Tech CEOs predicting WFH will be permanent, and many employees will never come to an office again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this has been tried in waves within the tech sector and it always bounces back to more in person work environments. In reality, people are more productive when they can interact in person. In the tech sector there is a lot of mentoring/help given to the younger engineers by the older ones. The "team" structures are as much about having people watch out for each other to avoid mistakes/figure stuff our faster as they are about morale or less vertical management.

Google basically is set up so you never need to leave the office. High level tech employees who have moved to Nevada or other areas out of the Bay Area often have a hard time finding a 100% telework job so ones who have tried it have had to move back.

For tech workers who are renting, can afford moving costs and already work someplace that has announced telework for another year and they feel secure in their job/their company is making a good profit now then moving out of the area to save on rent and moving back when telework ends may make sense. I doubt others will try it unless they choose an area that also has other job opportunities.

+1 I work with SV tech companies. COVID will cause wfh for a while, but eventually, they will go back into the office. It maybe next year or the year after, but most companies will have their FTE come back at some point.

It will be a mix. More teleworking than before but of course not 100%.

[Anonymous]

Once the top 10% of employers normalize WFH then everyone else has to follow or they lose all their talent. Why do you think Dorsey came out with his announcement about Twitter? It’s a war for talent. Some posters on here clearly have no connection to tech. The FANGs have been 20% wfh for years. This just normalized full wfh. If productivity is the same or better (and it is, better) then who cares? When you pay a mid level developer $500k/yr you don’t need face time or micromanagement, they are more or less autonomous.

[Anonymous]

I am a software engineer and lead a software team. We have noticed zero hiccups from working from home. Before this, some of our team was working remote anyway.

It's really hard for me to figure out the benefits of us going back. All I see are the added stress, and exhaustion over having to wake up earlier. Our meetings are shorter over teleconference. It's just a win-win all-around.

I do think if more private companies allow WFH, it will be that much harder for the government to attract younger workers to slog their way in to work. Especially those in the secure offices and no cell phones, etc.

[Anonymous]

Dont think companies are going to let you keep a DC or SV salary when you move to the midwest or south.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I can say is my employer, and the employers of my close friends, are chomping at the bit to get employees back in offices.

We’re not. We’re planning on autumn at the earliest and then only part of the workforce in the office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dont think companies are going to let you keep a DC or SV salary when you move to the midwest or south.

Who cares. Less driving and dealing with traffic. Would bolt in an instant if 100% WFH. Plenty of smaller and enjoyable towns within 2 hours or less of a major urban center where you can have much more space, less traffic, and lower col.


It's also not 2001 anymore. Internet, 5g,....tech is so much better now than 15-20 years ago even if tech went through this phase again. There are a ton of people who prob can't wait to ditch cities like Seattle or SF because they're sick and tired of paying $3500/mo in rent for a shoebox sized apartment in a city they'll have zero hope of ever owning in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dont think companies are going to let you keep a DC or SV salary when you move to the midwest or south.

Who cares. Less driving and dealing with traffic. Would bolt in an instant if 100% WFH. Plenty of smaller and enjoyable towns within 2 hours or less of a major urban center where you can have much more space, less traffic, and lower col.


It's also not 2001 anymore. Internet, 5g,....tech is so much better now than 15-20 years ago even if tech went through this phase again. There are a ton of people who prob can't wait to ditch cities like Seattle or SF because they're sick and tired of paying $3500/mo in rent for a shoebox sized apartment in a city they'll have zero hope of ever owning in.

LOL You've clearly never lived in a small town, much less in the countryside. I can drive across 70% of my home state and have NO cell service.

Internet providers? There are entire swathes of states that have one provider which is your sole internet service outlet and the service is still spotty at best.

My friend can't get internet in storms, her cable goes out with a bit of lightning. She would sit in her driveway or drive 40 minutes to the nearest store plaza for an emergency occasionally.

That doesn't even take into account that bandwidth availability (not how much you want to pay, what is even an OPTION) is slower the further out from cities you get.

Here's a map of cell phone service -- all that white means no coverage. So yes, where you live makes a huge difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dont think companies are going to let you keep a DC or SV salary when you move to the midwest or south.

Who cares. Less driving and dealing with traffic. Would bolt in an instant if 100% WFH. Plenty of smaller and enjoyable towns within 2 hours or less of a major urban center where you can have much more space, less traffic, and lower col.


It's also not 2001 anymore. Internet, 5g,....tech is so much better now than 15-20 years ago even if tech went through this phase again. There are a ton of people who prob can't wait to ditch cities like Seattle or SF because they're sick and tired of paying $3500/mo in rent for a shoebox sized apartment in a city they'll have zero hope of ever owning in.

LOL You've clearly never lived in a small town, much less in the countryside. I can drive across 70% of my home state and have NO cell service.

Internet providers? There are entire swathes of states that have one provider which is your sole internet service outlet and the service is still spotty at best.

My friend can't get internet in storms, her cable goes out with a bit of lightning. She would sit in her driveway or drive 40 minutes to the nearest store plaza for an emergency occasionally.

That doesn't even take into account that bandwidth availability (not how much you want to pay, what is even an OPTION) is slower the further out from cities you get.

Here's a map of cell phone service -- all that white means no coverage. So yes, where you live makes a huge difference.

Pffff.....you sound like a desperate real estate agent. Also, your map is wrong and outdated. You map shows cell towers, not actual coverage.


Here is a more accurate map for a company like Verizon.






Lmao, you act like living a couple of hours from a major urban center = automatic boonies. There are plenty of places to live where that isn't true. People can't wait to leave overpriced and overpopulated urban centers to save on col and traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dont think companies are going to let you keep a DC or SV salary when you move to the midwest or south.

Who cares. Less driving and dealing with traffic. Would bolt in an instant if 100% WFH. Plenty of smaller and enjoyable towns within 2 hours or less of a major urban center where you can have much more space, less traffic, and lower col.


It's also not 2001 anymore. Internet, 5g,....tech is so much better now than 15-20 years ago even if tech went through this phase again. There are a ton of people who prob can't wait to ditch cities like Seattle or SF because they're sick and tired of paying $3500/mo in rent for a shoebox sized apartment in a city they'll have zero hope of ever owning in.

LOL You've clearly never lived in a small town, much less in the countryside. I can drive across 70% of my home state and have NO cell service.

Internet providers? There are entire swathes of states that have one provider which is your sole internet service outlet and the service is still spotty at best.

My friend can't get internet in storms, her cable goes out with a bit of lightning. She would sit in her driveway or drive 40 minutes to the nearest store plaza for an emergency occasionally.

That doesn't even take into account that bandwidth availability (not how much you want to pay, what is even an OPTION) is slower the further out from cities you get.

Here's a map of cell phone service -- all that white means no coverage. So yes, where you live makes a huge difference.

Pffff.....you sound like a desperate real estate agent. Also, your map is wrong and outdated. You map shows cell towers, not actual coverage.


Here is a more accurate map for a company like Verizon.






Lmao, you act like living a couple of hours from a major urban center = automatic boonies. There are plenty of places to live where that isn't true. People can't wait to leave overpriced and overpopulated urban centers to save on col and traffic.

I grew up in a normal suburb with normal coverage. Any time we traveled more than 30 minutes from our home - going to say the Outer Banks in NC, our cell coverage dropped out like we suddenly in a Children of the Corn film.

But it was a nice place to grow up as a kid. As a business owner I'm less inclined to chance it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dont think companies are going to let you keep a DC or SV salary when you move to the midwest or south.

Who cares. Less driving and dealing with traffic. Would bolt in an instant if 100% WFH. Plenty of smaller and enjoyable towns within 2 hours or less of a major urban center where you can have much more space, less traffic, and lower col.


It's also not 2001 anymore. Internet, 5g,....tech is so much better now than 15-20 years ago even if tech went through this phase again. There are a ton of people who prob can't wait to ditch cities like Seattle or SF because they're sick and tired of paying $3500/mo in rent for a shoebox sized apartment in a city they'll have zero hope of ever owning in.

LOL You've clearly never lived in a small town, much less in the countryside. I can drive across 70% of my home state and have NO cell service.

Internet providers? There are entire swathes of states that have one provider which is your sole internet service outlet and the service is still spotty at best.

My friend can't get internet in storms, her cable goes out with a bit of lightning. She would sit in her driveway or drive 40 minutes to the nearest store plaza for an emergency occasionally.

That doesn't even take into account that bandwidth availability (not how much you want to pay, what is even an OPTION) is slower the further out from cities you get.

Here's a map of cell phone service -- all that white means no coverage. So yes, where you live makes a huge difference.

Pffff.....you sound like a desperate real estate agent. Also, your map is wrong and outdated. You map shows cell towers, not actual coverage.


Here is a more accurate map for a company like Verizon.






Lmao, you act like living a couple of hours from a major urban center = automatic boonies. There are plenty of places to live where that isn't true. People can't wait to leave overpriced and overpopulated urban centers to save on col and traffic.

I grew up in a normal suburb with normal coverage. Any time we traveled more than 30 minutes from our home - going to say the Outer Banks in NC, our cell coverage dropped out like we suddenly in a Children of the Corn film.

But it was a nice place to grow up as a kid. As a business owner I'm less inclined to chance it.

Let me let you in on this secret technology that can beat a ton of connectivity issues with cell phones. It's known as a landline.


*Gasp*. We may have to use a landline if we work from home to call in if we are in an area with low cell coverage!???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dont think companies are going to let you keep a DC or SV salary when you move to the midwest or south.

Who cares. Less driving and dealing with traffic. Would bolt in an instant if 100% WFH. Plenty of smaller and enjoyable towns within 2 hours or less of a major urban center where you can have much more space, less traffic, and lower col.


It's also not 2001 anymore. Internet, 5g,....tech is so much better now than 15-20 years ago even if tech went through this phase again. There are a ton of people who prob can't wait to ditch cities like Seattle or SF because they're sick and tired of paying $3500/mo in rent for a shoebox sized apartment in a city they'll have zero hope of ever owning in.

LOL You've clearly never lived in a small town, much less in the countryside. I can drive across 70% of my home state and have NO cell service.

Internet providers? There are entire swathes of states that have one provider which is your sole internet service outlet and the service is still spotty at best.

My friend can't get internet in storms, her cable goes out with a bit of lightning. She would sit in her driveway or drive 40 minutes to the nearest store plaza for an emergency occasionally.

That doesn't even take into account that bandwidth availability (not how much you want to pay, what is even an OPTION) is slower the further out from cities you get.

Here's a map of cell phone service -- all that white means no coverage. So yes, where you live makes a huge difference.

Pffff.....you sound like a desperate real estate agent. Also, your map is wrong and outdated. You map shows cell towers, not actual coverage.


Here is a more accurate map for a company like Verizon.






Lmao, you act like living a couple of hours from a major urban center = automatic boonies. There are plenty of places to live where that isn't true. People can't wait to leave overpriced and overpopulated urban centers to save on col and traffic.

I grew up in a normal suburb with normal coverage. Any time we traveled more than 30 minutes from our home - going to say the Outer Banks in NC, our cell coverage dropped out like we suddenly in a Children of the Corn film.

But it was a nice place to grow up as a kid. As a business owner I'm less inclined to chance it.

Let me let you in on this secret technology that can beat a ton of connectivity issues with cell phones. It's known as a landline.


*Gasp*. We may have to use a landline if we work from home to call in if we are in an area with low cell coverage!???

Wow, I didn't know landlines worked when you were in the car on the way to work or picking your kid up for school or going out to eat.

I mean its nifty but does it really beat something invented 4 decades ago called 'wireless'? I guess not since you still have one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dont think companies are going to let you keep a DC or SV salary when you move to the midwest or south.

Who cares. Less driving and dealing with traffic. Would bolt in an instant if 100% WFH. Plenty of smaller and enjoyable towns within 2 hours or less of a major urban center where you can have much more space, less traffic, and lower col.


It's also not 2001 anymore. Internet, 5g,....tech is so much better now than 15-20 years ago even if tech went through this phase again. There are a ton of people who prob can't wait to ditch cities like Seattle or SF because they're sick and tired of paying $3500/mo in rent for a shoebox sized apartment in a city they'll have zero hope of ever owning in.

LOL You've clearly never lived in a small town, much less in the countryside. I can drive across 70% of my home state and have NO cell service.

Internet providers? There are entire swathes of states that have one provider which is your sole internet service outlet and the service is still spotty at best.

My friend can't get internet in storms, her cable goes out with a bit of lightning. She would sit in her driveway or drive 40 minutes to the nearest store plaza for an emergency occasionally.

That doesn't even take into account that bandwidth availability (not how much you want to pay, what is even an OPTION) is slower the further out from cities you get.

Here's a map of cell phone service -- all that white means no coverage. So yes, where you live makes a huge difference.

Pffff.....you sound like a desperate real estate agent. Also, your map is wrong and outdated. You map shows cell towers, not actual coverage.


Here is a more accurate map for a company like Verizon.






Lmao, you act like living a couple of hours from a major urban center = automatic boonies. There are plenty of places to live where that isn't true. People can't wait to leave overpriced and overpopulated urban centers to save on col and traffic.

I grew up in a normal suburb with normal coverage. Any time we traveled more than 30 minutes from our home - going to say the Outer Banks in NC, our cell coverage dropped out like we suddenly in a Children of the Corn film.

But it was a nice place to grow up as a kid. As a business owner I'm less inclined to chance it.

Let me let you in on this secret technology that can beat a ton of connectivity issues with cell phones. It's known as a landline.


*Gasp*. We may have to use a landline if we work from home to call in if we are in an area with low cell coverage!???

Wow, I didn't know landlines worked when you were in the car on the way to work or picking your kid up for school or going out to eat.

I mean its nifty but does it really beat something invented 4 decades ago called 'wireless'? I guess not since you still have one.

What in the hell are you even arguing?

We are talking about working from home, yet you're going on and on and on about not getting cell phone reception if you drive 30 minutes from your house. Um HELLO, you should be working from home anyway, where you can have easy access to a landline in the case you live in a small portion of the country with poor service.

You then subsequently provided a misleading map of cell phone towers and not actual coverage to support your faulty arguments.

WFH will be the future. Lots of people will enjoy dedensifying, dealing with less traffic, and paying a lot less to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dont think companies are going to let you keep a DC or SV salary when you move to the midwest or south.

Who cares. Less driving and dealing with traffic. Would bolt in an instant if 100% WFH. Plenty of smaller and enjoyable towns within 2 hours or less of a major urban center where you can have much more space, less traffic, and lower col.


It's also not 2001 anymore. Internet, 5g,....tech is so much better now than 15-20 years ago even if tech went through this phase again. There are a ton of people who prob can't wait to ditch cities like Seattle or SF because they're sick and tired of paying $3500/mo in rent for a shoebox sized apartment in a city they'll have zero hope of ever owning in.

LOL You've clearly never lived in a small town, much less in the countryside. I can drive across 70% of my home state and have NO cell service.

Internet providers? There are entire swathes of states that have one provider which is your sole internet service outlet and the service is still spotty at best.

My friend can't get internet in storms, her cable goes out with a bit of lightning. She would sit in her driveway or drive 40 minutes to the nearest store plaza for an emergency occasionally.

That doesn't even take into account that bandwidth availability (not how much you want to pay, what is even an OPTION) is slower the further out from cities you get.

Here's a map of cell phone service -- all that white means no coverage. So yes, where you live makes a huge difference.

Pffff.....you sound like a desperate real estate agent. Also, your map is wrong and outdated. You map shows cell towers, not actual coverage.


Here is a more accurate map for a company like Verizon.






Lmao, you act like living a couple of hours from a major urban center = automatic boonies. There are plenty of places to live where that isn't true. People can't wait to leave overpriced and overpopulated urban centers to save on col and traffic.

I grew up in a normal suburb with normal coverage. Any time we traveled more than 30 minutes from our home - going to say the Outer Banks in NC, our cell coverage dropped out like we suddenly in a Children of the Corn film.

But it was a nice place to grow up as a kid. As a business owner I'm less inclined to chance it.

Let me let you in on this secret technology that can beat a ton of connectivity issues with cell phones. It's known as a landline.


*Gasp*. We may have to use a landline if we work from home to call in if we are in an area with low cell coverage!???

Wow, I didn't know landlines worked when you were in the car on the way to work or picking your kid up for school or going out to eat.

I mean its nifty but does it really beat something invented 4 decades ago called 'wireless'? I guess not since you still have one.

What in the hell are you even arguing?

We are talking about working from home, yet you're going on and on and on about not getting cell phone reception if you drive 30 minutes from your house. Um HELLO, you should be working from home anyway, where you can have easy access to a landline in the case you live in a small portion of the country with poor service.

You then subsequently provided a misleading map of cell phone towers and not actual coverage to support your faulty arguments.

WFH will be the future. Lots of people will enjoy dedensifying, dealing with less traffic, and paying a lot less to live.

The future for Silicon Valley and the future for the federal government ate two different things. But keep dreaming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dont think companies are going to let you keep a DC or SV salary when you move to the midwest or south.

Who cares. Less driving and dealing with traffic. Would bolt in an instant if 100% WFH. Plenty of smaller and enjoyable towns within 2 hours or less of a major urban center where you can have much more space, less traffic, and lower col.


It's also not 2001 anymore. Internet, 5g,....tech is so much better now than 15-20 years ago even if tech went through this phase again. There are a ton of people who prob can't wait to ditch cities like Seattle or SF because they're sick and tired of paying $3500/mo in rent for a shoebox sized apartment in a city they'll have zero hope of ever owning in.

LOL You've clearly never lived in a small town, much less in the countryside. I can drive across 70% of my home state and have NO cell service.

Internet providers? There are entire swathes of states that have one provider which is your sole internet service outlet and the service is still spotty at best.

My friend can't get internet in storms, her cable goes out with a bit of lightning. She would sit in her driveway or drive 40 minutes to the nearest store plaza for an emergency occasionally.

That doesn't even take into account that bandwidth availability (not how much you want to pay, what is even an OPTION) is slower the further out from cities you get.

Here's a map of cell phone service -- all that white means no coverage. So yes, where you live makes a huge difference.

Pffff.....you sound like a desperate real estate agent. Also, your map is wrong and outdated. You map shows cell towers, not actual coverage.


Here is a more accurate map for a company like Verizon.






Lmao, you act like living a couple of hours from a major urban center = automatic boonies. There are plenty of places to live where that isn't true. People can't wait to leave overpriced and overpopulated urban centers to save on col and traffic.

I grew up in a normal suburb with normal coverage. Any time we traveled more than 30 minutes from our home - going to say the Outer Banks in NC, our cell coverage dropped out like we suddenly in a Children of the Corn film.

But it was a nice place to grow up as a kid. As a business owner I'm less inclined to chance it.

Let me let you in on this secret technology that can beat a ton of connectivity issues with cell phones. It's known as a landline.


*Gasp*. We may have to use a landline if we work from home to call in if we are in an area with low cell coverage!???

Wow, I didn't know landlines worked when you were in the car on the way to work or picking your kid up for school or going out to eat.

I mean its nifty but does it really beat something invented 4 decades ago called 'wireless'? I guess not since you still have one.

What in the hell are you even arguing?

We are talking about working from home, yet you're going on and on and on about not getting cell phone reception if you drive 30 minutes from your house. Um HELLO, you should be working from home anyway, where you can have easy access to a landline in the case you live in a small portion of the country with poor service.

You then subsequently provided a misleading map of cell phone towers and not actual coverage to support your faulty arguments.

WFH will be the future. Lots of people will enjoy dedensifying, dealing with less traffic, and paying a lot less to live.

The future for Silicon Valley and the future for the federal government ate two different things. But keep dreaming.

Salty RE agent....I see....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dont think companies are going to let you keep a DC or SV salary when you move to the midwest or south.

Who cares. Less driving and dealing with traffic. Would bolt in an instant if 100% WFH. Plenty of smaller and enjoyable towns within 2 hours or less of a major urban center where you can have much more space, less traffic, and lower col.


It's also not 2001 anymore. Internet, 5g,....tech is so much better now than 15-20 years ago even if tech went through this phase again. There are a ton of people who prob can't wait to ditch cities like Seattle or SF because they're sick and tired of paying $3500/mo in rent for a shoebox sized apartment in a city they'll have zero hope of ever owning in.

LOL You've clearly never lived in a small town, much less in the countryside. I can drive across 70% of my home state and have NO cell service.

Internet providers? There are entire swathes of states that have one provider which is your sole internet service outlet and the service is still spotty at best.

My friend can't get internet in storms, her cable goes out with a bit of lightning. She would sit in her driveway or drive 40 minutes to the nearest store plaza for an emergency occasionally.

That doesn't even take into account that bandwidth availability (not how much you want to pay, what is even an OPTION) is slower the further out from cities you get.

Here's a map of cell phone service -- all that white means no coverage. So yes, where you live makes a huge difference.

Pffff.....you sound like a desperate real estate agent. Also, your map is wrong and outdated. You map shows cell towers, not actual coverage.


Here is a more accurate map for a company like Verizon.






Lmao, you act like living a couple of hours from a major urban center = automatic boonies. There are plenty of places to live where that isn't true. People can't wait to leave overpriced and overpopulated urban centers to save on col and traffic.

I grew up in a normal suburb with normal coverage. Any time we traveled more than 30 minutes from our home - going to say the Outer Banks in NC, our cell coverage dropped out like we suddenly in a Children of the Corn film.

But it was a nice place to grow up as a kid. As a business owner I'm less inclined to chance it.

Let me let you in on this secret technology that can beat a ton of connectivity issues with cell phones. It's known as a landline.


*Gasp*. We may have to use a landline if we work from home to call in if we are in an area with low cell coverage!???

Wow, I didn't know landlines worked when you were in the car on the way to work or picking your kid up for school or going out to eat.

I mean its nifty but does it really beat something invented 4 decades ago called 'wireless'? I guess not since you still have one.

What in the hell are you even arguing?

We are talking about working from home, yet you're going on and on and on about not getting cell phone reception if you drive 30 minutes from your house. Um HELLO, you should be working from home anyway, where you can have easy access to a landline in the case you live in a small portion of the country with poor service.

You then subsequently provided a misleading map of cell phone towers and not actual coverage to support your faulty arguments.

WFH will be the future. Lots of people will enjoy dedensifying, dealing with less traffic, and paying a lot less to live.

The future for Silicon Valley and the future for the federal government ate two different things. But keep dreaming.

Salty RE agent....I see....

Homeowner who WFHs. Just not projecting what a full-tech company whose entire product line is online (of course a social media company would go full WFH) does onto a normal workforce.

I suppose in your imagination the Supreme Court, White House, and Congress are also WFH forever? All their staff and aides as well?

Tell me do we sell the White House or just turn it into a museum?