Not to continue beating a dead horse but....

[HangOutdoors]

The problem with 100% remote is that it does decrease productivity in many instances, it creates isolation and it also burns people out. It also makes the work atmosphere and team comradery to suffer due to the isolation of working remote. The zone is a nice balanced mixture. Remote as well as on site balance. It allows for freeing up space but also keeps staff in touch with each other on a different level. One of the most important aspects of running successful teams is the one on one as well as group interaction - face to face. Each company will have their own model and will experiment with different balances until they find the right one that fits for them.

All of the managers and Directors that report to me get the option of running their teams how they best see fit to achieve the goals and performance metrics that I set. How they do that and how they set up their teams whether remote, onsite or some form of mixture is at their discretion. And each one works a bit different. To do things globally is a pathway to failure.

Finally I don't subscribe to "Entitlement". Just because one position allows for different types of location work, remote or on-site, doesn't mean another position will have the same opportunity. Furthermore, some individuals can work fine off site, others cannot.

 

[Quad]

The problem with 100% remote is that it does decrease productivity in many instances, it creates isolation and it also burns people out. It also makes the work atmosphere and team comradery to suffer due to the isolation of working remote. The zone is a nice balanced mixture. Remote as well as on site balance. It allows for freeing up space but also keeps staff in touch with each other on a different level. One of the most important aspects of running successful teams is the one on one as well as group interaction - face to face. Each company will have their own model and will experiment with different balances until they find the right one that fits for them.

All of the managers and Directors that report to me get the option of running their teams how they best see fit to achieve the goals and performance metrics that I set. How they do that and how they set up their teams whether remote, onsite or some form of mixture is at their discretion. And each one works a bit different. To do things globally is a pathway to failure.

By and large, this is our approach. We found that productivity generally went up over the last year, and we were very intentional to carve out time and space to prevent burnout. Similarly, we know that connectedness and culture drift when remote, and made strides to make space for that to continue. As a result, we've onboarded numerous people over the last year (some of whom we've still never met face to face) and have been quite successful in the process.

Going forward, we will likely have a hybrid approach of on-site and remote work, largely driven by employee preference. If we do hire genuinely remote (out of region) staff, I plan to have them on site for 1 week per quarter and will be glad to transport and lodge them for that time.

All said, the last year proved to our organization that while we've fought remote staff for years (to keep things "local"), the reality is that we can excel with remote staff and benefit as an organization by widening our talent pool.

 

[Quad]

The problem with 100% remote is that it does decrease productivity in many instances, it creates isolation and it also burns people out. It also makes the work atmosphere and team comradery to suffer due to the isolation of working remote. The zone is a nice balanced mixture. Remote as well as on site balance. It allows for freeing up space but also keeps staff in touch with each other on a different level. One of the most important aspects of running successful teams is the one on one as well as group interaction - face to face. Each company will have their own model and will experiment with different balances until they find the right one that fits for them.

All of the managers and Directors that report to me get the option of running their teams how they best see fit to achieve the goals and performance metrics that I set. How they do that and how they set up their teams whether remote, onsite or some form of mixture is at their discretion. And each one works a bit different. To do things globally is a pathway to failure.

Finally I don't subscribe to "Entitlement". Just because one position allows for different types of location work, remote or on-site, doesn't mean another position will have the same opportunity. Furthermore, some individuals can work fine off site, others cannot.

To add to your last point about Entitlement - some folks genuinely don't want to work remotely for various reasons and we actually made exceptions for them over the last year to be in the office.

 

[adrianp89]

The problem with 100% remote is that it does decrease productivity in many instances, it creates isolation and it also burns people out. It also makes the work atmosphere and team comradery to suffer due to the isolation of working remote. The zone is a nice balanced mixture. Remote as well as on site balance. It allows for freeing up space but also keeps staff in touch with each other on a different level. One of the most important aspects of running successful teams is the one on one as well as group interaction - face to face. Each company will have their own model and will experiment with different balances until they find the right one that fits for them.

All of the managers and Directors that report to me get the option of running their teams how they best see fit to achieve the goals and performance metrics that I set. How they do that and how they set up their teams whether remote, onsite or some form of mixture is at their discretion. And each one works a bit different. To do things globally is a pathway to failure.

Finally I don't subscribe to "Entitlement". Just because one position allows for different types of location work, remote or on-site, doesn't mean another position will have the same opportunity. Furthermore, some individuals can work fine off site, others cannot.

While I agree with most of what you said, I do not agree with this "The problem with 100% remote is that it does decrease productivity in many instances," and it counters the statement of people being "burned out" (which I also disagree with). We (hopefully any large company) have the baseline data for how people work in the office, and it can be used to see how well they perform remote. I know three companies personally that have had, generally, employees become more efficient and productive while working remote. My old job (switched in February), repeatedly stressed not to burn your self out or work too many hours, since it is easy to do while at home.

You know what burns out an employee? Getting up at 5am to get ready, eat breakfast and drive to work by 8am everyday. Oh yay its 5pm, now I get to sit in rush hour traffic for another hour. Not going into office everyday keeps me fresh, engaged, and ready to work.

My statement has many layers behind it. Another of which is that office spaces are petri dishes. I was ALWAYS sneezing and getting sick several times a year before I went remote. Minus one bout with COVID, I have felt amazing since I went remote.

 

[Crob83]

I think what people are missing is the realities of what's driving this. It's supply side, and demand is high. What will slow this is an increase in supply. That will come, on its own, as foreclosures start again. There are SO many preforclosure houses that can't be brought to market because of the govt. Once that process gets back into swing, the market will slowly cool off.

Banks won't do it too quickly either, because they know they can make lots of money by tempering the pace they sell them and keeping supply low.

The big difference between this market and 08 is the lending. There aren't a ton of VAPR loans out there set to expire. There's not as giant a boatload of subprime mortgages out there. There are a lot of FHA loans out, but not like back in the day. Moreover, the market isn't that hot everywhere. Up north, the market blows. Supply is a little tight, but they're not seeing the crazy price spike or bidding wars. A lot of what's driving our prices up is people fleeing the north. That's not likely to change either.

So overall, I don't think it's a bubble. I think it's more of a frenzy that will slow, but I don't see prices in the south coming back down, outside of maybe some big cities. The other thing is places that had overly expensive markets due to jobs like DC, Austin, etc. Are now going to have to grapple with people telecommuting. If you can work remotely, nobody will stay in a city where they have to deal with high taxes, crime, and hugely long commutes everywhere. Cities that are a bit smaller and more relaxed will, imo, do pretty well still.

It's nationwide, it's not just the south. Houses around me are going for 20K plus over listing price. My brother in law looked at a house and was the 52nd person to look at the house that day.

 

[HangOutdoors]

@Quad Agree Completely. The one side effect that I and my colleagues at different companies are seeing, is that since companies now understand that they can utilize remote effectively and how to actually do it, it opens up the possibility of hiring in areas where the salary requirements are less. 90k in California vs 90k in Northern Wisconsin is two different things. This could have an negative affect on compensations in higher areas, while infusing cash into other geographic areas that didn't previously have that availability. I believe, without a doubt, it could hurt local salaries and economic considerations in higher priced markets. It also, I am sure, will enable companies to explore off-shore and overseas more. It will be interesting to see how all this unfolds over time.

To add to your last point about Entitlement - some folks genuinely don't want to work remotely for various reasons and we actually made exceptions for them over the last year to be in the office.

Yes, we have staff who prefer to come in. Personally, I prefer a nice mixture for myself. 3 days or so on site. That is assuming the Admiral doesn't kick me out of the house, since she is 100% remote. Oncology Medical Biller, she works great in her home office, and apparently I annoy her when I am home all day......

 

[BlkGS]

The problem with 100% remote is that it does decrease productivity in many instances, it creates isolation and it also burns people out. It also makes the work atmosphere and team comradery to suffer due to the isolation of working remote. The zone is a nice balanced mixture. Remote as well as on site balance. It allows for freeing up space but also keeps staff in touch with each other on a different level. One of the most important aspects of running successful teams is the one on one as well as group interaction - face to face. Each company will have their own model and will experiment with different balances until they find the right one that fits for them.

All of the managers and Directors that report to me get the option of running their teams how they best see fit to achieve the goals and performance metrics that I set. How they do that and how they set up their teams whether remote, onsite or some form of mixture is at their discretion. And each one works a bit different. To do things globally is a pathway to failure.

Finally I don't subscribe to "Entitlement". Just because one position allows for different types of location work, remote or on-site, doesn't mean another position will have the same opportunity. Furthermore, some individuals can work fine off site, others cannot.

While I don't disagree with the "potential" effects, I will say that people are changing. I'm of the age that online learning was a hybrid when I was in school, we had some online classes that were recorded, but we mainly went in. Kids younger than me have been fully virtual for a lot of classes in college for some time now. I have friends younger than me where isolation isn't even a feasible thing for them, they have little or no local friends and all their friends are virtual. They meet and play games or video chat or whatever, sometimes they've never met their best friends in person. I myself have several close friends I talk to multiple times a week I haven't seen in a year or more, just how the world is for us younger folks who have had to move around a lot.

I think that thinking you lose the culture and teamwork and all that is right in some cases, but wrong in others. For a 50 year old, sure. For a 35 year old, less so. For a 25 year old? Not much at all.

I think the adjustment will be painful for many. In most cases, the people charged with these decision are older, and less accustomed to or prepared for it. It's hard for the leader who can't ever get their VPN to work to envision a largely remote workforce. A lot of older people are less productive remote than younger people, my father feels like unless he is in an office at a place of business, he can't get anything done. Me, I get all my paperwork stuff done on remote days, so I have my full day in office for in person tasks.

I think employers that are slow to adapt will find themselves hungry for talent and suffering as a result. A lot of people my age would be remote work as more important than salary. That will be something that is hard for older execs to get over, who value salary and benefits over all else (outside of the fluff like fit and culture that people just say).

 

[adrianp89]

While I don't disagree with the "potential" effects, I will say that people are changing. I'm of the age that online learning was a hybrid when I was in school, we had some online classes that were recorded, but we mainly went in. Kids younger than me have been fully virtual for a lot of classes in college for some time now. I have friends younger than me where isolation isn't even a feasible thing for them, they have little or no local friends and all their friends are virtual. They meet and play games or video chat or whatever, sometimes they've never met their best friends in person. I myself have several close friends I talk to multiple times a week I haven't seen in a year or more, just how the world is for us younger folks who have had to move around a lot.

I think that thinking you lose the culture and teamwork and all that is right in some cases, but wrong in others. For a 50 year old, sure. For a 35 year old, less so. For a 25 year old? Not much at all.

I think the adjustment will be painful for many. In most cases, the people charged with these decision are older, and less accustomed to or prepared for it. It's hard for the leader who can't ever get their VPN to work to envision a largely remote workforce. A lot of older people are less productive remote than younger people, my father feels like unless he is in an office at a place of business, he can't get anything done. Me, I get all my paperwork stuff done on remote days, so I have my full day in office for in person tasks.

I think employers that are slow to adapt will find themselves hungry for talent and suffering as a result. A lot of people my age would be remote work as more important than salary. That will be something that is hard for older execs to get over, who value salary and benefits over all else (outside of the fluff like fit and culture that people just say).

You make a great point about generations. Now that kids are doing school remotely - a lot of them will also want to work remotely. The same for long distance relationships. I have friends all over the country now, mostly due to job movements, but we keep in touch daily/weekly and see each other in person a few times a year. I have friends locally I see at the same cadence, so not much different in that regard.

 

[Quad]

@Quad Agree Completely. The one side effect that I and my colleagues at different companies are seeing, is that since companies now understand that they can utilize remote effectively and how to actually do it, it opens up the possibility of hiring in areas where the salary requirements are less. 90k in California vs 90k in Northern Wisconsin is two different things. This could have an negative affect on compensations in higher areas, while infusing cash into other geographic areas that didn't previously have that availability. I believe, without a doubt, it could hurt local salaries and economic considerations in higher priced markets. It also, I am sure, will enable companies to explore off-shore and overseas more. It will be interesting to see how all this unfolds over time.



Yes, we have staff who prefer to come in. Personally, I prefer a nice mixture for myself. 3 days or so on site. That is assuming the Admiral doesn't kick me out of the house, since she is 100% remote. Oncology Medical Biller, she works great in her home office, and apparently I annoy her when I am home all day......

Admiral and I definitely do not work well at home together. On days she's planning to be at home (in her separate home office even!) I schedule time either in the office or take the car down to the mechanic for maintenance, etc. Regardless, I get out and both of us remain productive

 

[BlkGS]

While I agree with most of what you said, I do not agree with this "The problem with 100% remote is that it does decrease productivity in many instances," and it counters the statement of people being "burned out" (which I also disagree with). We (hopefully any large company) have the baseline data for how people work in the office, and it can be used to see how well they perform remote. I know three companies personally that have had, generally, employees become more efficient and productive while working remote. My old job (switched in February), repeatedly stressed not to burn your self out or work too many hours, since it is easy to do while at home.

You know what burns out an employee? Getting up at 5am to get ready, eat breakfast and drive to work by 8am everyday. Oh yay its 5pm, now I get to sit in rush hour traffic for another hour. Not going into office everyday keeps me fresh, engaged, and ready to work.

My statement has many layers behind it. Another of which is that office spaces are petri dishes. I was ALWAYS sneezing and getting sick several times a year before I went remote. Minus one bout with COVID, I have felt amazing since I went remote.

Totally agree. I come in half the week and am remote half the week. Those remote days give me time to get boring paperwork stuff done at home, and then I can be more productive in the office. That division of time means that I'm not bogged down every day feeling behind constantly. I'm way less burnt out by work than I've ever been, even though this job comes with a bit higher stress level due to its nature and deadlines.

My commute isn't too bad. But even still, not having to drive in every day is amazing. You can wake up, get a workout in, get showered, and be ready for work in the time that people would spend sitting in traffic. That leads to healthier and happier employees, which is better for everyone.

 

[Quad]

You make a great point about generations. Now that kids are doing school remotely - a lot of them will also want to work remotely. The same for long distance relationships. I have friends all over the country now, mostly due to job movements, but we keep in touch daily/weekly and see each other in person a few times a year. I have friends locally I see at the same cadence, so not much different in that regard.

I've spent (very literally) the last 30 years making friends online across the country and around the world, which has probably skewed my feelings about this. I've always had very deep connections with people who I rarely see, so for me and others like me (and there are many like that on my teams!), this is just a further extension of what is already "normal" in day to day life.

 

[BlkGS]

Admiral and I definitely do not work well at home together. On days she's planning to be at home (in her separate home office even!) I schedule time either in the office or take the car down to the mechanic for maintenance, etc. Regardless, I get out and both of us remain productive

My wife and I are able to work remotely together at the same time without issues.

 

[Quad]

My wife and I are able to work remotely together at the same time without issues.

If both of us were in heads-down-get-things-done roles, it would likely be less of a problem, but when you spend your entire day in meetings and on phone calls, it's trickier. If I ever get my basement office built, it might be less of an issue

 

[FSH 210 Sport]

My uncle found a boat in a larger city about 5 hours away, printed off the price from their website and drove down the next morning. Got there and was told "that price is wrong, it is actually $6000 more than that" He said, "that is $6000 above book!" They told him that was the price because they couldn't get boats in and they had nothing in the showroom. If he wanted it, that was the price. Walked out the door stunned.

I want to get into a 212x so bad but the thought of selling my boat and not knowing if I can even get a 2022 here this summer is scary and I think unrealistic. I am told "we can order for you but have no idea when it might get here". My fishing buddies are having a heck of a time getting new depthfinders, trolling motors, etc.. for their boats. They just wanted to upgrade a few things and it is nuts right now.

Motorcycles are doing the same thing. A little 150 dirtbike used is like $3500 and a year ago I paid $1500 for them.

As you said in another post, your boating season is short and you want to spend it on the water with your kids. The old saying “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush“ comes to mind.

I was in Scheels the other day picking up some tackle and one of the floor managers came by with a flat cart and removed the MinnKota trolling motor display. I asked what was up with that and he told me that the lead time was 90 days on trolling motors. In fact, when I bought my boat almost a year ago now, there was a couple week delay because the Rip Tide Ulterra troller I wanted was still inbound. I also noticed that their display of reels was still not full yet.

Sorry to hear about your Uncles experience. If that was me I’d never buy anything from that dealer, that’s just outright gouging. Places like that will pay a price in the long run. I understand price increases due to higher production costs, but raising prices just because they can? They can eat that stuff. Friend of mine recently had this experience trying to buy his first boat, a used toon that guy started taking bids on and said the list price was just the starting bid. My friend told him to shove it up his ass.

To you I say, summer is on its way, get your boat all set and enjoy a stress free summer on the water!

 

[BlkGS]

If both of us were in heads-down-get-things-done roles, it would likely be less of a problem, but when you spend your entire day in meetings and on phone calls, it's trickier. If I ever get my basement office built, it might be less of an issue

We have a nice mix of calls and meetings with heads down work. When we have meetings we pick a side of the house. But if only one of us has a meeting, we just tune out the other person.

Come to think of it, she tunes me out a lot, so I guess she has had practice, haha.

 

[HangOutdoors]

As a side note,

If both of us were in heads-down-get-things-done roles, it would likely be less of a problem, but when you spend your entire day in meetings and on phone calls, it's trickier. If I ever get my basement office built, it might be less of an issue

Am I being unrealistic thinking that I could convert my boat into a Boat/Office and just float around LSC all day on meetings and calls?

 

[BlkGS]

As a side note,


Am I being unrealistic thinking that I could convert my boat into a Boat/Office and just float around LSC all day on meetings and calls?

I worked with a guy who lived on a houseboat. So I would say not that unreasonable, lol.

 

[Quad]

As a side note,


Am I being unrealistic thinking that I could convert my boat into a Boat/Office and just float around LSC all day on meetings and calls?

I would be lying if I said I wasn't planning this

Side note - I have had legit business meetings on the boat hahaha

 

[HangOutdoors]

I think that thinking you lose the culture and teamwork and all that is right in some cases, but wrong in others. For a 50 year old, sure. For a 35 year old, less so. For a 25 year old? Not much at all.

Yes excellent observation!

 

[kgower]

I think what people are missing is the realities of what's driving this. It's supply side, and demand is high. What will slow this is an increase in supply. That will come, on its own, as foreclosures start again. There are SO many preforclosure houses that can't be brought to market because of the govt. Once that process gets back into swing, the market will slowly cool off.

Banks won't do it too quickly either, because they know they can make lots of money by tempering the pace they sell them and keeping supply low.

The big difference between this market and 08 is the lending. There aren't a ton of VAPR loans out there set to expire. There's not as giant a boatload of subprime mortgages out there. There are a lot of FHA loans out, but not like back in the day. Moreover, the market isn't that hot everywhere. Up north, the market blows. Supply is a little tight, but they're not seeing the crazy price spike or bidding wars. A lot of what's driving our prices up is people fleeing the north. That's not likely to change either.

So overall, I don't think it's a bubble. I think it's more of a frenzy that will slow, but I don't see prices in the south coming back down, outside of maybe some big cities. The other thing is places that had overly expensive markets due to jobs like DC, Austin, etc. Are now going to have to grapple with people telecommuting. If you can work remotely, nobody will stay in a city where they have to deal with high taxes, crime, and hugely long commutes everywhere. Cities that are a bit smaller and more relaxed will, imo, do pretty well still.

In the D.C. area currently it's not uncommon to for offers to be 30K, 50K or $100K over asking price. Crazy.