At Glitch we unionized and at that time we were about half remote. I would say it was definitely challenging and in particular the union organizers weren’t very familiar with even really the concept of remote. I just got laid off so I’ll probably have more time to write about it later.
I think you mix several unrelated things here. Let me try to tease it apart. You were talking about the increase of productivity and using off the shelf solutions. It's nothing new. This is a trend of the last 20 years. However, a number of software engineers still grow because these solutions require more and more complex configuration, customization, integration, and just fitting round solution into a square business problem. Remote work (including outsource & offshore) is also was around for at least 15 years, and the same here, it didn't eliminate software engineers in SV. I am pretty sure that you worked with people overseas. You have a time zone difference, culture difference, language barrier, infrastructure quality difference, and so on, and so on. Some of these could be mitigated, and some of it couldn't. This will continue to lead to differences in salaries in different places.
One thing you touched on that I am curious if you would expound upon, is how remote work can create dislocations in the place that remote workers go. E.g. a boat load of tech workers from CA have moved to Boise, ID or Kalispell, MT which were a little more bucolic 10 or 15 years ago. The local economies determined cost of living, and the relatively fast influx of folks with high salaries, who in many cases are selling very high priced homes, has driven up the cost of living for "locals". This is most pronounced in housing costs given what crazy low interest rates have done to asset (read house) prices. A resident that is making $40k/year, which allowed them a decent life, suddenly can't afford to live there. Essentially remote work has started to export some of the problems you're mentioning. Paying someone in Turkey a SF salary creates an even more extreme version of this.
Ultimately, where does this drive things? Any place "with a view" meeting some minimum bar of access to transportation/education/medical/amenities with a decent internet connection becomes swamped with transplants and the only affordable spots left are going to be in Iowa? It certainly helps rural areas that were experiencing decline, but I'm not 100% positive it's all good. Just curious for your 2 cents.
I'm sorry, but your article needs to be challenged. On the one hand you say that companies should pay the market rate, yet you then side with the idiots who say that if you're working in Turkey for a US firm, that your salary should be lower, and that contradicts your first argument! Why shouldn't the person in Turkey be paid the same as the SF person? If we assume that they have the same skillset, why has the US firm had to find someone half way round the World when there should surely be someone with the correct skillset out of approx 350 million Americans?
'As workers are more and more removed from the business, companies will get better at identifying what can be “automated”': what a load of rubbish and drivel! You have clearly only ever worked for large organisations because I tell you what sun shine, I have worked for one of the biggest automotive firms and I've worked for a company with 8 employees, and the one with 8 employees has no need, nor desire, to automate their business. There's something called customer service where you need to actually go and visit a customer, which you have clearly never done, and to then become agile of foot and alter the software accordingly.
I have never used Wix or Squarespace, but I know that they want to take over the World with their so called automation, but I know enough one man bands who write software and who regularly pick up customers because of the sheer inflexibility of the software that those two firms produce. I know those two firms want to take over the World, but they haven't so far, and if they were doing a half decent job they wouldn't need to advertise so aggresively because everybody, and I mean everybody, will flock to them.
You then mention that everyone's using AWS, well, again, I can assure you that the one man bands of this World are certainly not.
You're article is just drivel with half baked ideas. Another person who lives in a bubble since they work in VC work. Idiot
People think too much about the stable state and not enough of the transition.
Right now, companies have a large base or current employees with established salaries, mostly at expensive locations. They need them and can't lower salaries easily.
On the other hand, new hires could be remote, at lower cost locations, and they could pay less.
Why would they pay less for the same work? because they can. Like every other Corp. doesn't pay the same at India and the US.
So companies can and probably will lower salaries by hiring remote, but will have established workforce with established (high) salaries for years to come. Probably will recruit less at higher cost locations once the realization comes through.
I don't buy this premise of remote work reducing collective employee power. If anything this increases it. The barrier to complaining or raising an issue is suddenly much less. It is far easier to send a message to your coworker than to discreetly lean over and whisper while hoping the wrong person doesn't overhear.
Many company's may monitor internal communication services (email, slack, etc) but it is quite easy to move to personal accounts. Since going remote for the pandemic I've seen the case where many employees share a discord server and frequently chat privately throughout the day on a machine separate from their work one.
Serious Comment>> Can you *please* have someone who knows the basics of grammar usage and mechanics read this and then help you figure out how to write correctly. Writing "its" for "it's" makes me think 40% less of everything you write. My parents were both HS English teachers, and I'm still crap. But I don't send out newsletters with obvious mistakes. I want you to be heard. And not at a 40% discount. <<< Seriously.
Can, please read the book "Sovereign Individual". I think you'll enjoy it. It was written in 1996 and talks about how technology will change the equations of power, including further reducing the power employees have over companies as they go remote, and how the "tyranny of place" will be overcome with technology, leading to rise in wages for talent all over the globe and reduction in centralized places.
At Glitch we unionized and at that time we were about half remote. I would say it was definitely challenging and in particular the union organizers weren’t very familiar with even really the concept of remote. I just got laid off so I’ll probably have more time to write about it later.
PS: That was not the only mistake*.
*Satan's been drinking Rioja.
I think you mix several unrelated things here. Let me try to tease it apart. You were talking about the increase of productivity and using off the shelf solutions. It's nothing new. This is a trend of the last 20 years. However, a number of software engineers still grow because these solutions require more and more complex configuration, customization, integration, and just fitting round solution into a square business problem. Remote work (including outsource & offshore) is also was around for at least 15 years, and the same here, it didn't eliminate software engineers in SV. I am pretty sure that you worked with people overseas. You have a time zone difference, culture difference, language barrier, infrastructure quality difference, and so on, and so on. Some of these could be mitigated, and some of it couldn't. This will continue to lead to differences in salaries in different places.
One thing you touched on that I am curious if you would expound upon, is how remote work can create dislocations in the place that remote workers go. E.g. a boat load of tech workers from CA have moved to Boise, ID or Kalispell, MT which were a little more bucolic 10 or 15 years ago. The local economies determined cost of living, and the relatively fast influx of folks with high salaries, who in many cases are selling very high priced homes, has driven up the cost of living for "locals". This is most pronounced in housing costs given what crazy low interest rates have done to asset (read house) prices. A resident that is making $40k/year, which allowed them a decent life, suddenly can't afford to live there. Essentially remote work has started to export some of the problems you're mentioning. Paying someone in Turkey a SF salary creates an even more extreme version of this.
Ultimately, where does this drive things? Any place "with a view" meeting some minimum bar of access to transportation/education/medical/amenities with a decent internet connection becomes swamped with transplants and the only affordable spots left are going to be in Iowa? It certainly helps rural areas that were experiencing decline, but I'm not 100% positive it's all good. Just curious for your 2 cents.
When you wrote 'a persuasive piece on how companies should people based on what value they add' I think you left out 'pay'
There is a typo here : Companies are forced to pay as much as possible to keep the talent #for# leaving....
I would change commodification to commoditization.
I'm sorry, but your article needs to be challenged. On the one hand you say that companies should pay the market rate, yet you then side with the idiots who say that if you're working in Turkey for a US firm, that your salary should be lower, and that contradicts your first argument! Why shouldn't the person in Turkey be paid the same as the SF person? If we assume that they have the same skillset, why has the US firm had to find someone half way round the World when there should surely be someone with the correct skillset out of approx 350 million Americans?
'As workers are more and more removed from the business, companies will get better at identifying what can be “automated”': what a load of rubbish and drivel! You have clearly only ever worked for large organisations because I tell you what sun shine, I have worked for one of the biggest automotive firms and I've worked for a company with 8 employees, and the one with 8 employees has no need, nor desire, to automate their business. There's something called customer service where you need to actually go and visit a customer, which you have clearly never done, and to then become agile of foot and alter the software accordingly.
I have never used Wix or Squarespace, but I know that they want to take over the World with their so called automation, but I know enough one man bands who write software and who regularly pick up customers because of the sheer inflexibility of the software that those two firms produce. I know those two firms want to take over the World, but they haven't so far, and if they were doing a half decent job they wouldn't need to advertise so aggresively because everybody, and I mean everybody, will flock to them.
You then mention that everyone's using AWS, well, again, I can assure you that the one man bands of this World are certainly not.
You're article is just drivel with half baked ideas. Another person who lives in a bubble since they work in VC work. Idiot
A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions.
Interesting thoughts here!!! A lot to ponder about.
People think too much about the stable state and not enough of the transition.
Right now, companies have a large base or current employees with established salaries, mostly at expensive locations. They need them and can't lower salaries easily.
On the other hand, new hires could be remote, at lower cost locations, and they could pay less.
Why would they pay less for the same work? because they can. Like every other Corp. doesn't pay the same at India and the US.
So companies can and probably will lower salaries by hiring remote, but will have established workforce with established (high) salaries for years to come. Probably will recruit less at higher cost locations once the realization comes through.
I don't buy this premise of remote work reducing collective employee power. If anything this increases it. The barrier to complaining or raising an issue is suddenly much less. It is far easier to send a message to your coworker than to discreetly lean over and whisper while hoping the wrong person doesn't overhear.
Many company's may monitor internal communication services (email, slack, etc) but it is quite easy to move to personal accounts. Since going remote for the pandemic I've seen the case where many employees share a discord server and frequently chat privately throughout the day on a machine separate from their work one.
nice
Serious Comment>> Can you *please* have someone who knows the basics of grammar usage and mechanics read this and then help you figure out how to write correctly. Writing "its" for "it's" makes me think 40% less of everything you write. My parents were both HS English teachers, and I'm still crap. But I don't send out newsletters with obvious mistakes. I want you to be heard. And not at a 40% discount. <<< Seriously.
Can, please read the book "Sovereign Individual". I think you'll enjoy it. It was written in 1996 and talks about how technology will change the equations of power, including further reducing the power employees have over companies as they go remote, and how the "tyranny of place" will be overcome with technology, leading to rise in wages for talent all over the globe and reduction in centralized places.