Only if enough companies offer fair remote work. If 90% of them stick to work from office culture war, what are you going to do? Not work?
I can quit my job and have a new one by the end of the day. I would still struggle to find remote work in a reasonable time frame. I’m not willing to blow my savings on it so I stick with job O enjoy that offers hybrid.
I’m ok with the current status quote. The problem with fully remote work is there’s always someone cheaper, whether by skill, experience, desperation, or cost of living. It will be another race to the bottom, like the first few decades of outsourcing, and high cost of living cities would be hardest hit
Because I’m partly remote and have to be located near an office, I still get the pay structure of where that office is. I still enjoy my Boston area high cost of living pay. If we were fully remote, would they really pay that? What happens to high cost of living cities, much less any city? While I like to think I have excellent skills that are worth the extra pay, there’s no way I can claim to be worth, say two similar guys in Austin, or four in Alabama. There’s no way I can live where i do if I were paid like a lower cost of living area …. And that’s before you even consider the rest of the world.
This is what I don’t hear discussed as often as I’d expected. When you make a solid case for 100% remote, bargaining power is lost - or at least the COLA is harder to defend.
It depends. Full remote means that companies could recruit nationwide, but that cuts both ways. There’s a few hiccups in having employees in multiple states that opens a company up to employment rules in many states, so some companies may want to avoid certain states until they are big enough to handle the complexity. It also means every company has to compete for employees with all the other big companies, not just whoever is within about 50 miles of them.
Maybe. Going international is another big step in bureaucracy for a company. Time zones also become a problem, you can’t really have a team made of people farther than about 4 timezones, you need separate teams at that point, which adds complexity. Language barriers also start to become an issue as you expand, even English speaking countries have vast differences, and English as a second language adds more difficulty.
I think it also depends on your amount of experience and if you have a unique skillset. If you have truly rare skills that a company needs, it’s hard for them to not give into your demands.
Also, with the older style managers and CEOs retiring, dying off, etc, I think remote work will continue being more common than you’d expect.
With that said, it always helps to have some bargaining power.
Only if enough companies offer fair remote work. If 90% of them stick to work from office culture war, what are you going to do? Not work? I can quit my job and have a new one by the end of the day. I would still struggle to find remote work in a reasonable time frame. I’m not willing to blow my savings on it so I stick with job O enjoy that offers hybrid.
I’m ok with the current status quote. The problem with fully remote work is there’s always someone cheaper, whether by skill, experience, desperation, or cost of living. It will be another race to the bottom, like the first few decades of outsourcing, and high cost of living cities would be hardest hit
Because I’m partly remote and have to be located near an office, I still get the pay structure of where that office is. I still enjoy my Boston area high cost of living pay. If we were fully remote, would they really pay that? What happens to high cost of living cities, much less any city? While I like to think I have excellent skills that are worth the extra pay, there’s no way I can claim to be worth, say two similar guys in Austin, or four in Alabama. There’s no way I can live where i do if I were paid like a lower cost of living area …. And that’s before you even consider the rest of the world.
This is what I don’t hear discussed as often as I’d expected. When you make a solid case for 100% remote, bargaining power is lost - or at least the COLA is harder to defend.
It depends. Full remote means that companies could recruit nationwide, but that cuts both ways. There’s a few hiccups in having employees in multiple states that opens a company up to employment rules in many states, so some companies may want to avoid certain states until they are big enough to handle the complexity. It also means every company has to compete for employees with all the other big companies, not just whoever is within about 50 miles of them.
Depending on the industry and ROI, I’d submit it’s worldwide.
Maybe. Going international is another big step in bureaucracy for a company. Time zones also become a problem, you can’t really have a team made of people farther than about 4 timezones, you need separate teams at that point, which adds complexity. Language barriers also start to become an issue as you expand, even English speaking countries have vast differences, and English as a second language adds more difficulty.
You look for remote work while currently employed. That’s ideally how you switch jobs in general.
I think it also depends on your amount of experience and if you have a unique skillset. If you have truly rare skills that a company needs, it’s hard for them to not give into your demands.
Also, with the older style managers and CEOs retiring, dying off, etc, I think remote work will continue being more common than you’d expect.
With that said, it always helps to have some bargaining power.