DMV if feds leave

[Anonymous]

I’m at the patent office where most workers have been fully remote for decades. Most people stay in the dmv suburb/exurbs (100 mile radius) despite that there is no change in locality pay to move. A small percentage 5-10% choose to still go in. Our work is unique in that it is highly individualized without much collaboration with coworkers. Even then, in-person training seems much more effective so it’s worthwhile to bring everyone to main campus once a year or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neighbor works for a big fed agency. They're still WFH full time for most staff, however, the other day my neighbor just stated that they're considering a 'hotel' style kind of office space for anyone who wants to use the office, but management doesn't envision office use at the agency he works at ever going back to the way it was. Mangament even suggested that future hirees would be offered to WFH from wherever and that employees may eventually be given the option for permanent remote work.

The point being here that if this huge agency is considering a decenralized model, and this model also offers up the opportunity for the Federal govt to save huge amounts of money by not paying leases for office space and all of the costs associated with running offices, what is the fate of the DMV if more agencies do the same?

All you hear are people bragging that the DMV is 'recession resistant' because Feds are located here. And all people in the region do is brag about how their homes values never go down because the govt is located here. Well, what happens when the govt starts to not have to be located here? If this trend takes off big time, I feel like it'd mean other big ideas like Thrive 2050 for MoCo would be a massive mistake. They'll overdevelop the whole county based on assumptions that didn't pan out. Many people won't have to be tied down to this region if Fed agencies decentralize and people are free to go find much better opportunities for lower cost of living areas. The result will be a whole bunch of very expensive vacant housing that only helps to crater property values and the county wasted billions in development on Thrive. The tax base would crumble too if feds are allowed to decentralize. The DMV would no longer be resistant to recessions either.

You are right. But I don't think it will be a catastrophic as this. Instead, it will cause a slowing of growth, a failure to maintain such high real estate values. But it won't become like a post-industrial ghost town.

On the whole, no. It won’t be catastrophic. It will however be bad for certain sub markets, like Metro Center and the L Street corridor which have already been struggling. Those areas will probably get a bit 80s first before they get better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t work for the fed, but l think many types of work and personalities are poorly suited to full time remote. I’m not an old white man BTW (could hear that accusation coming). I think the next 12 months things will become more clear for longer term future of work, but every company / agency is working it out still and seeing the good and bad of WFH.

+1000

I've worked remotely for a decade and it's long been known to have serious drawbacks and only works for a certain subset of people. It's not for everyone. And it shouldn't be.

This is true for 100% WFH. However, the Fed was already doing hybrid arrangements pre-COVID and those will certainly be expanded made more permanent. Even for workers ill suited to WFH, coming into the office 2-3 days per week should be a sufficient mitigant. Let’s also not forget that those same people also tend to be low productivity while in-office as well. So the new model should reduce opportunities for distractions. However it does also somewhat reduce supervision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pre-COVID many Federal agencies were already moving out to the suburbs.

The agency you might be referring to is DOE, who are moving to a shared office space model and will cut their office footprint by 50% as a result. They are giving up an entire building in SW.

The continued WFH model should certainly favor suburbs, because they provide more living space. Policies that would favor increasing density and decreasing living space would seem to be directly oppositional to this trend.

There is a lot of hubris behind people you see who smugly claim DC to be “recession proof”. It also tells a lot about them because recessions affect a lot of workers in DC. In any event, a recession is most definitely coming and in this one, I don’t think DC will fare as well as past recessions. Following the GFC in particular, jobless college grads flocked to DC with hope of finding work. However, the geography of work is just not the same anymore so we will be unlikely to see a repeat.

DOE as in Education or Energy??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t work for the fed, but l think many types of work and personalities are poorly suited to full time remote. I’m not an old white man BTW (could hear that accusation coming). I think the next 12 months things will become more clear for longer term future of work, but every company / agency is working it out still and seeing the good and bad of WFH.

2.5 years of WFH worked out beautifully for my program. Why do you say that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-COVID many Federal agencies were already moving out to the suburbs.

The agency you might be referring to is DOE, who are moving to a shared office space model and will cut their office footprint by 50% as a result. They are giving up an entire building in SW.

The continued WFH model should certainly favor suburbs, because they provide more living space. Policies that would favor increasing density and decreasing living space would seem to be directly oppositional to this trend.

There is a lot of hubris behind people you see who smugly claim DC to be “recession proof”. It also tells a lot about them because recessions affect a lot of workers in DC. In any event, a recession is most definitely coming and in this one, I don’t think DC will fare as well as past recessions. Following the GFC in particular, jobless college grads flocked to DC with hope of finding work. However, the geography of work is just not the same anymore so we will be unlikely to see a repeat.

DOE as in Education or Energy??

Education.

[Anonymous]

"Our work is unique in that it is highly individualized without much collaboration with coworkers."

That's what makes it work re: the PTO examiner remote situations.

But I work with multiple agencies where the work of the staff requires them to collaborate among each other, among interagency colleagues and with us as industry. And the lack of ability to meet in person essentially EVER due to folks still being WFH full time is certainly a negative impact at this point.

[Anonymous]

Once you leave the DC area, your opportunities for advancement are vastly reduced. Most people that want to move up will not leave the area. Plus most of the cheaper places are not liberal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Our work is unique in that it is highly individualized without much collaboration with coworkers."

That's what makes it work re: the PTO examiner remote situations.

But I work with multiple agencies where the work of the staff requires them to collaborate among each other, among interagency colleagues and with us as industry. And the lack of ability to meet in person essentially EVER due to folks still being WFH full time is certainly a negative impact at this point.

In the old days, most inter-Agency meetings were via conference call. Now there is much better technology available which has been tried, tested and honed after 2+ years of remote work. I don’t see how in-person meetings in the model you describe were that common pre-COVID in any case. In-person work is most important for training, mentoring and collaboration within a team. It is not that relevant for external communication, unless you are trying to do sales.

[Anonymous]

WFH is good for the employees who have been at our agency for a long time, but it’s terrible for the people who have just started, and worst for the young people who are just starting their careers. If I were just starting my career, I’d never want to work in a place that is 100% remote or just comes in 1 or 2 days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WFH is good for the employees who have been at our agency for a long time, but it’s terrible for the people who have just started, and worst for the young people who are just starting their careers. If I were just starting my career, I’d never want to work in a place that is 100% remote or just comes in 1 or 2 days.

+1. The informal chit chat that happens after a meeting, the coffee meetups during the day, the walk over to a different division— that’s how I got to know what was really going on at an agency, and how to spot problems before they got out of hand. It’s so hard to do that kind of work remotely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once you leave the DC area, your opportunities for advancement are vastly reduced. Most people that want to move up will not leave the area. Plus most of the cheaper places are not liberal.

This. I moved to Frederick during the pandemic (where my spouse works and we could finally move out of an apartment), and I even feel like my options are limited and haven't applied for jobs in DC I would have before because of the 3+ days in person requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once you leave the DC area, your opportunities for advancement are vastly reduced. Most people that want to move up will not leave the area. Plus most of the cheaper places are not liberal.

I think this is what is most likely to change. A lot of agencies had higher promotion potential for HQ-based positions and more positions available at higher grades. It will be harder to justify a terminal WFH GS-14 living in Fredericksburg with a terminal GS-12 in Richmond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Our work is unique in that it is highly individualized without much collaboration with coworkers."

That's what makes it work re: the PTO examiner remote situations.

But I work with multiple agencies where the work of the staff requires them to collaborate among each other, among interagency colleagues and with us as industry. And the lack of ability to meet in person essentially EVER due to folks still being WFH full time is certainly a negative impact at this point.

I work this way too, and I see some negative impact, but even if I was back in the office every day, most of my collaborators would be meeting with me virtually from other offices around the DMV. Some of our non-federal partners aren't even located in this region, and we have to work the costs of their travel into our contract and agreement budgets. So I think we can't take for granted that ending WFH will make this much easier if people still have to travel to meet in person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once you leave the DC area, your opportunities for advancement are vastly reduced. Most people that want to move up will not leave the area. Plus most of the cheaper places are not liberal.

I think this is what is most likely to change. A lot of agencies had higher promotion potential for HQ-based positions and more positions available at higher grades. It will be harder to justify a terminal WFH GS-14 living in Fredericksburg with a terminal GS-12 in Richmond.

I'm confused by your last sentence. The grade levels are based on the work, not the location. The locality pay between the same grade levels on either side of a locality boundary is different, yes.