacrifice a lot for that. Now, seeing
| that it is unnecessary, they are pushing back. Which is a damn
| good thing.
| snarf21 wrote:
| Exactly, click bait nonsense. The thing is that before
| companies could claim "work won't get done if you aren't in the
| office". Now that that has been proven false, the are
| grudgingly trying to keep their employees. Remote work is the
| new carrot just like healthcare was in WWII.
| Frost1x wrote:
| Intentional selection bias and cherry picking is a real problem
| in media and other domains. Waiting to hear all the pieces you
| want to hear and then weaving them together to create the story
| you want in others' voices. It makes things seem more
| legitimate than they are because it is a set of real data, it
| just happens to be a heavily manipulated and carefully chosen
| set.
|
| It sounds innocent at first because you're not creating false
| data directly, but you are falsifying the representation of the
| data which is just as bad if not worse.
| snicker7 wrote:
| I work at a hedge fund. Despite a recent return-to-work mandate,
| literally no one in my team is in the office. Our job is super
| stressful and emotionally taxing. Not having wearing to pants
| makes it somewhat bearable.
| MrPatan wrote:
| I'm waiting for all the studies reinvestigating the height salary
| and career premium in the age of remote working.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-24 23:00 UTC)