Winners & losers from today's WFH announcement:
Bay Area renters
Startups that want a presence in the Bay
Parents/mid-career (esp. moms!) that want WFH
POC that want to work from diverse cities
Budgets of second-tier US cities
Property owners in Santa Cruz, Napa, etc
-
-
Bay Area NIMBYs who hate density but presumably may need to rely on ever-increasing home equity to retire comfortably.Show this thread -
-
Denver, Austin, Pittsburgh, Portland, etc. rentersShow this thread -
Knowledge workers who can't immigrate to America because of dumb immigration policies and now instead can WFH from other countries & international cities.Show this thread -
Startups that were hiring remote now have a hell of a lot more recruiting competition. (ht @kylemathews)Show this thread -
Congressional political clout of Big and growth-stage tech as they may actually represent a meaningful number of jobs across many districts instead of cordoning themselves off in Khanna, Pelosi and Speier’s districts.Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Driving emits ~1 lb CO2/mile, flying ~0.5 lb CO2/seat-mile. You could fly from DEN-SFO every other week and just about break even with a daily Menlo Park to SF (or equivalent distance) driving commute.
-
And you could buy corporate offsets as the accounting for business travel should be fairly straightforward.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
On climate emissions: why not down? Overall energy usage?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
flying everyone to on-sites a couple times a year might prove better for the environment than having everyone drive to work every day. I’m under the impression that flying is phenomenally fuel-efficient for getting large numbers of people to the same place
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.