Snap is ordering employees back to the office 4 days a week
fortune.com
fortune.com
Is "He" Sam Altman, or is "he" ReflectedImage"?
Startup A, paying for an office lease, recruiting talent willing to live near the office.
Startup B, saving thousands of dollars not having to pay an office lease, is able to recruit talent from around the world and with the overhead savings can pay for better talent and/or a larger labor pool.
It's pretty obvious here that startup B is set up a lot better for success and has a head and shoulders advantage over startup A. This is not even considering the massive environmental costs from commuting and building an office building. The only reason to go for a model like startup A is if you 1, don't care about the environmental costs, and 2, believe in the hooey about "in person synergy" and value that more than just paying for more experience or more people.
I do think that “remote work” is the new “satellite office”. If you’re a walk street bank, why open a NJ office for low-importance work when you could just hire remotely.
But I’m not convinced there is a willingness to return to office. Snap, the company in question, isn’t in good shape. Can they attract enough talent willing to be in office?
I vaguely agree that “for smaller companies, I think in person has a lot of value to move fast and build a deeply connected culture”. But the issue seems to be with getting any big corp back.
If you pay enough, people will move to you. We’ve seen that across all of human history. But can you pay more than remote companies? Do you gain enough productivity to offset the cost (either salary or missed talent)? If you hire a mixed team, you hired a remote team.
US unemployment is at historical lows, some people really lose sight of the bigger picture and get caught up in news headlines.
In my country everywhere is clamouring for workers.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
Over time the companies that force in-person work will find it much more difficult to hire and retain talent vs those that optimize for a remote first workforce.
I mean the efficiency gain in broadening hiring pool, not having to do relo packages, smaller office footprint, cost of commuting, lower comp/higher QoL are just far too great.
Nobody wants to be trapped in the bay area and forced to pay $2m for a house an hour away from their office. They largely did it begrudgingly (myself included)
If remote is efficient, they'll outsource the position to a low-income country.
If remote is not efficient, they'll urge people to go back to office and whoever fails to comply will be let go.
What’s with the idea though that 300 million people can just be ignored? Me thinks you’ve let yourself get lost in the economic philosophy and detached from reality.
There is no just shutting down the US economy because economists can’t make fiat currency math work. Such ideas are ludicrous.
It takes some effort to understand another culture, and I think it's definitely easier in the US since they have so many people coming in there from so many parts of the world; and also because cultural differences can be overcome, and it's profitable over the long-term, given the wage gap lasts long enough. Language barriers doesn't matter if the whole team speaks the same language and the manager is bilingual.
If that was not the case, why would big tech companies have engineering teams in Europe and all over the world?
Twice as many guns as people over here. The public will make a new economy without them. Real people don’t just vanish because aristocrats find their demands inconvenient.
Let them eat lead will quickly follow any contemporary version of “let them eat cake.”
Physical reality does not bend to our philosophy. Philosophy always bends to reality.
I know people prefer to forget reality because ew it’s dirty, but reality doesn’t bend to ape hallucinations.
This has nothing to do with WFH. Just a sorry attempt at trying to piggyback on Musk's just as desperate attempt to get attention with his 996 proclamation.