Right now, there is _zero_ reason for companies not to announce permanent work from home. It gets them positive attention and makes them part of the buzz. They are already paying the comp they are paying.

Putting aside the fact that these policies can change on a dime (it's really "permantnet work from home _for now_"), what's really crazy is that people are seriously planning to take companies at their word and are considering leaving the Bay Area and are assuming they are taking their Bay Area comp with them.

Ok, cases:

1. company does NOT to geo-based adjustment to any current employee, but DOES use adjusted salaries for new ones (in other words, path-dependent compensation). Two people, same job, different compensation. This is not that unusual in other industries but can be a source of serious resentment. Suppose a bay area employee moves to India..

2. company uses relocated employees to establish new comp packages for those geos - this will only go so far. many cases will be employees moving to less expensive areas.

3. company sets a "standard" compensation package world-wide that everyone gets - this is impossible to really execute on, or it will be very low relative to peer companies.

and so on. Employees who end up in a case 1 situation will find that after AVERAGE_TENURE they go looking for a new job and end up geo-adjusted. From a company perspective, this is a no-lose golden handcuffs situation and anyway the problem resolves itself quickly.

I tend to believe companies will walk this back as soon as covid-19 dies down, if not right away then as part of executive transitions where someone decides to "transform the business." But in the end it makes no difference - the long term trajectory, if it sticks around, is probably case (1) or some blend of (1) and (2). For developed nation engineers, case (3) is dire, the end of the career.

> there is _zero_ reason for companies not to announce permanent work from home

This is obviously not true. If my employer announced permanent work from home, I would immediately start looking for a new job.

My office (small site within a big company) sent out a survey about working from home.

The majority responded that they didn't want to WFH. There was a question that had several options for which composition of WFH vs WFO people wanted in the new normal. Only 25% of people picked an answer where they would WFH more often than they'd WFO.

well yeah, me too, but if they announced it you'd talk to your manager and she'd say "don't worry about it." then we'd wait and see.

> it requires proactive communication and self discipline that just don’t appear because now you are working remotely.

My experience has been that people that struggle with these things are just as unproductive in an office, they just hide it better.

By far the most productive teams I've been on as far as getting work done are remote teams. When you're remote all that matters at the end of the week is how much stuff you can concretely show you have accomplished.

In an office you can get credit for doing nothing very easily.

So yea remote work is going to be rough for people that are currently using office culture to hide, and in some offices that is a very large number of people.

Well, my experience has been that having time to switch into "work mode" did help my productivity. But hey, maybe I was just delusional all along.

I've worked from home for about 15 years. I have some friends that work from home. My brother does too.

The answer to this really depends upon the person. I've worked from home since I graduated from college, and initially I would eat, sleep, work, and play games all in the same room, because I had roommates. And I was fine with it.

Some people can't do that. Some people need a dedicated workspace. Some people need to get dressed. My brother works from home, and he still wears a tie everyday. Because that's what he needs to do to get into "work mode".

I'm not saying any of this will work for you. But just wanted to let you know that while this is a thing for some people, you still might be able to get that feeling when you work from home.

Salaries are what the market will bear (on both sides). If more companies are remote then first class remote engineers will be able to get more offers when they're on the market and thus will be able to command higher comp.

Separately, if you're undifferentiated then of course anyone will be able to do your job if you're colocated with headquarters or not. The trick to selling your time for more money is to differentiate yourself in a way that creates more value for the company hiring you. Your career is a business that rewards a continuous growth and sales process.

"If you are fully remote then anyone in the world can do your job. Supply goes up prices go down."

I work for an all-remote company and wages are based on the NY labour market. Anyone on the planet can apply sure, but I've not seen salaries reduce (if anything they're highly competitive outside of SF!). If you can get $150k and live wherever you want I wouldn't complain!

What company do you work for? Do they have any openings?

> I hope remote first people like the suburbs and country because there is no reason to live in the city with no office.

I feel like these kinds of blunt "no reason" statements are meaningless, just like saying "work from home sucks" or "work from home is always the best."

I live in a city and work from home, and I will continue to live in my city even if the entire industry goes to primarily work from home. There are a lot of reasons to live here, several centered on "driving sucks, according to techsupporter." I would hate to live in a suburb or out in the country, places where I've lived before and have moved away from.

This is my fear as well. Not only will I no longer have face-t-face interaction, and the break-up in my day that and office allows, but pay will probably decrease across the board.

Coming from a non-coastal state, I honestly do not understand the superiority complex a lot of coastal developers have. There are good developers everywhere, and the ones living in the southwest or the midwest are willing to do the same work for less money. But, you can be willing to bet the execs will receive a pay bump for their "cost-saving measures".

Agree, I am also from the midwest and don't get the superiority complex.

If anything it'd raise the wages for people in the low cost of living areas and eventually equalize out. You can get one person making $500k in SF (plus office costs) or hire 2 or 3 people making $165-250k/each in Suburban America with no office costs. Doubtful that people will go entirely offshore due to time-zone, quality and other cultural differences, we tried that in the early 2000s when everything went to India only to see it come right back. There's a ton of really good engineers who for one reason or another don't want to move to SF and work in Corporate Enterprise America instead. Those people are probably already at $130-150k+ in Corporate America but will job hop to Remote BigTech Company for $165k and more interesting work. Corporate America will have to compete and will raise wages. Meanwhile devs previously making $500k in SF will have to take a $275k gig as more work goes elsewhere, but rent costs should come down as well.

I agree with this take but it's not going to be great for the SF devs that bought houses they can't afford.

And who's fault is it?

I have been telling my coworkers and friends for years that these salaries are not sustainable for 30 years and everyone called me a pessimist.

It's not hard to see that the "good times" and "gold rush" can't last forever. The fact people lied to themselves thinking it's permanent should teach them something about themselves.

Probably, but this is exactly what main street America has been dealing with for the past 40 years: buy a house close to your great job, but now your industry has gone elsewhere for cheaper labor and you're now underwater on your mortgage and even basic city services are going downhill.

> there is no reason to live in the city with no office

Then why do so many Google/Facebook/Apple employees live in SF and commute for over an hour to the suburbs?

Because they get paid $300k/year.

They don't get paid more to live farther from work.

They’d be paid that in Sunnyvale too.

I'm hoping rent prices in SF will go down. I'd love to live there and work in academia but that doesn't seem feasible.

Once you're working remote why pay someone 80k a year to live in the Midwest.

Why not pay them 40k a year to live in India instead?

Because timezones add massive amounts of friction.

If a pay cut nets you more money by not living closer to SF that’s a win