Hard numbers please.
He gave hard numbers. Your turn.
I will go beyond that. Even if your new employer offers remote work, you won’t have the human relationship you built up over the years at your old place. Relationship you built up by being physical there, by going to lunch with your teammates and going to their birthday parties.
If you see yourself only as a cog in the corporate machine, it may not matter. Will it matter in your career path? I am out of the cooperate world too long. You be the judge. Does it matter as a human being to have some IRL relationship with people you work with? Depends on your personality. 100% remote is the equivalent of solitary confinement. Some enjoy it. Some don’t.
Easy. My number is that it will be way lower than 20% in 5 years.
1 Like
Marked.
1 Like
I guess I wasn’t clear.
Company A offers the perk. I move and work remote. A year later don’t like A anymore.
Company B’s role/work seems interesting but they don’t offer remote work. And yet the role/work seem compelling enough to consider the job.
That’s the beauty of at-will employment. You don’t have to work at Company B if you don’t want to. It’s a personal choice.
Your entire opinion is based on you thinking CEOs are lying when they say 50% of their work force will be remote. That is a lot of CEOs that are lying.
Why is it lying? I believe they have every intention to make it work. I just don’t think they will succeed.
Do you believe every CEO when they say they will double sales in 5 years? They will work on that goal doesn’t mean they will automatically succeed.
I expect to be a billionaire in five years!
1 Like
Tahoe sales are picking up. At least one realtor I know says it’s BA money. My maid says the vacation rentals are back in full swing. Just in time for July, the biggest tourist month of the year. Tahoe prices may benefit from WFH. Napa too.
It’s a lot easier to cut costs by going remote than to make revenue skyrocket, unless you are Luckin Coffee.
5 Likes
I am reminded of this Ezra Klein interview he did with Tyler Cowen, when he talked about how running an all-remote org is actually easier than one let’s say 70 office 30 remote. If you have a 5 person team, and 4 of them are in the office and another on the East Coast somewhere. It’s 4pm and the four of you are talking over coffee on some implementation issue. Do you say, hey, stop it, let’s go back to our computer and zoom in the other guy? That other guy may be eating dinner or showering his kid or whatever. How do you blend in office and remote?
I think that the two things that are hard about it — one is one, it is pretty difficult to run an organization that is 70/30. I think that running an organization that is entirely telecommuting is probably — I don’t want to call it easy, but it’s a lot easier than running an organization where most people are in one place, and then some significant, but not near majority percentage of them are not, because what you end up having then is dual processes, where a lot of things are built for everybody being around each other, and then the people who are not around everyone else are at somewhat of a disadvantage.
So, I think that’s one issue, that oftentimes what people want to do is not create a telecommuting equilibrium, but they want to create a 70/30 equilibrium, and that one doesn’t work that well. And it certainly doesn’t work that well if you’re ambitious and want to advance within the company, particularly within its bureaucratic hierarchy.
But then, the other piece of it that I think is very real is that you just lose a lot of information, even in the very best telecommuting software. And this isn’t even just a question of it being buggy.
Tyler’s interviews are almost always excellent. Highly recommended.
https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/ezra-klein-on-why-were-polarized-ep-86-7864297bc88b
We are currently at a very weird moment when most tech workers dial in from home. So you don’t see this dual process issue. I’d be very curious to see how things will work 12 months from now.
1 Like
“This migration to the suburbs is not a new trend, but it has become more pronounced this spring,” said Javier Vivas, realtor.com director of economic research. “After several months of shelter-in-place orders, the desire to have more space and the potential for more people to work remotely are likely two of the factors contributing to the popularity of the burbs.”
Probably enough to stall the price appreciation in 7x7 for good 
7x7ers should pray the migration won’t cause a secular downtrend in price 
Price tailwind: Startups - This factor hyped by @manch has been around for ages.
Price headwind: Discovery of WFH/ Remote work - 
The phrasing is odd. There is a big difference between ‘slack is going work-from-home forever’ (not true) to “employees will have the option to work remotely on a permanent basis” (facts from slack directly). The former makes it sound like Slack got out of their office leases everywhere already.
Recent signals from tech giants that the future of work may be remote has also led to many San Francisco residents and tech employees seeing an opportunity to move from the city. A recent poll showed that two out of three tech workers would consider leaving if they were able to work from home.
So much for high number of startups 
What is the steady state post-Covid?
It’s creating something the city hasn’t seen for a long time — a renter’s market.
Time for asking a nasty question. @manch Did you have tenant turnover and how long to re-rent out?
1 Like
I wonder if this is a mix issue, since they are using median rent for an area. The better way would be to compare the same building yr/yr. Lower income people are more likely to have lost their job. They are more likely to break their lease which changes the mix of apartments available and biases it toward the lower end. That would make it appear as the median rent changed, but it’s actually a mix shift.