Comment by nemacol | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nemacol | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>Going full remote is a huge cost savings to companies. A cost that is now hoisted onto employees.

Commuting, lunch, tons of cloths/uniforms, (likely more stuff I am not thinking off) is also a huge cost to employees.

I know my mortgage payment is due if I go to an office or WFH. My car, on the other hand, requires loads more fuel and maintenance when I work in the office.

Electricity bill goes up slightly.

Heating / cooling costs goes up a bit. I was already heating and cooling my home though but a schedule made it so I didn't heat or cool as much during business hours (when I was not home).

For lunch I am not going out nearly as much. Mostly because my home is not well positioned for a quick trip for lunch.

Seems to me there are savings on both sides here. I could be convinced otherwise though - I have not read any proper studies where the dynamics here have been fleshed out.

I feel like I am saving lots of money and a fair amount of time with WFH.

You missed a big one. Choosing where to live. If you live near downtown SF, you might get a 15 minute commute to work, which is pretty great, but it'll be super expensive and maybe more urban than you like. Or you could live like 2-3 miles away and have an hour commute to work, but live where it's a little more residential, cheaper, and close to the beach and GG park. The nicer one is somehow cheaper! Prices are a huge function of commute. In the near term, getting to work remote lets you benefit from price arbitrage to live somewhere nicer for cheaper. In the long term, getting to work remote might spread the housing costs over a large enough space that people can get the not-crazy-dense housing so many want and municipalities might keep up with demand. If we're lucky, it could lower the average price per person at the expense of maybe raising the average price per square mile.

That makes sense.

I had not really considered moving because WFH is an option, other than the digital nomad dreams that float through my mind. :D

In my case, I live in small town WV (pop < 2500) and work outside Pittsburgh, PA. Living in WV basically means you can afford a house with acres of property IF you can make more than 60k / year (which is a big IF for most around here).

Back to the original point - The choice to live in one place over another, shorter or longer commutes, etc.. Is not the company shifting its operating cost onto its employees. is it? Do I misunderstand still?

Seems to me, if anything, this is an opportunity to continue to live the way you did before with slightly more free time and potentially more money OR, as you say, move a bit more out of town and save even more money.

This change should decrease costs for the employee, open up the labor market for the employer thus lowering costs for them as well. Shedding office space is a great way to save money anywhere in the country - Let alone in a hyper expensive place like downtown SF.

I am still failing to understand how this is pushing the cost of business onto employees.

It would be only a little cheaper and you would save some time commuting. If it was that nice before covid-19, it would have been expensive already. There was just that much demand for housing.

Where do you think all the tech people with kids moved to? And they are probably dual income. And the couples who don’t have houses were saving up for houses so that the percentage devoted to rent was limited anyway.

The beach and GG Park are mostly in the fog belt. Lived near both places. Nope. Must be thinking about one of the few really warm and sunny days. Not that nice unless you like surfing. If you are thinking the Marina area, well that is very expensive already.

Generalizing, the really nice areas in California are already pricey. You need to make a trade off for things to work out such as if you love snow and skiing, then go to Tahoe. You trade that off for food choices that won’t be nearly as good and meagre entertainment options.

The number of people in an area drives up prices but provides a quality of its own. One prime example is the variety and quality of food. So does the infrastructure/wealth of the area lead to improved education, health care services, etc...

It’s as if the wealth is mostly in the people rather than the geography and concentrating people creates more wealth.

You're totally right that everything's already super expensive all over california, and I was trying to only mention stuff within the city for a more obvious comparison, but if you leave the city, say an hour to an hour and a half from downtown, you can get an amazing house for like $2M that would cost over $6M in SF. $2M is still expensive, sure. But it's amazingly less expensive.

Fair enough. Unfortunately, the best potential neighborhoods are lower income neighborhoods that you can easily gentrify. It is sad that long time residents can no longer live in the neighborhoods they grew up in.

I also feel like I am saving mountains of money from work from home. I have been getting takeaway from the local restaurants and pubs almost every night now and my spending is actually still down from before. If I did this for long enough I feel like I would save money on clothes as well since I can wear clothes that are too worn for public use but still perfectly fine for home use.

I think of my work outfit as more like a costume.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com