Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Acceptable_Repeat908 t1_jcyo489 wrote

Not that I have seen, largely it's a viral response to other companies laying off. There are still like 400k unfilled tech jobs in the US.

4

phdoofus t1_jcyvb57 wrote

Yeah...it's more that they need to 'do something' about demands for better pay.

2

Dismal_Clothes5384 OP t1_jcyoagx wrote

Thanks for the anecdotal evidence but I’m curious if anyone has studied the data and able to pull out real analysis

−6

colonel_beeeees t1_jcyr990 wrote

Just got hired for a wfh tech job and there's dozens of open positions in my area

2

Dismal_Clothes5384 OP t1_jcyrfv7 wrote

When you were applying, what % of jobs did you see that were fully remote vs some sort of office requirement?

−1

colonel_beeeees t1_jcytu6l wrote

All offered some remote, most I saw was three required office days, but that was rare

2

Dismal_Clothes5384 OP t1_jcyua7t wrote

Thanks. That’s my assumption as well. Fully remote jobs will be increasingly rare while employers have the upper hand. Most will require some days in the office, whether it’s 1-2 days a month or 3 days a week.

−1

Whispty t1_jcytv8k wrote

I wonder the same. I wish I had easy access to that data and could throw something together to answer that for you. I am hybrid and I am the new guy, so I stay scared lol.

2

Dismal_Clothes5384 OP t1_jcyo66g wrote

My hypothesis is that for companies who are not fully remote, fully remote workers, workers who are still not complying with hybrid work policies, and those that moved to LCOL/MCOL satellite offices (I.e. away from major tech hubs and main offices) will be disproportionately impacted. I’m curious if any data exists yet to support this.

Employees had all of the bargaining chips the last couple of years leading to unsustainable increases in TC and worker friendly policies (e.g. WFH. I’m assuming as the power shifts back to employers, we’ll see shifts the other way quickly.

1

Acceptable_Repeat908 t1_jcyt3ob wrote

I think you're going to see a lot of FAANG types end up in lcol areas working remote for Non-FAANG, Non-tech.

Non-Tech/Non-FAANG can't otherwise "afford" the expertise they may need and remote work is one of the only incentives they can offer for high skilled mid level and senior employees.

2

Dismal_Clothes5384 OP t1_jcyufx5 wrote

Interesting. Definitely a possibility that if they can’t offer similar TCs they’ll make up for it in other ways.

1

Acceptable_Repeat908 t1_jcyva57 wrote

Greatly reduced stress while still having healthcare and 401ks and HSAs, far less money, but working remote and in a position in the company where it is assumed you will be offering technical expertise and work but also leadership and management.

It's also a good way for tech folks to move into management if they have the desire and interest and social capability.

Similar stuff happened in 08, and in 2000. (I'm old, I was there)

1

DoesntWantToBe t1_jcyvzry wrote

That's hiring 101. You offer benefits to make up for lack of high pay. Remote work, "unlimited" PTO, generous maternity/paternity leave. Really whatever you have to offer. Not knowing that strongly suggests a lack of experience in corporate hiring and business processes, raising questions about how you came to your hypothesis in the first place. Is this maybe more of a shower thought than a genuine expectation of data?

I've been remote since 2011. It's always been the case that non-SV/Big tech companies offer generous benefits to tempt people away from the more competitive, higher stress, higher demand jobs.

1

Acceptable_Repeat908 t1_jcz0oso wrote

I get the impression he's younger FAANG that moved out or looked to move out of the bay area and is now worried.

1

Dismal_Clothes5384 OP t1_jcyrmgo wrote

I feel like this is going to get downvoted because people here don’t like my hypothesis. Don’t shoot the messenger lol

−1

merkwerk t1_jcyvlnx wrote

I mean tbh your hypothesis has literally 0 data to even begin to support it so...? It's not even really a hypothesis, generally need at least some limited data to even call it a hypothesis.

5

Dismal_Clothes5384 OP t1_jcyw79j wrote

If you’re going to be pedantic, the limited data behind my hypothesis is that I’ve seen more companies call for workers to come back to the office and I’ve seen more workers in my area acquiesce to the demands out of fear of job loss (where a year ago they were laughing about it saying they’d never go back). All anecdotal, yes

−2