Hacker News Reader

Comment by xchaotic | Hacker News Reader

The biggest flaw in working for all those mega corps, is that despite their size, they still haven't fully embraced remote work. Yes there are island, but Amazon are still looking for that "2nd city" to locate in. Some people may dig going to an office, I don't. If you're lucky to be early in a given neighborhood, you can probably retire on renting out your house. If you're late, like applying to Amazon now would be, you're just a blue collar worker, with higher turnover - you earn more and spend on rent. Especially in places like Seattle if I was to relocate with the family, I'd be an indentured servant, with obligations to pay high rent/mortgage, I'd probably have nowhere to change jobs to, if Amazon didn't work out.

One can dwell on small things like which version control does a company use, but ultimately, they are failing to deliver on the "quality of life" thing.

View on HN

> Especially in places like Seattle if I was to relocate with the family, I'd be an indentured servant, with obligations to pay high rent/mortgage, I'd probably have nowhere to change jobs to, if Amazon didn't work out.

That's quite the opposite. Wouldn't living in a big city mean more choices? Seattle for instance has high paying job options from Microsoft, Google, FB if you decide to leave Amazon.

However, yes having more acceptance of remote work would be great.

Aren't the Google and FB offices in Seattle relatively small, satellite offices?

Yes. The optionality relative to rural america is excellent. The optionality relative to the bay area is very poor.

I don't know about Google but I interviewed at FB Seattle and was told it's the second largest FB office after Menlo Park, with thousands of engineers and plans to keep growing.

I don't know about FB other than the building looks big, but the Google Seattle presence is certainly not small and is growing:

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/technology/google-plan...

Google Seattle-Kirkland is the third largest Google office. I wouldn't classify it as "satellite".

There is no such thing as "Google Seattle-Kirkland", no matter what the managers and recruiters may tell you. There is "Google Seattle", which is located in the Fremont neighborhood, a small and friendly office which I would definitely classify as a "satellite"; then there is "Google Kirkland", located on the other side of a large lake, over in the direction of Microsoft, which is certainly a big place. Still... Google is all about the mothership. Everything is centered culturally on Mountain View (called "MTV" internally).

Well... that's how it was when I worked there; things could have changed a lot in the last five years, perhaps. It sounds like the new Seattle office they're planning to build will be less of a satellite.

What size would be "relatively small" in your measurement? They're certainly smaller than their Bay Area headquarters, so "relatively", they're smaller. But for FB, at least, there are many Seattle-primary teams (ie, teams where all or most members are in Seattle), especially in infrastructure and storage.

I've worked over two years in each of the FB Menlo Park and Seattle offices, and since the move to Seattle, I haven't missed anything from the headquarters (especially once the BBQ place opened).

Wouldn't living in a big city mean more choices?

I guess the OP is only willing to work for one of the big-4?

Here in DC, between private sector software (where I work), public sector and defense, and consulting/contracting, there are tons of options all across the spectrum of job roles and salaries. And these are located all around the area, not just in a single part of the metro.

I go into work every day. I wish I could work remotely. But I don't, because I find I hate every time I'm forced to interact with the people who do.

Working remotely makes you a pain in the ass to interact with.

You may not be working at a place where remote work is part of the culture. When everyone is remote, the tools and processes are built around it and it no longer feels like a “pain in the ass”.

In my experience, even in those places (I've worked in two so far), it's still a pain in the ass.

Exactly - in my organization, 9/10 times coworkers from the same floor of the same building join the zoom/webex rather than walk to the meeting room.

In that culture, being home 2 days out of 5 is no problem. Being 100% remote (like some of our folks) seems to work out fine (though I will admit being 100% remote as a manager is not as feasible).

We all wear headsets and despite a somewhat "open" office layout, it manages to work out decently (thru proper usage of mute and pausing screen).

Half my team is remote, including my lead test engineer, product owner, and UI developer. My manager works remote 2-3 days per week. None are a pain in the ass to interact with.

Remote work can work, but it takes effort, both on the part of the employees (to be available, have good internet connections, etc) AND the employer (to provide quality tooks to interact with remotes).

> I'd probably have nowhere to change jobs to, if Amazon didn't work out.

Seattle rents/homes are, compared to SWE salaries, not that high (Yet), and Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Tableau are all hiring.

at senior developer at a major company like amazon we're talking...what? At least $200-250k/year? Even in Seattle that doesn't trap you in working-poor conditions.

I am sort of a remote developer for Amazon.

I'm a 'deployment engineer' who travels most weeks to different fulfillment centers (warehouses) for work, and when I'm not traveling I'm usually writing code for my team.

Of course, by saying that I reveal the real flaw in my entire remote role: aren't I supposed to be working instead of posting comments on HN?

I hardly think that is unique to remote work, as evidenced in the same manner by my comment from my office.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com