70% of startups offer remote work options as hiring heats up, YC data shows
news.crunchbase.com
news.crunchbase.com
Hiring is incredibly tight right now, and I'm sure glad my options are "anybody within ~2 timezones" over basically only people within a 15 mile radius of my office because traffic is horrendous in my city.
Not to mention, how have companies not realized how to build robust remote company cultures over the past 2 years? My city currently has the highest hospitalization rates of any time during the pandemic, so hardly anyone is in the office anyway.
Just don't understand how any of these startup board members or VCs would be willing to invest in companies at this point that prohibit remote work.
People haven’t been paying for offices for the last ten years for no reason.
Engineering is one segment where this penalty seems to be lower. However, engineers seem to be unable to understand that every other function functions better in person.
The tradeoff you’re hoping to make is that the increase in talent pool outweighs the decrease in productivity. People going into remote should acknowledge this.
> People haven’t been paying for offices for the last ten years for no reason.
Companies do so many suboptimal things that this argument isn't credible. We've seen how many organizations can barely limp through a "digital transformation", so why should we expect them to be operating anywhere near optimally along other axes? They could just as easily be paying for office space because of tradition or internal momentum, because it confers status or because it gives executives a feeling of control. (This isn't even speculation: I've actually heard executives say that they want people back in the office to keep an eye on them and make sure they're working hard.)
It's not that engineers "don't understand" that "every other function functions better in person", it's that they disagree—with a pretty reasonable basis at that. Companies pushed open offices on the back of the same kind of baseless assumptions contravening both research and individuals' direct experience, and the push to return everyone to the office isn't any different or better-supported.
How is it obviously not true? I mean. I love remote work. I started working remotely way before it was mainstream and I'm advocate for it. I've managed remote teams for many years too. Even so, I can't claim there's no performance hit. I just think the performance hit is small enough that in most cases the benefits for people and businesses outweigh it.
You can't just hand-wave away the unpaid labor and risk to your life that you undertake with every trip to and from the office. You can't ignore the drive-by conversations you get roped into when you're trying to do head-down work or the overall noise in an office. Yes, in ideal conditions your office might approach what you get working at home, but I've never experienced it, especially given that open plan offices are now an unquestioned default setting.
In my experience I am more productive in office, lots of other people seem to feel the same. I guess I'm just lucky to have worked in lots of more than ideal offices, or, as seems more likely people's home conditions vary to such an extent that you can't make a blanket statement.
I have been in plenty of organizations that actively cripple their remote workers' performance, and others where I have been my most productive. Remote work productivity depends directly on the culture surrounding it.
If you believe a remote team will be less productive, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead, set clear expectations that your team can excel, and then ensure the culture enables them to realize that potential.
Sure, this philosophy can go only so far, but -- without that foundation -- the results will only fall short of your expectations.
They’re saying the statement requires more evidence to back it up.
* One of your prized developers lives by themself and suffers bad anxiety from being alone all the time instead of in the office
* Your 10 year old production systems are designed from the ground-up to be secure from inside a single network. Sure you could add VPNs but then you get a load of other issues
* There are people who will only focus when in the office, too many distractions at home and they are less productive. There is no objective way to measure productivity and also what drop would be acceptable so how do you fairly appraise people when you can't see how they interact?
* Juniors trying to learn on the job is 100x easier in-person.
* All manner of issues with onboarding, hardware, network problems, unannounced disappearances from people that you need to speak to (as opposed to them being in the office and they tell you they need to go to the doctors).
Not saying that I don't want to fix these since we need to use remote working to survive probably but you can't pretend these are just things that can be fixed.
- Commuting
- Office noise and distractions
- Need to fit office hours
Might I even argue those are even bigger hits than just the remote hit
The story is always the same. If you're in the office you don't need to prove you're working: you obviously put in your 8 hours, even if you had 3 coffees breaks, played ping pong, smoked a pack of cigarettes watched a few youtube videos with your friend, checked social media.
If you are home, you may do a subset of the above non-work activities - but you're either producing some amount that is reasonable for your manager or you're not.
A lot of the employees in my team were working longer hours than when they were in-office.
In my experience performance reviews are a joke and based more on luck than anything else (was the project a success or was it cancelled?), so your manager's perception is more important than anything else to you keeping your job.
Being remote you miss out on a lot of socialisation and employees may leave your company more quickly (and don't get nearly as attached as they would with a in-office workplace), but they'll definitely produce more.
I think you’ve misunderstood the comment you’re replying to.
This is an excellent point that I'd never thought of. It demonstrates that a lot of companies resist change at their own peril, and not because it's the shrewd thing to do.
But startups [1] (the original context of this thread) aren’t “digitally transforming” themselves, they’re trying to create completely new approaches to outdated ones. The question is: Is the increased friction of remote communication a competitive disadvantage when in the company formation stage? What about the growth stage? If so, does the extra friction overwhelm the company’s other strengths, like market demand?
I suppose we’ll see in ten years or so if any/many unicorns emerge that started as fully remote. [2] (My guess is that we’ll still see most startups were not fully remote.)
[1] The YC definition: Venture-backed, huge growth, winner-takes-all, etc.
[2] Someone please start a spreadsheet/investment fund.
This is a bad argument. Just because they do one thing poorly (in your opinion - no proof) that doesn't mean they're wrong about remote work. Quite ironic considering you called out the other commenter for bad arguments.
In any case, the proof as always is in the results, not internet arguments. If remote work produced better results at lower costs, more companies would adopt it. If remote work is not a competitive edge, then it probably doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things - IMO.
You're right, so let's follow the money...
I regularly work with investors who acquire businesses (AUMs are typically ~$1B, I guess that is serious enough?).
> knows that there’s a performance hit you take as a remote company.
- I don't know a single one who deliberately has said "there is a performance hit if they are remote, we should switch to in office to increase performance".
- I know of no industry study that is able to quantify this.
- "People haven’t been paying for offices for the last ten years for no reason." People have also have been enforcing 40 hour weeks and argue open offices are better for performance. We still haven't agreed either of these are true. Thus, this is a poor argument.
I actually don't have any concrete evidence for one way or the other, but I do know there isn't unequivocal evidence that confirms your statement to be true.
Because you can’t. The decision to go remote is a one way door.
> People have also have been enforcing 40 hour weeks and argue open offices are better for performance.
Open offices are a management trend and hardly universal among successful companies. Whereas remote work is an extreme aberration from the norm.
I have been at three companies since the pandemic started, all of whom you would know. All of them struggle with performance management and output of remote teams, regardless of if they are public about it.
No it’s not, it’s just new to you so it seems scary. Companies have been dealing with this for decades with branch offices, contractors, etc.
Branch offices isnt remote, and contractors are mercenaries.
Look, I think there is not "one" answer to this. I personally can't think of anything worse than complete remote. Its isolating, difficult to understand the entire company and everything requires explicit communication. Some companies do this well, Most do not.
However I have worked with fully remote workers, and they love being remote. I don't know how we sensible accommodate both modes of working.
You seem to not only want to work in an office (fine), but you want other people to.
> Because you can’t. The decision to go remote is a one way door.
That's pretty hand wave-y. If there is money in it companies will do it. It wouldn't be much different than moving an office or factory.
Right. And if there was concrete evidence that this was the case then investors (especially controlling interest ones that I work with) would DEFINITELY being doing it.
Follow the money...
The last two companies I've worked for where 100% remote, in both of these places engineering was a lot more productive. I personally invested less total time in work (about 7 or 8 hours total) and got a lot more done.
Both of these companies had a culture of writing things down, so everything was documented, an all important conversations where posted in the open for anyone to see. Everything is searchable.
For the kind of work I do (web development) in-person interactions are only good for middle managers that enjoy micro managing as a way to justify their job.
What does not work is to try to keep doing the same things you did in the office in a remote way. You need to adapt to the new context.
If your company went remote and suddenly you have 5 video calls a day, you're doing it wrong. Of course it will be worse and less productive.
The reality is that most managers have done little to no thinking about (nor have they ever been formally trained on) actual management. So when taken out of the environment in which they "learned" to manage, largely through example, they have no framework or theoretical knowledge to fall back on for what effective remote working looks like.
We have a hybrid working model but some of our employees are genuinely remote and never come to our in-person offices.
It works well but it takes co-ordination effort by leaders to make it work.
I think there genuinely are benefits to in-person work for certain collaborative elements of work but it makes no sense to just say "there are productivity costs to remote work" without actually answering the key questions, namely:
-For what kind of roles?
-For what kind of tasks within those roles?
-By how much? Does any loss of productivity get made up for saving office costs, commute costs for employees, lower cost of living? If your productivity goes down but it's by less than costs... well maybe that's ok actually!
-Have you quantified other benefits like retention? Even if a remote employee is now less productive (not proven tbh) they are still more productive than the new hire who isn't up to speed on your tech yet, not to mention certainly more productive than the person who no longer works for you and the people who have to interview their replacement.
It's bizarre that people say, well there are costs and benefits to remote, without actually even attempting to quantify them.
That's one of the key factors for remote work success. Tribal knowledge stops working when team goes remote. Especially onboarding sucks because there's nobody who could just drop by and help you with first steps. It's harder to do when remoting. Last two places I've worked had nothing written down and it was colossal waste of time trying to get started because knowledge was scattered among people, some of whom had already left the company. I mean, you know that you're hiring for a particular position, then ensure that everything needed is either taken care of or written down and accessible. But no, I needed to waste first weeks just piecing needed information together. 1/10, would not do again.
- https://www.yammer.com/ (is this still a thing? used it like 10 years ago)
- etc...
We also used slack (or equivalent... also used hipchat, and even jabber before that) for ephemeral, one off, non important stuff. And then a lot happens also in READMEs, Merge/Pull Requests, Gitlab issues, helpdesk tickets, etc. Not much use of emails other than for notifications.
At the end of the day everything has a link and things can reference each other.
I think what most companies are missing is a way for employees to "post" and "subscribe" to updates that are interesting for them.
Ah yes, the magical world where office politics and power dynamics does not exist.
Back in the real world at a certain corp I am closely familiar with there are 3 redundant projects that do the exact same thing and it takes 2 months for a new joiner to be issued with their work computer, and two more to get an admin account so they can start development.
For a basic non-engineering example, think about B2B sales. How much of a typical B2B sales cycle involves phone calls and emails and video meetings versus how much involves in-person meetings? Hasn't the first part of that more or less been "remote" since well before the virus?
To an extent, I think a large part of this view, as other comments have noted, might involve things like expensive office leases, etc., and to a certain mindset - realizing that a company doesn't necessarily need much of a physical presence highlights many varieties of poor longterm decision-making.
The nature of the work actually highly lends itself to being in person. Even remote workers will be on some physical location the majority of the time.
COVID changed this, and not for the better. It is much harder to do remote.
All the places where we had B2B sales, we've had a travel budget. Ironically the sales "offices" were usually one person in a territory. But they were very much out wining and dining big customers.
We also had a telesales team, who were centrally based, and they totally could be remote workers.
That sounds odd. Maybe the company was so big you weren't aware of these things or the company wasn't mature and only had low value contracts. But eventually all b2b software goes to enterprise and that means face to face time with clients, expense accounts for thousand dollar dinners & travel budgets large enough to get global services status.
Yet, VC investments and returns soared in the last two years they were all working remote.
> Engineering is one segment where this penalty seems to be lower. However, engineers seem to be unable to understand that every other function functions better in person.
Sales, Marketing and Customer Support departments in typical tech companies have had a sizeable fraction of their employees located outside the office for some time now, long before Engineering.
Office work aids productivity of some functions. There is no good reason, IMO, to make sweeping universal statement about productivity.
Hell, even product managers I know like coming in to an office to collaborate on the big whiteboard wall they can’t fit inside their home.
I've actually considered taking a pay cut just so I can go back to slinging code and not worrying about much else.
BUT... there's also less responsibility for maintenance - offices often will have cleaning/maintenance, decent hvac, etc. They can provide a standardized work environment that helps legitimately separate 'work' from 'home', which many people need help in doing (even pre covid).
Yes, you get the big whiteboards and maybe other equipment that just doesn't make sense for a home (big copiers from decades ago, etc) as well.
That's an interesting opinion, and very different to my experience, because investors were the first group of people I encountered who really embraced remote work. Two decades ago I worked for a company that had remote meetings with investors, remote board meetings, and that did work remotely. We had full time remote staff hundreds of miles away. The company paid for video conferencing hardware and ISDN lines for some of the staff. Most investors I've met since, including ones who invested in things I did, had no issue with remote work and understood the economics of it very well. I definitely don't think any of them believed fully remote companies were less effective, and I'm pretty sure they were happy money wasn't being spent on fancy offices (although I never grew a business enough to really get to that point to be fair).
I'd be very surprised to hear that the idea of remote work being less effective was coming from serious investors.
You can still have those when you work remotely. There just needs to be a mechanism set up to actively share things - where I work at the moment we have a weekly "web engineers" huddle to share ideas, tools, and articles we've found. We have Slack and stuff as well obviously, and we talk to each other, but there needs to be something slightly more formal when you're remote.
FWIW I've also worked in companies that had no "water-cooler chat" despite being physically present. You have to consciously want to talk to people, and some companies are full of people who just don't.
i'm not saying that just because one is physically present that this would occur - i'm saying that for this to occur, physical proximity is a necessary (but insufficient) condition.
Making this process of osmosis more formal just defeats the purpose - after all, these huddles and idea meetings and "demo days" already happen in a remote setting (at least, if your company's management decides its worth the time to replicate it remotely).
No, the trade-off is being able to hire the best people possible instead of the best people who will work in the office. Honestly, the office has been dying since 4G and high speed internet got everywhere. Offices should be optional - there if you need it, there for meetings, team work sessions and presentations. We don't have to work like it's 1998 anymore.
I can't get any of my normal day-to-day work done in the office because of the crappy internet. I don't have 4 monitors there either unlike at home.
If a business takes a performance hit, perhaps their talent acquisition, organisation, process flows and leadership are sub par?
Don't believe me? Wait till you lose your best performers because you want them in an office. There's a bigger performance hit you'll take there, along with staff who are demoralised and stressed out with one eye open on the job's market, trying to drop kids off or whatever else they need the flexibility for.
Remember my post as a warning the next time you espouse this view, because it's inaccurate and it isn't valid in every single case.
The only reason I would consider working in an office full time (and I already live within commuting distance of a major tech-hiring metro) would be for $450K total comp or higher. Plenty of big companies can offer that these days, but startups are still going to mostly pay $200k as an upper limit (since they have no RSUs to throw on the pile).
There are plenty of companies that offer remote and total comp in that former range, there is absolutely no way you're going to hire any talent as startup now without remote as an option, even if remote were sub-optimal for your long term development.
Yes, client services can be done remotely. Yes I like not having to commute every day. Yes, I can see the number of tickets we close and remote is just more unproductive.
I used to work in that area. We had someone on the team that would go through open calls that were waiting for a response, phone the user at 3AM, not get a response, and close it with "assume this is fixed, please reopen if not".
He was far more productive than the suckers who spent 6 hours fixing a single fault.
This seems like something that can be pretty easily solved with a process change, no?
Beyond that, our clients are seeing increased success on their major initiatives — communications are much easier when handled digitally as it forces some amount of PMO hygiene if you want to get anything done.
I actually am noticing a bifurcation of companies: the ones who pivoted to full remote indefinitely are able to pay more and are winning the war for talent, particularly in engineering roles. On top of that, it turns out out in-person isn’t so great or efficient when over half your meeting participants are virtual: everyone in the meeting room needs their laptop open anyway for the camera and hot mic issues abound.
Personally, I’m not going back. If they try to push us back, I’m getting another job. This is why employers pulled back on trying to bring everyone back — one of my clients who announced in October they were requiring everyone in-office in January saw 30% of their engineering staff walk out the door over the course of 6 weeks. That’s apocalyptic, it will take them a year plus to recover as most of their teams are now in the “on-call death spiral”. They are now permanently hybrid for all roles, not just engineering.
Source: I know many agency owners, also am one. Also, most marketers I've been trying to recruit have said their agency's are remote indefinitely now.
2) As an agency, everyone being remote means we are more embedded with clients than before. All on the same Slack etc instead of in a separate office.
3) People use better collaboration tools
4) More things are written down
Companies have been paying for open plan offices for years. When I first started my career I found it bizarre that open plan offices were in any way considered suitable for programming problems.
However it's evident that many companies haven't got an issue with handicapping their staff in this way.
I would rather point out the dishonest personnel, paid to reduce costs by x, who won't hesitate to sell some brillant ideas that will ultimately cost the company 2x to 10x. Elsewhere. Making sure it isn't clearly noticeable in the short term.
I think we just have to face the fact that many people and companies spend a lot of money on suboptimal things.
Every other "function" is a person who hasn't bothered to learn to use a damn computer.....
There's still a market for in-person jobs/workers, and people are willing to relocate as they did pre-pandemic. It might be significantly smaller, but if it matters enough on both sides to be in-person, I think it's a factor to consider when growing a team/picking a job.
While I don't have hard numbers, I know a few founders who are seed-stage and need to hire only 2-3 people; they want to be in an office (safely) in their early days. (Who knows what will happen as they grow.) Likewise, many job seekers I talk to want to be in-person and working alongside colleagues (safely) because they miss in-person interactions.
To your last point, I don't know if any angel investors in YC startups take into consideration a startups' willingness/unwillingness to be remote as a signal for whether they should invest. My guess is that there are better signals (technical founder, past experience, progress already made) that are more important deciding factors.
Once you start to grow significantly, though (series A or later) it's just become much to prohibitively difficult to hire significant numbers of great people if we limit ourselves to the teeny area around our office. This is especially true for some hires where we need specialized expertise.
Companies love to crow about diversity, and one of the primary reasons they give is that diversity is a natural consequence of searching high and low for all the best people. Imagine if you limited your hiring to only brunettes with green eyes. Limiting your company to a teeny geographic monoculture is no less absurd. This is why I think VCs should take a long hard critical look at any growing company that is not willing to expand their geographic diversity.
Just see the reality, accept remote is going to be permanent and invest in making that better for everyone.
I work at a company that’s been fully remote for 2 years but they keep trying to target a Return to Office date that keeps getting pushed back.
Move houses or companies?
Maturity is correlated with age, but age isn’t as strongly correlated with talent. Just because a team is just as capable working remotely doesn’t mean they’re as generally capable as a different team that’s more effective in person.
How do you reach the same level of effectiveness teaching or debugging math problems on a whiteboard without investing a lot of time asynchronously?
If I may be so bold, we've taken a stab at this: https://sharetheboard.com
Our focus was originally on shared whiteboarding (PdMs + devs) but in 2020, for obvious reasons, schools started contacting us and using the tech for remote/hybrid teaching.
But it's true: the real-time part of teaching/writing/debugging is critical in the learning process. For this same reason, many of the teachers we work with use our app to share a piece of paper in real time. Similar result and you don't have to own a whiteboard.
(if you get a chance to kick the tires on it, I'd love some candid feedback)
This seemed very odd - why would I need to schlep my laptop to come into the office to do the same job I do at home? I mean the occasional on-site is fine, but twice a week?
My conclusion was either that they wanted to have two day-long onsite meetings a week and damn the productivity hit and travel costs (Red Flag #1) or their management was deeply insecure and had to somehow justify their existence (or a property rent payment) by dragging their dev team into the office (Red Flag #2).
I mean either commit to remote or stick to on-prem, but this made their management look like idiots.
In the long term, i only see this divide growing, cultures forming around each of the approaches based on what works for different types of individuals. Who knows what that will look like in a few years.
- PayPal wants their people in Austin.
- Amazon wants their people at one of the hubs.
- What other large firms are telling applicants they have to reside in a particular city or close to a hub?
We are just in the opening phases of that change. A big %# isn't the only indicator of change, it's the amount relative to pre-pandemic.
Some people will take their big city salaries and move to rural areas. More power to them. After the pandemic, I figure we can all get together once a quarter or whatever and socialize. Otherwise, we can focus on getting work done.
It could be a great business. On one hand, many great talents (including me) around the world are blocked from these opportunities (like those from India, Russia, China, etc). On the other hand, many companies would like to have great talents with lower cost, but most of them don't want to deal with the hassle.
There should be quite some companies are willing to pay for this kind of service, because remote working is booming, and the compensation varies a lot in different parts of the world.
One of the problems seems to be ( and I'm sure some start up will try to solve this) is employing people worldwide has a lot of legal issues with regards to local employment laws and payment issues.
I’ve worked with people doing this in the past and they almost certainly are contractors in name only. That is they are essentially full time employees operating as contractors to skirt legal issues.
A remote worker can be an independent contractor and easily not run afoul of employee/contractor distinctions, especially because a lot of those distinctions have to do with being at a certain place at a certain time, and being locked to one client.
Here’s one of the tests. Notice vacation is explicitly called out.
> Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation). Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?
Your employer is clearly treating you like an employee while paying you like a contractor. This kind of thing is common. But the more US jobs get outsourced like this, the more likely it is that people will notice and demand enforcement actions.
For an example see the response by the OP below.
The remote worker is treated like an employee except for how they are paid.
Few of the distinctions have to do with being in a certain place at a certain time. It’s more about controlling how they work. And in most the examples I’ve seen, remote workers are expected to be available during a certain set of hours, they must do the work in very specific way, they are forbidden from subcontracting, they are provided tools, the work is expected to continue long term, and the level of control generally prohibits them from working for multiple clients at a time.
It’s common for businesses to ignore these guidelines, but the more common it gets for companies to outsource work this way, the more news stories you’ll see and the more likely enforcement will happen.
The employment regulation burden is also massive for going truly global-remote.
Australia and NZ for example have strong employment laws AND do not overlap time zone-wise with most of the rest of the world. We have some great talent here but it's often too hard to make it work.
Disclaimer: I made https://rafo.com.au to collate remote jobs that work for Aussies & Kiwis.
There are certainly companies looking for talent that is only time-zone friendly. Having run an engineering team co-located in SF & Beijing, I know how hard it is myself to be working odd hours for standups, product syncs, etc.
That said, there are other companies that are hiring truly global. I know OneSignal is one such YC startup, having hired somebody during the pandemic in the Netherlands.
Last year alone, YC startups hired across over 40 countries. I can dig into more data re: how many were US-based companies hiring abroad -- that's a good distinction.
As someone who prepandemic was contracting back to nz whilst living in south america and now is starting to hire contractors, NZ and OZ don't represent good value spend in comparison to many other countries that have great people also but are getting paid 5 instead.
I have friends back home I would love to bring on to my team but the thought of paying them gives me shivvers.
letsdeel.com and remote.com are two such companies that provide this kind of service.
* well I should actually call it global HR, not employment.
I've been working for US companies while living in Mexico for years. 100% legally hired in my country, with all the benefits and even equity from the USA startups
If that's true, over time we can expect company cultures to start becoming more homogenous (and therefore more strident) in either their pro- or anti-remote work stance. It will be interesting to see what % of companies will fall into each camp.
There is no enough money in this world to make me go back to 2~3 hours a day commute in a crowded bus.
In my experience, either the entire team is in a single place or all of them are remote. Now having teams some teams in the office and some others 100% remote, that could work, but I'm skeptical too.
I agree that there is a network effect that is lost for the remote workers but it also depends on your ambitions, I would argue (and maybe I am projecting my preferences) that most of the people with remote preferences are IC's who love the technical work and have no interest in leadership roles (for which the network aspect would more vital).
Even though we are all WFH, I am more out of the loop now. Things that happen that I surely would have known about if I was in the office,I don't find out until much later now. Everyone remote doesn't mean everyone is looped in.
As others have said, ideal for me would be, it's up to my discretion. I go in when it makes sense, I WFH when it makes sense.
I would definitely sign up and pay my fair share to the correct jurisdiction.
If I join a UK startup, best case scenario is paying 10% tax on the upside of any exit windfalls. If I join any company outside the UK, that immediately jumps to ~55%.
I mean a lot of countries have visa programmes now if you're trying to build a startup so why not for digital nomads?
2. It's insane for individuals to give up equity just to avoid 55% taxes. They are doing themselves out of 45% rather than winning 90%.
Seems like a problem that will eventually self correct as more jobs go remote and countries realize they have to compete with each other for residents so they can profit off of these worker's productivity.
Not really; the selection of countries is very small and the visas very restrictive/bureaucratic. It's essentially a non-option for most people. Regular work visas are still the way to go unfortunately.
"Nomad visas" are essentially a rainbow-and-unicorn thing; we (developers) really want it to exist but it doesn't (at least in the way we'd like).
[1] Full list here: https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/whm-program/speci...
Let's see how this looks 2 years after the pandemic is over.
Salaries might at some point stabilize I suppose, as people will prefer to relocate to cheap places and overall there will be more offer of developers charging less money.
Overall I think this is a win-win for everyone (except middle managers that like micromanagement, those are the ones worried right now).
How would you feel if the office was just cheap fluorescent lighting lit cubicles in some shitty part of town? Maybe a cat poster for some motivation.
Other people just like the structure of it or they have a good desk setup at work and not as good a place to work from at home.
Before COVID, offering remote was a big differentiator for startups and definitely considered a perk.
Now, it's becoming so common that I guess they should offer something new to attract talent, and I'm wondering if it could be a 4-day week? I'd be very interested by that in any case.
Now start offering more part time roles.
An article from 2019: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/720122267
> GARCIA: The occupation with the single biggest part-time penalty is web developer. Wages for part-time web developers are 49.5% less than wages for full-time web developers. And that is our PLANET MONEY indicator - part-time web developers make only about half as much per hour as full-time web developers.
So if a FTE is making $100/h and working 40h/w, a part time developer is making $50/h and working 20h/w... though those are just numbers that I made up. They will vary.
The issue for the organization is that as a developer, part time makes a complete hash of the maker schedule when combined with actually having meetings.
I've been able to get my managers to try to schedule meetings clustered together so that I have chunks of time where I can work each day. But if I was part time - either fewer days per week or fewer hours per day, that would in turn translate to smaller maker time blocks or maker time blocks that were separated from each other by more than a day.
I see this with part time interns - where the ones work work each day are much more efficient at what they're doing than the ones that come in twice a week and have to get back into the grove of what they were working on and that takes a significant part of the time of when they get back in for that day.
The big leap is you have to give up the perceived stability of your monthly paycheck. You are unemployed and unpaid by default. The easiest way to deal with this is to keep 6-12 months’ worth of living expenses in cash. You can tune your risk this way; less cash, more risk.
- Set your own hours.
- Four day work weeks.
- Part time roles.
- Work for both FANGMA and a startup [1]
- Sabbaticals.
[1] (Startup could be flexible so there's no overlap in meetings/oncall. Also makes it super easy to switch jobs while still getting paid from one of the two roles.)
Absolutely incredible.
Apparently other people complain that he doesn't really do anything the vast majority of the time, and doesn't do anything coworkers ask them to do that's part of the job description for other salespeople, and the execs won't do anything about it (and apparently are very scared of him leaving since they think he'll take all those clients with him).
...which I agree with the execs not doing anything, by the way. That revenue is way more important than making sure that employee is "putting in a solid 8 hour work day" or "being a team player".
Software engineers get some slack from the business but not that much slack. If I could have a few short conversations a year with the computer and it spat out software that generated millions in revenue I absolutely would, but no, I have to do the research and design and development to make sure the software does what it needs to do. And then it helps generate millions of dollars, of which I get a comparatively tiny fraction compared to what I bet that salesperson gets.
Most of us are still getting a raw deal compared to salespeople (well, effective salespeople, at least).
Supply and demand is the only force here, software engineers aren’t special.
I've mentioned part time roles in another comment and really don't see that being feasible.
Working for two companies simultaneously gets into some tricky IP and non-compete situations (that are even enforceable in California - see Techno Lite, Inc. v. Emcod, LLC).
I’m currently in a weird position. My job pays for a full time salary but with less than part time work.
I’m not sure if I should pick up another full time job with full time work or a part time job with part time work.
I can easily envision myself working part time on a react application or creating a spring app. Not exactly ground breaking stuff here.
Working remote , never being late to a meeting , never having to commute, vastly outweighs all that.
I have an odd feeling many people like in person work so they can socialize. We have bars and concerts for that.
We somehow went from COVID will kill us all if we dare step into an office to shut up and get back to work.
Stop wasting money on office space. Let people live wherever ( assuming your in the same country for tax reasons). I love the sheer level of freedom I have.
If I get sick of the city, I can work from a small town in Alaska, Alabama, etc.
Vs being told to commute for 3 hours a day
The splitting of society like this is awful for humans, we really aren't built for it. There are ways of addressing this and still keeping remote work, but removing socialisation for 8 hours a day is not it.
I personally don't need to be around people all day.
Your not entirely wrong, Tribe is a good book that addresses modern social isolation.
I've already done this.
Mentorship, communications, even just basic professional behaviour.
All of this is learned, and you're learning all the time.
But ideas even, discussions, blackboards ... they don't happen over Zoom, especially without an appointment.
We don't get enough 'alone time' at the office, but 'group time' is incredibly important for all aspects of our work.
For some kinds of things, like 'going deep' for a few days, being alone is a godsend but it comes with a heavy price.
Also - just being around other professionals, putting on a pair of clothes designed for professional appearance, thinking about what you are going to say, i.e. 'being a professional' makes us almost all better people. It has it's drawbacks, but mostly it's good.
I think we're going to have to find the right, blended approach.
That said, what remote work does do is enable a kind of role-fitting that was never possible before. We have yet to contemplate the economic advantage of that - but that one comes along with a massive White Elephant: that everyone reading this will be displaced by someone working in a 'poor country' who is super sharp and who will work for 1/2 the salary.
Soft. Devs. think they are important until management can hire fully offshore for 1/3 the cost.
The arguments that a lot of people make against offshore apply almost as much to remote.
The most productive person I've ever worked with, who was responsible for the biggest initiatives at a previous company worked solo in Hong Kong while the rest of the team was in North America. Never presented an issue. He came up with many innovative ideas in NLP and other ML techniques (not my area). All of his collaboration was over video calls, was never an issue.
Perhaps you are not being inclusive of your remote workers in your brainstorming sessions?
Doesn't need to be done every day or even every week.
I mean, I get why in-office work is unpopular, but for some tasks/jobs I think it can work well. So far, if you need to set up furniture or infect with other humans with your viruses and assorted bacteria and sometimes exchanging feces on our hands because we don’t wash them properly, nothing replaces being in the same room.
I was someone who took the opportunity to relocate back to my home country when Covid struck, but had to take a near 50% pay cut to do so, despite doing the same work. I'm surprised this hasn't become more of a hot button issue within the community.
Especially for startups, managing payroll in another country could be challenging. Also the latency on communications for daylight working hours could be bad - back and forth discussions leading to swift actions are hamper by a 9+hr timezone difference.
And I'm between 50% and 70% cheaper than hiring someone in the US at the same level (PhD, 10+ years of industry experience, Executive level experience, startup experience, highly technical , etc etc).
And I know several people with a profile similar to mine.
Companies that discover this are getting an "unfair advantage "
At this point though the ship has sailed for the work debate. Going into the office to do zoom calls with people at home means the pros of office are mostly removed, while the cons remain.
It would be as if companies worked remotely by putting everyone on Zoom calls all day. Education in general refuses to move beyond the damn lecture.
The thing is, it's an enormous amount of work to do well, so no university can just switch everything instantly.
School is nothing more than a government paid daycare for a significant portion of the people and it’s why there was such anger over school closures.
As a result, while I commend the overall increase in remote work, such roles should be thought out carefully as opposed to "let's offer remote work options just because everybody else is".
I love the climate myself. But on this very forum every other day people from CA discuss things which don't exactly justify 10% of income lost. In addition to the usual RE prices, AP classes, and surge in crime anecdata I see curious facts such as these:
* https://www.meritechcapital.com/blog/2021-review-select-saas... ("Company Headquarters" in particular)
* https://www.saastr.com/the-third-wave-of-migration-from-the-...
Remote work would make CA residents not competitive with people from saner states on CoL alone. I believe most big companies are still planning on something like 3 days onsite later this year. But historically startups have employed a lot of us too. Could the job market diverge into startups in Austin and BigCo in the SFBA?
What hoops are these? Tax related or something else?
Not that desirable. The South Bay was just a place to grow fruit before Silicon Valley.
I agree that cities have a higher cost of living, but the people trying to pull me away from my current employer into new remote work don't seem to need to make that distinction!
You should move to these other employers, as this is the only way your current stingy employer will learn.
At workatastartup.com, you can filter by "Not remote" jobs, but it's probably not as intuitive as it could be. We need to revamp some of our search filters accordingly. But until we have it, feel free to email me (ryan AT ycombinator DOT com) and I'll do what I can to help you find ones that might be a good fit.
As for the positions; I'm being offered 40-60% of my current salary, and they're in the same range below someone with the same amount experience in the industry niche I inhabit. (That's a pretty good indicator of desperation and keyword-carpet-bombing) All of them that I've opened have been remote, which is notable.
Much like the mortgage industry before 2008, recruiting is a numbers game right now and appears to be staffed by a lot of folks who have no idea what they're doing or what they're offering.
I felt overwhelmed processing with my 5 a day, haha.
I'd just had the pleasure to work at a unicorn which started during the pandemic, but for whatever reason wanted to open actual offices mid-term. The result being that some teams were working more async-y than others.
And I immediatly felt, there's a need to explore how to sync teams in an async way, including many yet-to-exist tech-solutions.
So please, elaborate!
Strong written communication is a given, but they have some good advice here: https://about.gitlab.com/company/culture/all-remote/effectiv...
If you aren't familiar, Loom (https://www.loom.com/) is a great tool for screen recordings and narrations to explain things asynchronously without having to book time with someone else. Particularly useful if you have a distributed team across the world. And also neat that it can be indexed like a document if someone has a similar query in the future, they can find this video instead of having to message you.
People with relatively little experience are some of the worst candidates for remote positions. Not saying anything about you in particular, but they tend to need more guidance and get stuck more easily. Not only that, there's a lot of learning though osmosis that won't happen when they're not near other people.
Besides that, though, things are not binary. We're never going to go to a world where 100% of all people/all-roles that could be done remotely will ONLY be done remotely. There will always be a mixture, however small perhaps, of people that will do in-person companies and/or in-person jobs even if they don't need to.
One thing is clear though... remote is and has been a trend for quite some time. COVID merely thru jet fuel on that existing trend and sped it up probably by 15 years. And I would say that's a good thing.
Even in platforms that have the additional tag of 'hybrid' instead of remote (e.g. Linkedin).
Very frustrating lack of transparency if you ask me.
The market is really busy right now.
Management just thinks it's icky.
Great for companies. Great for non-Americans. Not so great for Americans earning high wages.
This is what happened to our manufacturing sector, and it's absolutely gunning for our knowledge work. It's inevitable.
For those reasons, I wasn't able to make new friends outside of work, couldn't see my friends on weekdays, and generally felt lonely all the time.
If you don't like your social life or how people interact with you it's always easy just to blame where you live.
Imagine a three day work week. Or part time work, letting you also maintain your FANGA job.
i.e. those in leanFIRE, baristaFIRE, or coastFIRE positions.
I see charities scrimping and saving to pay for highly skilled people that they really do not need on a full time basis and must scratch my head and wonder why.
You could pay 60,000 for a not great dev. Or you could pay 30,000 for a part time dev and could easily land someone who regularly earns 150K.