I hate the conflation of hours in a seat being a measure of productivity. How about actually measuring work product and quality versus amount of hours spent producing that work product. It’s just like when coders were judged based on lines of code versus whether the code is high quality.
In August, remote or hybrid job posts attracted more than one-half of all applications in 157 of the largest metro areas, according to LinkedIn data analyzed by Bloomberg. All the while, the number of hybrid or remote job posts has declined since 2022.
So companies that allow remote work will have the pick of the best applicants, while those without will be left with anyone who can't get a remote job. This will make in-person companies less effective and productive, especially because studies are showing remote work is more productive.
But at least their commercial property values won't go down. So that's nice.
Why would I do that instead of going to the office of my company? Besides, knowing me, my productivity wouldn’t be much better if any compared to at home
It also means that remote employers can pay less for better talent due to the intense competition. It’s somewhat of a win-win, as it results in cost savings for companies while allowing workers to choose if they prefer flexibility of remote work versus a higher paycheck. I imagine that the pay doesn’t make much of a difference in pocket money when considering commuting costs and higher CoL in areas closer to jobs.
I mean, companies that forced back to office had massive exoduses. It makes sense that they have to pay more to find replacements. I personally went from fully remote to hybrid and nearly doubled my salary.
Any company who sees that by going fully remote they pay less for better workers and avoid paying for office space and doesn't do it is going to see investor backlash.
Add comment