I definitely understand it as a supply and demand thing. If supply for labor is high and demand for candidates is low, then obviously employers don’t have to be quite as enticing to candidates. The most attractive jobs are remote jobs so they’re the first to be filled.
What I don’t understand is why companies don’t seem to accept the obvious cost savings involved with remote work. I just can’t imagine that even hypothetically losing 10-20% productivity is worth paying office rent for. I thought the work from home studies were pretty conclusive that productivity wasn’t lost at all!
About a month back a manager on my team was hiring for a senior dev role - she was talking to HR about the job spec, and HR recommended only advertizing the role as a junior dev "since senior/principal devs will invariably apply". Bleak is the word!
huh? what would be the benefit of that strategy? being able to low ball the offers because a senior dev applying for a junior position must be desperate?
dangus|1 year ago
What I don’t understand is why companies don’t seem to accept the obvious cost savings involved with remote work. I just can’t imagine that even hypothetically losing 10-20% productivity is worth paying office rent for. I thought the work from home studies were pretty conclusive that productivity wasn’t lost at all!
lWaterboardCats|1 year ago
The weird thing is, I’m sure many people here would likely take a pay cut over RTO.
If only we used this monumental opportunity to rethink how we need to collaborate and design cities to support or even embrace remote work models.
Instead, back to concrete jungles and mind numbingly sitting in traffic or being herded from one stop to the next.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
Simon_ORourke|1 year ago
em-bee|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]