This is the 3rd or 4th article in the last few hours on this topic. Apparently the faux outrage is the latest bandwagon to jump on.

It's all a little tiring if you ask me.

It's not about faux outrage. It's about workplace trends. Large companies have a tendency to follow what other large companies do. This isn't about the decision of one company, it's about the mindset of our industry.

> What's the point of the faux outrage at Yahoo's HR decision?

Because Yahoo is still respected enough to affect the decision making process at other companies.

And many of us want to see more flexibility and trust in our work life. Working remotely for many is more than just a "perk".

On the other hand, the perception that being onsite makes me more valuable is the reason I get paid more than somebody in Peoria or Phuket. Even though I think that perception is probably false, I moved to the Valley because I might as well benefit rather than suffer from it. If remote work were the norm, we'd all be competing with people who currently work for rates that would barely feed us, and I'm still surprised the industry sort of gave up on outsourcing rather than solve the fraud problem.

I don't think outsourcing is the big problem, because at the heart of it, you still have to have clear communication.

I think the biggest advantage of living in the Valley would be the ability to meet other people and establish connections. A worker should be paid mostly for the value that they provide to their company, not necessarily just their cost of living.

I don't think that anyone wants to undercut someone else in the industry. That's just a bad practice that hurts everyone in the end.