Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
47 minutes ago, RPM said:

Where are all these work from home jobs? Asking for a friend (seriously, he's been looking for several months).

To the original point, if you are single and this job allows some great digital nomad lifestyle to chase skirts then this is a debate. If you have any responsibilities it isn’t.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Celery Man said:

to me, the idea that I'm "discover 5 more weekly hours" away from moving the needle meaningfully on some smart investment moves is bananas, at least on that salary and in comparison to what I could do with twice as big of a shovel. Similarly, if you can make it on 120k (which, if you're willing to take 120 that's assumed) then surely 240 means your wife could stay home and cook or you can hire a chef/meal service, you can solve any number of time problems with the money. Even the commute, although I think that's realistically the thing that is the big sacrifice in time and soul sucking if you're not just extremely introverted.

i think you might be able to start to bring me around if you adjusted the numbers a bit and added some sort of draconian stuff to the office part. Generally if you're a white collar worker making $240k in an office you can duck out for therapy. I'm also assuming it's not a bullshit job that you do in 2 hours at home but 8 hours in the office, or there's not some other catch like you have to work 80 hours a week or whatever. Drive in, drive out, you're at work all day. I say this as someone with a 2 year old and a 4 year old who wakes up every day at 5 and eats well and exercises and keeps a clean house and is an engaged dad and all that kind of stuff - the commute time seems easily worth it in exchange for bigger vacations and better college funds and less groceries and bill stress and more flexibility for the family and activities and etc etc etc. I am surprised that there's this much of a debate for 2x income.

This contains most of my thoughts. If it means your wife could stay at home (childcare, healthier meals, volunteering/networking, improved work/life balance for you, and all the many benefits of this setup), that's a huge consideration. Even assuming everything about the job is the same (which is unlikely at such discrepant salaries), the specifics about the work environment and policies are important. Also note that if retirement contributions are based on a percentage, that's another mark in favor of the higher salary. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

We ran the experiment of “imagine what we could accomplish if we didn’t have to go into the office” and 95 percent of the population chose to bake shitty sourdough, never change out of sweatpants, and get fat while binge-watching Netflix. Spare me the wishcasting of all the amazing things we could do by not going to work and just locking in at home. We are fucking animals and we will choose to consume calories and conserve energy just like other omnivores if given the choice. 
 

100 percent agree that I will assume peiple who demand WFH as their top priority have low ambitions and low desire to learn. I think WFH is an incredibly important flex tool that can be deployed in a time-constrained way but if you’re doing it all the time you’re just a widget. 

While the comparison of the scenarios has to be a adjusted for potential variables (if I'm avoiding 3 hours a day of commute time, that is a real difference-maker, for example), the above has a lot of truth.  As do the points about mentoring and the like.

And yes, I also had first-hand experience with people for whom "WFH" meant "do the absolute minimum, and actually, I'm gonna be outside gardening, walking my dog, etc., during working hours."

All of that said, the real driver is "what kind of job is it?"  There are absolutely a shitload of good white collar jobs that can be done entirely or almost entirely WFH.  There are a lot of PROFESSIONS that benefit greatly from being in-office/in person.  I had plenty of depositions, hearings, mediations, and even trials by zoom during the COVID times.  I can assure you, ALL of those things work much better in person.  And yeah, having associates here, in the office, where they are part of spontaneous conversations, work sessions, task assignments, etc., develops them so much better.  So, it depends on the job.

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

This contains most of my thoughts. If it means your wife could stay at home (childcare, healthier meals, volunteering/networking, improved work/life balance for you, and all the many benefits of this setup), that's a huge consideration. Even assuming everything about the job is the same (which is unlikely at such discrepant salaries), the specifics about the work environment and policies are important. Also note that if retirement contributions are based on a percentage, that's another mark in favor of the higher salary. 

 

It's pretty straightforward to monetize some aspects of benefits of WAH vs. in office setting, but some the other aspects you outlined are certainly harder to put to value to. And the value assessment will vary based on a significant number of very individual and/or personal factors. 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Sometimes wearing no pants. 

 

I have worked my whole career remotely. I don't know how people go to an office. So much wasted time and resources involved in commuting. 

Honestly--and I mean no disrespect by this--but the fact that you've worked your whole career remotely answers so many questions about you and your posts.

  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, Ghost of LL said:

Honestly--and I mean no disrespect by this--but the fact that you've worked your whole career remotely answers so many questions about you and your posts.

LOL. The fact that you think that post can inform your assessment of me or my posts says more than enough about you and your willingness to speak from ignorance. I of course mean no disrespect. 

Posted

I'm about 3.5 miles from my office now.  Given the proximity, I'd be in the office for 240.

Not really a tough call.

I enjoy my hybrid schedule now, but if they doubled my salary and returned to 5 days in...yea, I'm doing that.

Posted
2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

We ran the experiment of “imagine what we could accomplish if we didn’t have to go into the office” and 95 percent of the population chose to bake shitty sourdough, never change out of sweatpants, and get fat while binge-watching Netflix. Spare me the wishcasting of all the amazing things we could do by not going to work and just locking in at home. We are fucking animals and we will choose to consume calories and conserve energy just like other omnivores if given the choice. 
 

100 percent agree that I will assume peiple who demand WFH as their top priority have low ambitions and low desire to learn. I think WFH is an incredibly important flex tool that can be deployed in a time-constrained way but if you’re doing it all the time you’re just a widget. 

There are lazy bums that go into the office every day because they happen to be extroverted.  Our VP of Engineering is the hardest working person in the company and she lives remotely.  It completely depends on what kind of person you hire, the outwardly demonstrative 'go-getter' is just as likely to be a brown-noser yes man than an effective leader.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, gurt said:

There are lazy bums that go into the office every day because they happen to be extroverted. 

Yeah, claiming only bad lazy employees WFH. As if people don’t go into the office solely to socialize, do no work, talk to everyone, eat the food 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Double the salary makes it a no brainer to me unless you already make enough to live as comfortably as you want to live. I don't think this is a common scenario though. I currently have one WFH day per week and every other Friday off. It's a good balance for me and is a massive improvement over going in five days a week. Even with this minimal change, the time saved in traffic, less wear and tear on my vehicle, less gas burned, less overall stress from the commute, more productive on days when I just need to be left alone is noticeable. I hope they don't roll it back, but it seems like most companies are.

Edited by Okie State
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
36 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Yeah, claiming only bad lazy employees WFH. As if people don’t go into the office solely to socialize, do no work, talk to everyone, eat the food 

It's boomer brained shit. They haven't and won't adapt.

Posted
39 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Yeah, claiming only bad lazy employees WFH. As if people don’t go into the office solely to socialize, do no work, talk to everyone, eat the food 

Yep. People who truly take advantage of WFH to do half an hour of productive work are the same ones who used to take 2-hour lunches and 90 minute shits. I suppose the argument is that it's better to have them visible to their supervisors but being in the office isn't going to turn them into leaders and go-getters.

Posted
3 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Yep. People who truly take advantage of WFH to do half an hour of productive work are the same ones who used to take 2-hour lunches and 90 minute shits. I suppose the argument is that it's better to have them visible to their supervisors but being in the office isn't going to turn them into leaders and go-getters.

Middle mangers need to justify their job by spending their time in the office walking around ensuring butts in seats 

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, chainsaw said:

So, I view that extra 5 hours per week as the only realistic way to devote adequate time toward profitable side hustles. If you're an enterprising person who believes in yourself, you should take the WFH and wisely invest the free time in your own capabilities

If you can replace 120k per annum by doing something 5 hours per week, then you should do that thing full time. Or at least more than 5 hours per week. 

Edited by Pato del Muerto
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
The question is whether you'd sell out, for a significant amount of money, a significant amount of your autonomy. The best argument I've read so far in favor of selling out is that the extra money enables you to retire sooner. But think of all the time you lose every day, getting ready for work, wasting downtime at the office, commuting, and how much more productively you could be using that time, including on activities whose revenue could far surpass the additional $120k that would be earned via the paycheck.


Where did the premise say anything about selling out your autonomy? I would interpret it as you are putting in the same amount of work from home that you would in the office, and that your professional autonomy is essentially equal.

With regards to the 5 hours you are supposedly saving by not getting ready for work and commuting each day, I think it’s a fairly big assumption that most people would fill that time with productive personal activities. Some people would, especially those with demanding schedules who struggle to balance family commitments and personal interests and are highly motivated to make both work. But I think a lot of people would simply sleep more or waste time doomscrolling their phones.

Meanwhile, the extra $120k could easily cover time saving expenses like a landscaping service, housekeeper, meal prep, etc.
Posted
9 hours ago, wild_turkey said:

With regards to the 5 hours you are supposedly saving by not getting ready for work and commuting each day, I think it’s a fairly big assumption that most people would fill that time with productive personal activities. Some people would,

Yay I am some people!

(I go to the gym instead of spending all that time getting ready to go into the office) 

Posted
14 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Honestly--and I mean no disrespect by this--but the fact that you've worked your whole career remotely answers so many questions about you and your posts.

Seeing the overwhelming WFH preference ITT answers so many questions about this board in general.

Posted

I’d take the doubled salary in an instant. I can do my job anywhere and if they wanted it done in an office - fine. I’ve hung Do Not Disturb signs on my cube back when I worked in an office. That plus head phones and people generally left me alone. And extra $100k saved and invested is $1.3M to $1.5M over 10 years. If you are able - you take the office job and have a legit opportunity to FIRE.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

I'd take the money and commute again, but if anyone actually thinks it would change my expertise and productivity, they are full of shit.  I can do my job anywhere there is an internet connection.  I collaborate daily with team and customers. If some dumbass wants to pay be double to do it in a cube, fine.

Posted
21 hours ago, NaTeWHO said:

Switched to WFH during COVID and moved a few hours away from the office. I did that for 4 years and could not wait to get back. It's now been a few months and I'm so much happier. WFH went well for the first couple years, but then my home office began to feel like a prison. I missed the camaraderie. I really like the people I work with and who work for me. It's hard to relate/build trust with new junior engineers when all they see of their boss is a Teams icon. I was offered the opportunity to run 100+ million dollar program and build a new team at a new location in the place to be for my line of work. All I had to do was move to Huntsville, AL. 

Can relate to this quite a bit. As I've mentioned on other threads, I WFH in Colorado while my company is still in Florida. Travel a couple times a quarter for meetings/etc. I LOVE WFH, especially with a child in kindergarten, the flexibility is priceless. But I'd be lying if I said that even though I don't miss the commute, morning prep, etc., I do miss the people I work with and being in and around the office and the chatter. I'm fortunate enough to have a really great team that we truly enjoy spending time together. For example, our leadership team just visited the Philippines for a week to meet some of our remote staff that live out there. There's an undeniable intangible benefit to working across the desk from someone rather than just a face on the Teams call.

I'd go back to in office for $240 vs WFH for $120. Now... if the WFH was $160k+, easily choose WFH.

Posted

I guess as an old I'm wired a bit differently, but I just find I am more productive in the office.  There is an energy and a shared experience that just focus (as I type on surly from the office).  Of course, since we own primarily office buildings, we encourage people to work from the office.  But on a personal level, I just prefer it.  Of course I've always had my own decent sized private office.  If I had a cube or some shit, maybe I'd feel different.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

I guess as an old I'm wired a bit differently, but I just find I am more productive in the office.  There is an energy and a shared experience that just focus (as I type on surly from the office).  Of course, since we own primarily office buildings, we encourage people to work from the office.  But on a personal level, I just prefer it.  Of course I've always had my own decent sized private office.  If I had a cube or some shit, maybe I'd feel different.

This is where I am at. I just work better in office than out. I would easily do the in office job in this debate. Even in a city like Boston where the commute is easily an hour each way (by train/subway).

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...