Is there anything they can’t ruin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My cousin she lives in NY and works in DC. Hired fully remote in Covid in 2020. She went back four days a week in person and is in heaven.

Got a little pied a tier in DC. Her husband deals with kids during week as he is WFH. She meets girlfriends dinner, goes to shows. Her place is walking distance office. She is married 20 years so this is heaven for her.

She is always posting on Facebook big photos of her new DC lifestyle.

And she rarely sees her kids or DH. Sounds divine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why people used to live close in. Now they want to live way outside the beltway and also keep a downtown job. It’s a choice.

I live close in. My assigned office for the fully remote job I was hired into is way out. But please, keep talking.

NP. It was not realistic think a fully remote job was a forever thing. Sorry, it stinks having the change up.
What did we do before?? I paid for before care, after care, an after school nanny once kid aged out of regular aftercare. Brought my kid to the office on snow days where school was closed and work was not (or took an annual leave day those times, saved leave just for those occasions).

For real, why was this not realistic? I am not a Fed and work from where and when I want (though travel a ton). But I don't understand why in the age of distributed teams, videoconferencing, and relatively cost-effective travel it's unrealistic to think jobs could be fully remote.

Plenty of jobs are remote, It is just not realistic to expect any single job to be permanently remote. I’ve been remote most of the last 15 years, but every employer I’ve had has made it clear they can change that at any time.

If the only thing you like about your job is that it is/was remote, I think you should find something you like more!

Your argument is akin to it’s not realistic to expect any job to permanently exist. No shit. Explain why it makes sense to arbitrarily decide that a job that has been done well remotely should suddenly no longer be remote.

Priorities change. I mean, people also get laid off who were doing fine, solely because their role is no longer needed. Arbitrary things happen. On an individual level it does not work to ask it to “make sense” because it just is what it is.

This is not just one company and a limited set of roles. It's the entire federal government, and there's no sense to it at all.

I'm not a Fed. But I am an American taxpayer. This is insanity and has nothing to do with government efficiency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why people used to live close in. Now they want to live way outside the beltway and also keep a downtown job. It’s a choice.

I live close in. My assigned office for the fully remote job I was hired into is way out. But please, keep talking.

NP. [b] It was not realistic think a fully remote job was a forever thing. [/]Sorry, it stinks having the change up.
What did we do before?? I paid for before care, after care, an after school nanny once kid aged out of regular aftercare. Brought my kid to the office on snow days where school was closed and work was not (or took an annual leave day those times, saved leave just for those occasions).

Why? I have had a fully remote job for 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why people used to live close in. Now they want to live way outside the beltway and also keep a downtown job. It’s a choice.

I live close in. My assigned office for the fully remote job I was hired into is way out. But please, keep talking.

NP. It was not realistic think a fully remote job was a forever thing. Sorry, it stinks having the change up.
What did we do before?? I paid for before care, after care, an after school nanny once kid aged out of regular aftercare. Brought my kid to the office on snow days where school was closed and work was not (or took an annual leave day those times, saved leave just for those occasions).

For real, why was this not realistic? I am not a Fed and work from where and when I want (though travel a ton). But I don't understand why in the age of distributed teams, videoconferencing, and relatively cost-effective travel it's unrealistic to think jobs could be fully remote.

Plenty of jobs are remote, It is just not realistic to expect any single job to be permanently remote. I’ve been remote most of the last 15 years, but every employer I’ve had has made it clear they can change that at any time.

If the only thing you like about your job is that it is/was remote, I think you should find something you like more!

Your argument is akin to it’s not realistic to expect any job to permanently exist. No shit. Explain why it makes sense to arbitrarily decide that a job that has been done well remotely should suddenly no longer be remote.

Priorities change. I mean, people also get laid off who were doing fine, solely because their role is no longer needed. Arbitrary things happen. On an individual level it does not work to ask it to “make sense” because it just is what it is.

This is not just one company and a limited set of roles. It's the entire federal government, and there's no sense to it at all.

I'm not a Fed. But I am an American taxpayer. This is insanity and has nothing to do with government efficiency.

Thank you! One of my parents is a retired contractor and said "I understand, it was always tough when a contract ended." OK, but what if your contract ended and there were NO MORE CONTRACTS? This isn't an "it's normal in the private sector" situation. There are comparisons but can we please not pretend this is normal? It's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why people used to live close in. Now they want to live way outside the beltway and also keep a downtown job. It’s a choice.

I live close in. My assigned office for the fully remote job I was hired into is way out. But please, keep talking.

NP. It was not realistic think a fully remote job was a forever thing. Sorry, it stinks having the change up.
What did we do before?? I paid for before care, after care, an after school nanny once kid aged out of regular aftercare. Brought my kid to the office on snow days where school was closed and work was not (or took an annual leave day those times, saved leave just for those occasions).

For real, why was this not realistic? I am not a Fed and work from where and when I want (though travel a ton). But I don't understand why in the age of distributed teams, videoconferencing, and relatively cost-effective travel it's unrealistic to think jobs could be fully remote.

Plenty of jobs are remote, It is just not realistic to expect any single job to be permanently remote. I’ve been remote most of the last 15 years, but every employer I’ve had has made it clear they can change that at any time.

If the only thing you like about your job is that it is/was remote, I think you should find something you like more!

Your argument is akin to it’s not realistic to expect any job to permanently exist. No shit. Explain why it makes sense to arbitrarily decide that a job that has been done well remotely should suddenly no longer be remote.

Priorities change. I mean, people also get laid off who were doing fine, solely because their role is no longer needed. Arbitrary things happen. On an individual level it does not work to ask it to “make sense” because it just is what it is.

You’re not good at this. Your deflections are obvious. The fact that you literally CANNOT explain the assertion you made upthread is also obvious. (You also don’t understand what “arbitrary” means.)

And no, this is not simply a matter of “it is what it is.” Decisions, arbitrary or otherwise, are being *actively made* to do these things. Mandatory RTO and rigid work schedules are not just some naturally occurring phenomena. “It is what it is” is meant for situations such as a volcano eruption in Iceland causing planes to be grounded causing you to miss your big meeting in Europe.

I am getting so irritated with the absolutely CONFIDENT stupidity of people like you. Your understanding of our society and our government wouldn’t enable you to pass a middle school level civics test. I’m embarrassed for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hell bent on ruining everything for everyone. Can’t wait until it’s over.

Well, if everyone just waits…. It is unlikely to end.

You must take action (call members of Congress, protest, vote).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. This was what it was like when I had my kids in the late 2000s.

Not for me.

My parents were both feds during my childhood in the late 80s and 90s and even back then they could stagger their work times so that my dad was around in the morning to get us off to school and my mom was home in the late afternoon. Her carpool left every day at 6:15 am for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am so tired of the people talking about what it was like in the late 90s/early 2000s. You could live on one income, you could buy a house inside the beltway for 25% of what it costs now, the list goes on. It's not the same. People had AWS and were teleworking some 20 years ago. It's not the same and stop saying it was.

In the late 90s, a tiny unrenovated 1960s townhouse outside the beltway was $400,000 with a bidding war. We lost several.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why people used to live close in. Now they want to live way outside the beltway and also keep a downtown job. It’s a choice.

I live close in. My assigned office for the fully remote job I was hired into is way out. But please, keep talking.

People used to live close in when a house in Vienna VA was 200 k and people earned 70k. Now people still earn 70k and that house is a million dollars,

Houses in Vienna haven't been $200,000 in decades.

Heck, houses in Lorton haven't been $200,000 in decades, not even townhouses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why people used to live close in. Now they want to live way outside the beltway and also keep a downtown job. It’s a choice.

Another poster who did live within 35 mins of my office. The office moved, it’s now 90 mins for me each way, but I’m not uprooting kids when the office could lose its lease, jobs could be cut etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so tired of the people talking about what it was like in the late 90s/early 2000s. You could live on one income, you could buy a house inside the beltway for 25% of what it costs now, the list goes on. It's not the same. People had AWS and were teleworking some 20 years ago. It's not the same and stop saying it was.

In the late 90s, a tiny unrenovated 1960s townhouse outside the beltway was $400,000 with a bidding war. We lost several.

In 2004 we paid under 400k for a SFH in Springfield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why people used to live close in. Now they want to live way outside the beltway and also keep a downtown job. It’s a choice.

Another poster who did live within 35 mins of my office. The office moved, it’s now 90 mins for me each way, but I’m not uprooting kids when the office could lose its lease, jobs could be cut etc.

Another person who can easily get a new job

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hell bent on ruining everything for everyone. Can’t wait until it’s over.

Well, if everyone just waits…. It is unlikely to end.

You must take action (call members of Congress, protest, vote).

Members of Congress support Trump’s initiative to reduce the size of the fed government, so I’m not sure what you’re going to get contacting them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hell bent on ruining everything for everyone. Can’t wait until it’s over.

Well, if everyone just waits…. It is unlikely to end.

You must take action (call members of Congress, protest, vote).

Members of Congress support Trump’s initiative to reduce the size of the fed government, so I’m not sure what you’re going to get contacting them.

Members of congress represent their constituents, last I knew.

[Anonymous]

FIND
A
New
Job