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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hahahaha. You could not live on one income in the 2000s.

Actually, you could and my family did [no family money supplementing, either], as did many others. But you don’t take fancy vacations, have a beach home, or pay for private school.

Every choice has consequences and people make different choices and that is grand.

But don’t lie and say it couldn’t be done. Maybe it can’t now.

I was a fed in 2000, with a teacher spouse and a toddler. We could not afford to live in our 1200 sqft house within an easy commute to DC on just one of our salaries.

I'm a fed with a teacher spouse and a preschooler and we couldn't afford a 1200 Sq ft house with an easy commute to DC on two salaries! (Instead we have 1500 Sq ft and a horrible commute to DC, but we're down the street from my spouse's school, best we could do.)

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

And many of us are so tired of your bottomless whining and toddler complaining that “It’s stooooopid and you’re stupid and so unfair and I HATE VEGETABLES!!!”

This is actually happening. Now. The baby is sliding out of the birth canal and you can’t shove it back up there.

Stop stomping your feet like a child. Quit your job, or don’t, but you need to cope and stfu already

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.

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 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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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