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.

Most AI seems to already be limited on the topics they can discuss.

Their creators know best, after all.

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.

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

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)

Sorry, to clarify, most listings were fully remote. Every listing offered some remote

I would have thought this is good news.

Feels like months ago many on Reddit were still talking about all horror stories of working at Amazon, from spying on drivers to peeing in bottles to crunch time on projects to highly competitive workplace leading to burnout.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

I am in a lower population area of California that has an Amazon office. It's small. Less than 100 people. I know a big chunk of the people there. I was getting pinged on Linkedin to interview every few weeks for a while. It stopped about 6 months ago.

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

[deleted]

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

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

Human brains are hackable. AI will be tuned to hack the brain the same way advertising and marketing people have been doing for decades, but it will be refined and bespoke for each target. It will be cheap, it won't sleep, and can be cloned to scale up massively.

AI is going to be a horribly negative force in society. The AI we are seeing now is capital that will be built, owned, and IP-protected by capitalists to enrich themselves at great cost to society.

If an AI can do something good for society at any point in the future, a capitalist will figure out the value of that good, try to capture and monopolize it to control scarcity and make it more valuable, then bleed the hell out of it to extract profit.

[removed]

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

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.

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.

If my hands are cold the rest of me probably is as well so not sure why this is a thing that's needed unless it's for someone with some kind of circulation problem? This looks like a solution in search of a problem

More people hired, more bonus

Damn I cannot twiddle my thumbs for $250k + RSUs (although they've lost value) anymore