Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am moving only when I am assured I can permanently work remotely - while making sure that I move somewhere (a) close to an airport as they may call me into the office periodically anyway and (b) an area with a viable job market. So that means I'd just move to a different metro area.
It's tempting to just move to some small city somewhere where you can live like a king comparatively on your big city salary, but imagine losing your big city job then and being stuck with a property that isn't likely to gain much value and a local job market that has next to no openings in your field. It seems far too risky. I can see how someone very high up in a very established company that's doing very well might do that, but for your typical worker that doesn't seem like an option.
Very good points with the bolded.
That's why I was blown away by the responses in a relatively recent thread where so many people said they would move to these small / remote / podunk towns if allowed to WFH permanently.
TBD...do companies push the envelope on WFH (particularly the never-in-office scenarios this assumes), or do companies lag behind what workers want? I think the latter is more likely but the jury is out. I'd assume lower pay would be an employer consideration in most cases, and help level out the supply/demand for those positions.
The ability to work well remotely might be more rare than a willingness to do so. You wouldn't want to be cut for performance issues, and have that hurdle in finding the next position.
Early in the pandemic, I heard them discussing a study on Markeplace (NPR program), where some business professor (at Stanford IIRC) looked at data for work from home workers, and they were actually more productive than those in the office (not sure what metric they were using for productivity). However, they were more likely to be passed over for promotions/raises and were more likely to be fired. The thought was that the lack of face to face time made it easier for bosses, from an emotional standpoint, to cut someone who they only interact with over the phone and email. With all the Zoom meetings, I don't know if this still holds true, but it may impact things once some employers go back to office settings.
Wife works for a large Fortune 50 company overseeing many. 1) There have been a lot of non-tech/engineering employees who have relocated not knowing if WFH will be permanent. They are not skewed young. Some are 10+yr employees. 2) Wife knows company will be more flexible but is highly doubtful of WFH permanency. C-level seems hell bent on office culture. Internal employee surveys say vast majority want to continue WFH.... being untethered to a location & a commute ranked highest. I’ve got plenty of popcorn ready to watch how this all unfolds.
Wow, that's crazy. I have encountered plenty in my org that have made statements that they don't want to go back into the office again, but I have no way of telling how rigid they would be in the face of a mandate.
My guess is those individuals that have moved....they must have determined in advance they were okay losing their current job in favor of a newer flexible one if it came down to it?
Those people are presumably assuming that other WFH opportunities will be available if they need new jobs.
This is the big issue for me. That's a huge assumption for these people to make, especially if they're getting a mortgage out in the middle of nowhere.
I'm sure it'll work out well for many people but there will be a big chunk of folks who will be stuck in a very unfortunate situation.
Wow, that's crazy. I have encountered plenty in my org that have made statements that they don't want to go back into the office again, but I have no way of telling how rigid they would be in the face of a mandate.
My guess is those individuals that have moved....they must have determined in advance they were okay losing their current job in favor of a newer flexible one if it came down to it?
I've heard of stories like that. People trying to basically present their employer with a 'fait accompli'. It's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission. I think there's a reason it's mostly senior people doing it. They figure they're entrenched in their positions, so the employer will want to keep them around.
A lot of "what was normal" for a workplace, is not the normal moving forward.
Business owners and corporations have learned that having people working from home is a massive cost reduction and savings for them, and results in a much more satisfied, happy and productive employee.
I think a mostly remote option or hybrid remote option is here to stay.
Most of my clients (easily 80%) have moved all employees remotely due to COVID of course, and now have moved towards most all new hires being fully remote, and if not, hybrid.
It has taken a pandemic for companies to understand the value of remote work--and it is a huge win for employees.
The "all onsite" model of white collar work is most likely a thing of the past.
With the exception of a few C Suite execs at HQ'S, my company has been all WFH for over 10 years. The savings in office space alone has been phenomenal, and productivity and morale are routinely high. It's a verified win.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
