How is that a socialist argument? Telling workers to share resources because the company refuses to reduce its profit margin sounds capitalist to me.

That's how capitalism works, specifically delivering to capitalists the difference between the product's value and the worker's wage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_labour#Surplus...

It can be difficult to remember that the system wasn't always like this.

I didn’t say it wasn’t how it works? Nor was I complaining, just pointing out that the sentiment is universal.

Steve and Larry share their employees salaries with each other to avoid a bidding war over top talent.

Lucy finds out and orders Steve and Larry to stop doing that.

Now Steve shares salary data with Teddy and Teddy tells Steve what the market average is. Larry also shares salary data with Teddy and also learns what the market average is.

No collusion! But the effect is the same. That's why they earn the big bucks.

Knowing the price of a thing is how markets work. If I want to buy tomatoes and a friend tells me a shop down the road has them on special offer, that's not collusion.We're not artificially suppressing the price of tomatoes. Anyway companies already know this by just offering a given salary and seeing if they get decent applicants. If they're not getting enough good applicant, they just raise the offer if they think it's appropriate. Having said that the habit of companies suppressing info about salaries between employees should be fought.

>If I want to buy tomatoes and a friend tells me a shop down the road has them on special offer, that's not collusion.We're not artificially suppressing the price of tomatoes.

You mixed up the analogy though. Rather it should be that tomato seller 1 talks to tomato seller 2 down the road and they agree to never charge less than x$ for 1 pound of tomatoes thus removing market forces and creating an artificial floor for tomato prices

> I would hate to see my team work on evenings and weekends

I've worked at startups and Google. The glacial pace of the latter can mean working late feels necessary to get anything done. And even tiny changes can take forever so the feeling of having accomplished something of value is infrequent at best. Maybe it gets better at higher levels, though the internal memes don't give me much hope.

Some people are suited to big corps while others prefer start-ups. Nothing wrong with a little diversity.

When I interviewed in pre-pandemic Mountain View, there was a section of the parking lot with around 6 RVs parked next to each other. I couldn't believe my eyes.

Maybe they did it long enough to save up money for a house.

I meet once a week with my team and once a week with my manager, that's it.

FYI these reports are being escalated very quickly.

I'm surprised your manager let you join a 20% project as a noogler. Sounds like poor remote management at least deserves a slice of blame.

The right mental health diagnosis might temporarily shield you from certain employment consequences and longer term actually help you find a sustainable pattern of work and life. Google offers benefits and resources that might help in that area, try them before you lose access.

"a day in the life of an engineer working from home" https://youtu.be/Rgx8dpiPwpA

> Google [...] would reduce the pay of those who choose to work remotely or move farther from the office.

Sample size of 1 here: Google approved my working remotely in a small town outside a major city at the same compensation as working in the office in that major city. So no pay cut.

I think there's a game of telephone going on with the facts in these articles:

"could see different changes in pay" -> could lose money" -> "would reduce pay"

Exactly (Google employee here as well). Those articles are completely disingenuous. You could have made the headline “Google will increase the pay of remote workers” and it would be equally true.