>What is the intrinsic advantage to having "local companies" to choose from in a world where every company you'd want to work for also offered remote positions?
The advantage is that on the path in-between now and the perfect future where all companies are remote-first( that we are not sure will ever happen), you will not be at a significant disadvantage when it comes to job prospects. I don't think that many people would be willing to heavily limit their job prospects (not even taking into account all the other advantages that come with living in a densely populated coastal city) while waiting for that "bright all-remote future" that may never come.
Re:$1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes
by CiPHPerCoder on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @02:03PM
(#20216264)
As a short-term strategic move, sure. That's pragmatic.
But given a ceteris paribus comparison of the two, my question is what is inherently superior about the onsite position over the remote position?
What is the intrinsic advantage to having "local companies" to choose from in a world where every company you'd want to work for also offered remote positions?
> Or from the company's point of view, it's nice to have a lot of local workers.
Same question for that perspective, except I do have a few ideas of a cynical answer to that question from the company's perspective.