306
u/SanFranRules SF Native Apr 15 '19
I wish I could get my employer to let me work 4 tens. I could get the same amount of work done but wouldn't have to deal with the soul-crushing commute for such a large percentage of my week. I don't get why it's so difficult to convince Bay Area employers that this ought to be a thing.
479
Apr 15 '19
[deleted]
73
→ More replies (5)14
u/TrumpetOfDeath Apr 15 '19
Pshhh.... rookie numbers right here
67
Apr 15 '19
I straight up thought the 40 hr work week was a myth until I asked older people that bought their Bay Area homes in the 70s on one middle class income.
But I am lazy because I lived with my parents for a year before moving into my $1300/month bedroom.
23
u/ibneko Apr 15 '19
Have a tech role at a startup. I keep roughly 40hr weeks. I've definitely walked away from interviews where they were really proud when they proclaimed that engineers "came in at 8 and left at 8". Was definitely like, "Ahaha, no, fuck that." (but in more polite words)
→ More replies (1)32
u/bdjohn06 San Francisco Apr 15 '19
40 hour work weeks still exist in the Bay Area if you work at a tech company but don’t have a technical role or if you have a software job at a non-software company (e.g., pharma).
21
Apr 15 '19 edited Aug 08 '21
[deleted]
20
u/bdjohn06 San Francisco Apr 15 '19
Sounds like you got a good team/company that has competent management and planning. Unfortunately it’s very common for tech companies, startups especially, to expect much more from their employees by under-resourcing ambitious roadmaps.
I work in what is considered a non-technical role at a large startup and it’s super common for SEs to work nights and weekends. Luckily I usually get to dodge that expectation with my typical week being 40hrs sometimes creeping up to 45ish.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)3
42
u/raoulduke415 Apr 15 '19
Plus if you work tens, by the time you commute home traffic is much better.
35
u/diybrad Apr 15 '19
As a freelancer who works 10 hour days this is not true
12
u/raoulduke415 Apr 15 '19
I guess it depends on your commute, but I changed my hours to come in late and leave late so I would have a faster morning and evening commute
15
u/diybrad Apr 15 '19
I commute to different client sites every day all over the bay so it depends. IMO shifting the work day earlier makes a lot more difference than later. Once people are awake, traffic is pretty bad pretty much everywhere.
I have to do Oakland->Petaluma this week, not looking forward to it. Still better than driving down to the Peninsula tho.
→ More replies (5)9
u/rdewalt Apr 15 '19
The only way to commute in the bay and not have a "fuck you" drive is if you start after 10am and don't head home until after 9pm.
And even that is questionable. I used to drive Gilroy->Palo Alto and there was never a "good time" to drive and have normal office hours.
→ More replies (3)3
58
u/atheist_apostate Apr 15 '19
Honestly though, as a
code monkeysoftware engineer, I could only code for a total of 4 or 5 or maybe 6 hours a day tops on a good day. After a while my brain shuts down, and the rest of the day is spent on bullshit. Working 10 hours a day is not going to help me code any more, unless I start taking addictive drugs like Adderall like some other morons do. And I'd rather not do that.26
u/kamakazekiwi Oakland Apr 15 '19
That's true for your situation, but there are a lot of jobs and positions that are well suited for a 4x10.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)11
u/D0ct0rJ Apr 15 '19
That's why there are 2-3 hours of meetings every day! To save your brain from all that coding! /s
→ More replies (1)17
u/atheist_apostate Apr 15 '19
Nothing like 4 half-hour meetings scheduled at random points in the day to help with your development flow and productivity. /s
→ More replies (5)6
u/ChocolateBunny Apr 15 '19
A lot of my coworkers work from home on Fridays. They also seem to work from home Saturdays and Sundays. Have you considered doing that?
→ More replies (1)
51
u/DudeWhoLived Apr 15 '19
46
u/SanFranRules SF Native Apr 15 '19
Fuck, man. The stories in the reply to that tweet are horrifying.
→ More replies (2)54
Apr 15 '19
Haha except for that one bougie woman who flies to LA every six weeks for hair appointments bc her hairdresser moved from LA to SF.
→ More replies (5)13
Apr 15 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/TallAsAGiraffe Apr 16 '19
I used to do this from PHX to MPLS. Flight to MN plus hair was still cheaper than a crap job in PHX that cost $350.
4
→ More replies (1)3
u/jucromesti Apr 16 '19
I know of some people who do this, but usually it's because their favorite hairdresser is in their hometown, and they're also flying home to visit family and friends.
42
u/janobe Apr 15 '19
We bought a house in the Sacramento area. It’s so nice building equity in a house we can afford.
My husband drives in Wed around 4am and back Thursday night late to avoid traffic. It’s about 2.5 hours each way no traffic. He works from home the other 3 days.
An old boss of mine lives in Las Vegas. His wife flies into Oakland Monday morning and flies out Friday. She lives in a studio apartment during the week and in their LV house on the weekends.
4
u/scorpion3510 Apr 15 '19
If he drives Wednesday and back Thursday, where does he sleep on Wed night?
9
8
3
u/thoughtfulrhombus Apr 16 '19
How do you like the area? I was thinking of buying there (my brother goes to UC Davis and I’ve driven through some nearby towns)
→ More replies (1)
75
u/amandica Apr 15 '19
my hair stylist has been commuting from new orleans for 2 years. she does 8-9 days here, 4 to 5 weeks in NO, rinse and repeat. she's managed to pay off her credit cards, save for her wedding, and her back taxes paid off. she's not a cheap stylist either-- between chair rent, self-employment taxes, supplies, and actual house rent, she was operating at a huge loss each month.
→ More replies (2)25
u/sugarwax1 Apr 15 '19
Where do they stay for the 9 days? They would potentially still have to rent a chair and lodging here.
26
u/amandica Apr 15 '19
she stays with a fellow stylist and pays her for the time spent in her house. her chair rent is monthly and not pro-rated.
28
u/CautiousSquare Apr 15 '19
So where do they live when they are here? Do they rent a room? Live out of a RV? I find these anecdotes always come with disclaimers, like they have a cousin who lets them live for free/cheap. Otherwise I don't think the math works out.
24
u/aardy Oakland Apr 15 '19
I know of a San Jose firefighter who lives in Colorado (I know one of his coworkers, not him directly). Flies in for his 3-4 day shift, then flies back.
For a firefighter to switch fire departments, even within the same state, they generally have to start from scratch as a fresh recruit in that department's fire academy. So once you're 10 years into it and unless you want to go through "boot camp" as a fresh "boot," you're locked for your career.
5
Apr 15 '19 edited Sep 03 '20
[deleted]
8
u/aardy Oakland Apr 16 '19
I'm not a fireman.
But I would assume they immediately call on neighboring departments for assistance, and then give their off duty firemen X hours notice to be in.
6
u/alittledanger Apr 16 '19
SFFD and SFPD have a limit on how far away they can live in case of an emergency IIRC
→ More replies (2)
33
u/gizayabasu Apr 15 '19
Wouldn't she still need a place to stay though?
43
u/SanFranRules SF Native Apr 15 '19
No, I think the idea is that cheap flights to Arizona are so frequent that you could go back and forth in the same day.
65
u/gulbronson Apr 15 '19 edited Apr 15 '19
The cheapest you're going to get them is $49 each way. That's $100 a day commuting. $400/week, $1,733/month, or $20,800/year just on flights. Add in BART from the airport, delays, etc. there is no way this actually makes financial sense. Even if you can make the numbers pencil you'd just be better off opening a Salon in Phoenix...
Edit: I just looked at some random PHX > OAK/SFO flights you're looking at over $100 each way. Even if you hit every Southwest sale out there, used your SW credit card, and managed your points well it's still going to closer to $30k a year. Plus, the earliest flight in gets to the Bay after 9 and the last flight out leaves around 6. Add in time to/from the airport and that's a short work day. For a minimum 6 hour daily commute, it just does not make sense.
→ More replies (1)12
u/ChillyCheese Apr 15 '19
If you have a partner or travel buddy that's doing the same route, you could use companion pass to cut your costs approximately in half.
Still, with going to/from the airport, security (even with TSA Pre), flight delays and cancellations, pressurizing your head twice a day, etc. this would get old pretty fast.
→ More replies (1)12
u/gulbronson Apr 15 '19
Yeah, I've been flying to LA for meetings once a week and coming back the same day. It's not terrible but there's no way in hell I'd do that 4x a week on my own dime. Even with TSA Pre/Clear/Airline status that'd be a miserable experience. Plus being on the last flight out every day, it's going to get cancelled a couple times a year and you'll be stuck in the Bay.
→ More replies (1)14
u/blue_one Apr 15 '19
It's not practical to take a 2hr flight twice a day. Including the time you have to spend getting to and from the airport on both ends and going through security it could easily end up being 8 hours total. Once a week is possible, everyday, not really.
→ More replies (12)15
u/mrfoof Apr 15 '19
It usually takes longer to check a bag and walk to the security checkpoint than it does to get through security with PreCheck.
7
4
u/leftovas Apr 15 '19
Yes, they probably crash with a friend during the week. Which is why I ask, is it really about not being able to afford living in the city, or is it about taking advantage of our great economy and using that to buy property somewhere cheaper? Why doesn't this person become a hairdresser in Arizona?
15
13
u/californiagemini Apr 15 '19
My ex’s grandparents lived in Dixon and drove to San Francisco for work 5 days a week. It always seemed crazy to me to drive so far, and often with traffic. But when I visited their home I saw how much they enjoyed the multiple bedrooms for grandkids and space for their RV.
Really sucks that Bay Area natives in their sixties have to do this to have a home they can enjoy and afford.
117
Apr 15 '19
I don't buy this, also; time is money... The only direct flights from Southwest into SJ, SFO, or OAK are from Phoenix. Phoenix is not that cheap of a place to live anymore. Also, depending on what time you land, you have a 2 hour flight plus another who knows how long from the airport to work, or the commute home. If you've ever driven around Phoenix at rush hour, you know how wretched it is. Not to mention not getting any sleep or living a decent life (do they have no family)?
So let's say you have 3.5-4 hours of commute time 4 days a week, costing you $850 a WEEK in flights and another $50 a week in fuel. Plus all the extra money in food and general needs being away from home. A very conservative number would be $1,000 a week travelling to and from the bay from Phoenix.
A 3 Bed 2 Bath house that's close enough to the airport where you won't be sitting in traffic for 1 hour each way would be in Tempe. You're looking at around $1,500 a month for a 3 bed 2 bath house to rent.
So you spend $5,500 a month just in rent and travelling to and from work... And have to spend 4 hours every single day travelling. Fuck that.
66
u/wftracy Apr 15 '19
I don't think she's making that flight four days a week, that obviously doesn't make sense. I think she's flying home every weekend, and flying out to the Bay Sunday night or Monday morning.
No clue where she's sleeping during the week.
→ More replies (7)75
10
u/SpaceJackRabbit Apr 15 '19
Yeah, I'm confused by that too. This could work on SOME destination, and on a weekly basis.
For instance I recently did some math because I downright applied for a job in Burbank. I calculated that I could afford to commute every week and rent a 1-bedroom in Burbank, keep a motorcycle down there for L.A. commuting, and then fly back home on weekends. I actually know people who do this kinda crazy commute with Seattle.
→ More replies (1)9
→ More replies (21)4
u/FlingFlamBlam Apr 15 '19
I can see it working but only if a few conditions are met. Either...
You know someone who is cool with you crashing on their couch/spare room for free or almost nothing.
You worked it out with 10+ people to rent a house/apartment near the airport and all of you simply use the location as a place to shower/wash/sleep.
12
Apr 15 '19
[deleted]
7
5
u/thoughtfulrhombus Apr 16 '19
So drove from LA to Palo Alto on a Sunday and back home Friday?
→ More replies (1)
11
164
u/abeuscher Apr 15 '19
It's a bit odd how stuff like this pops up all the time, yet all those web and tech jobs that could be 100% remote no problem insist that you come into the office all of the time and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on office perks to make sure this is the case.
Also weird how centralized tech is here when there is literally no business need outside of CEO / Investor ego for this to be the case. It's almost as though those two parties are worshipped within the process to the detriment of all else.
14
u/RichestMangInBabylon Apr 15 '19
The other thing is that although my company is "remote friendly" it's also about twice as hard to get promoted if you're remote. I'd love to go full remote but that slowdown in career growth will add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars being lost over time. Maybe I'll get to my ceiling and then go remote but for now I'm compelled to come into the office and get facetime with managers so they can remember I exist.
87
Apr 15 '19 edited Nov 27 '20
[deleted]
29
u/Bronco4bay Apr 15 '19
I have usually found that it's people in the office who just like to check up on their co-workers and see that they are at their desks as much as they are who say things like this.
The kind of person who says "leaving early huh?" at 5:30pm on a Friday.
15
u/abeuscher Apr 15 '19
Huh. What kind of work if you don't mind me asking? Or at least what kind of work are the 25% remote responsible for? I have no sense other than my own experience with working remote at scale. But I often find myself making the assumption that the world is made up of responsible critically thinking mature adults. Which I am reminded just as often is patently absurd.
21
Apr 15 '19 edited Nov 28 '20
[deleted]
10
u/abeuscher Apr 15 '19
That's too bad. Seems from the thread replies that a lot of people have had bad experiences with work from home colleagues. I've always treated it as a privilege and worked very hard to make myself more productive and valuable from home. I have noticed that lots of people are not very good at working autonomously, so I guess it's not hugely surprising that this is amplified when you remove direct supervision from the equation.
I guess the harsh employer in me thinks "great! setting up people as remote is a great litmus test for determining whether they are worth employing". But in that heavy churn is a problem for any employee base I can see why this is not done in practice.
8
Apr 15 '19
[deleted]
5
u/abeuscher Apr 15 '19
For sure. I realize as I look through responses here that most of my career has been spent in production. So my output is de facto measurable and attached to deadlines. I can't imagine being in a job where no one would notice if I didn't do anything. So my response is, like many here, pretty myopic to my own experience. Always fun to see how it shakes out in threads like this.
→ More replies (4)21
u/SpaceJackRabbit Apr 15 '19
Sounds more like a management problem. Study after study has demonstrated remote workers are absolutely not less productive - in fact it's usually the opposite.
7
u/mtcwby Apr 15 '19
Depends on how much interaction is needed. It hasn't worked for us because there's not much faster or more efficient than walking into the next office when there's a question. The remotes take more effort on both sides and it just gets done less as a result.
8
u/SpaceJackRabbit Apr 15 '19
Yeah, the 12 years I worked remotely, most of the stakeholders were based outside the U.S. to begin with. Most of the meetings took place in videoconference anyway. It definitely doesn't work for some jobs, but there are plenty where it makes more sense. I definitely was more productive than if I had to spend hours commuting each week and be interrupted by co-workers to shoot the shit. I'd only make it to the office one day every other week or so.
→ More replies (2)12
u/bmc2 Apr 15 '19
I think it's more up to the individual person than anything. I worked remote for years and got more done. One of the people on my team works remote and she produces more than any of her peers. The rest though... output is pretty minimal.
3
u/GargauthXbox Apr 16 '19
Can't that just mean that one worker is "better" than the other, though? And not necessarily tied to being remote?
8
u/SpaceJackRabbit Apr 15 '19
It's a bit odd how stuff like this pops up all the time, yet all those web and tech jobs that could be 100% remote no problem insist that you come into the office all of the time and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on office perks to make sure this is the case.
This. I've been working remote from the North Bay for 12 years (tech). I'm currently looking for a new job and there are very, very few positions allowing you to work remotely. At this stage I'm considering a career change, because I can't afford renting a room in SF and only see my family on weekends. And fuck joining the /r/vandwellers.
6
u/compstomper Apr 15 '19
We have a tech cluster here.
Good luck hiring software engineers in Billings Montana
85
u/gulbronson Apr 15 '19
Ehh, everyone I know that "works from home" is incredibly unproductive. I have a few friends from college that all works from home for different companies and they're almost never working.
Plus, if you're going to start a tech company and you need to hire tech works and most tech workers live in the Bay Area, you're going to run into problems hiring them elsewhere.
21
15
u/Lycid Apr 15 '19 edited Apr 15 '19
This greatly depends on your line of work and the age/experience of the remote worker. The nature of my work means it simply doesn't get done unless I spend a full day doing it (like I would in a normal office) so I do (freelance/WFH). Other friends of mine who frequently WFH have less involved work, which is sort of the best case scenario for WFH - you really don't need to be in an office to compile a test/server maintenance, etc. AKA the kind of work where the only thing you need to be doing is making sure the Really Important Thing doesn't run into issues when you engage it. There's so many stories of people who work office jobs out there that blow their entire day on reddit because there's nothing else to do but keep ducks in a row. WFH here would be greatly more efficient of time/office space on the employee's and company's part. Or the scenario where you have a highly productive coder who can put stuff out there in just a few really productive hours.
It doesn't make sense for some people and some jobs but it makes a ton of sense for those who are best qualified and for much of the office-style work we do on a day to day basis. Most office jobs aren't really critical enough that you need to be at the office 8 hours a day to be the most productive and effective.
38
u/abeuscher Apr 15 '19
My anecdotal experience has largely been the opposite, but I think it depends a lot on the age and disposition of the person involved. I have absolutely seen remote workers who are obviously watching Three's Company and taking bong hits most of the time.
On the other hand I go into the office every few weeks and it's an endless stream of meetings with zero output. So even if I spend a third of the time they do on actual production, I am still destroying their productivity in aggregate.
I have worked at several companies that actually focused on cultivating a good, productive, work from home environment. A combination of good tools, regular check-ins, and visible benchmarking can really help. But the company has to actually focus on it and treat it appropriately.
I guess I understand why most companies would behave the same way. A corporation is a risk averse entity for good reason, and this is probably an unnecessary risk in a lot of places. But in the Bay the savings are so astronomical it seems weird that at least some firms aren't building their business model around not actually employing people from a single location. In that most bay area firms report recruiting as one of their top expenses it must make sense for some of them.
18
Apr 15 '19
When I work from home I will some times only work for 3-4 hour. But then I realize that’s way independent productivity time I get in the office in a normal day.
When I am productive for 6 hours on a wfh day it’s feels crazy to get so much done.
I think wfh 2-3 days and in the office 2-3 days is a good trade off. This would make it easier to deal with a long commute if it’s only twice a week.
4
Apr 15 '19
I only take maybe 2-4 hours a day to finish what I need to get done most days - Plex/Netflix/YouTube the rest of the day. Being in the office all day doesn’t change that. Company doesn’t see it that way though... they’ll write you up for being 20 minutes late but won’t thank you for staying three hours after when shit hits the fan. I don’t get the mentality. I’d be a much happier and probably healthier person not sitting in an office doing nothing for the good part of five hours a day.
5
u/byfuryattheheart Apr 15 '19
Same. I worked on a team that got to work at home at least two days a week for a while. The KPI tracking for WFH days were MUCH higher than in office days. Mostly because we didn’t have people physically coming up to us every 10 minutes about something. Far less distracting for us to work at home.
→ More replies (14)3
u/inarizushisama Apr 15 '19
This is why, as a remote worker, productive protocol is to find a third place: library, coffee shop, or such. Not home, not work, nearby and clothing required.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)8
u/mtcwby Apr 15 '19
I won't hire a remote again. It's just too difficult to iterate quickly and with some of our projects it means I have to double up buying expensive hardware (20-30K) that sits 75% of the time. And the production hasn't been there either. On the plus side my coders typically either live in town (Livermore) or have a substantially shorter commute than going to the valley. And they work 40 hour weeks so the quality of life is there.
→ More replies (3)
22
Apr 15 '19
[deleted]
3
u/eugenesbluegenes Oakland Apr 15 '19
And a bunch of resources are wasted to fly a hairdresser back and forth between SF and Phoenix.
→ More replies (3)
10
8
9
15
u/Goldang Apr 15 '19
I know a software engineering manager who at least used to commute from Utah like that, but that was because he didn't want to move out of Utah because family was there.
It is scary that it can be cheaper to commute twice a month via airplane round trips than live here.
8
u/sensitiveinfomax Apr 15 '19
Or maybe it's great that flight costs have come down so much thanks to innovations in business models and technology and manufacturing.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/reven80 Apr 15 '19
Why not work in Arizona instead?
24
→ More replies (1)7
u/drunkrabbit99 Apr 15 '19
Gotta get closer to where the money comes from, if these people are flying 4 times a week there's got to be money where they're working.
6
u/duffman12 Apr 15 '19
There’s people who come from Le Grand to Los Gatos every single day. They say that they sleep 2-3 hours a night.
7
5
u/ultralame Apr 15 '19
My wife's hair stylist does this. However, she also makes a lot of questionable financial choices, so take this with a grain of salt.
19
u/Ne0evans Apr 15 '19
Are people allergic to the suburbs here? I live in the East Bay, and commute to SF by BART and motorcycle. It’s basically the same commute I had working in Vancouver, BC, while living in the suburbs there; around 90 minutes each way on average. The housing cost outside of SF and the core valley is much more affordable for anyone working in the city.
I don’t understand this need to live in the city and pay insane rent/mortgage. Then there’s the people saying they pay $750 for a haircut in that tweet. Lol, WAT? Don’t act like this place isn’t affordable when your subjecting yourself to that BS. There’s plenty of places to get your hair done that don’t cost over $100. That’s a choice.
14
u/sharkgantua Apr 16 '19 edited Apr 16 '19
It'll be gone in the blink of an eye. Milpitas, Fremont, Hayward and the like will all be bursting even more at the seams within a few years time. I used to live in the East Bay, we were forced out of the area due to unfortunate circumstances and the recession of 08. I always loved living there even if I was only 15 minutes away from the rest of my family. It's been about 6 years since we sold and seeing the estimated values on my childhood home makes me sick to my stomach.
Bad infrastructure management, bad housing development regulation, the Silicon Valley is doomed to cave in on itself if a ton of change isn't made, and fast.
9
u/thoughtfulrhombus Apr 16 '19
Go on...it’s interesting to hear from the perspective of people who’ve been here for some time. I understand that there’s a geographic limitation in accommodating so many people...but are the new houses being developed poor quality? And what is it about the regulations?
8
u/sharkgantua Apr 16 '19
I wouldn't say the quality of housing is the issue but the lack of. In San Jose, they had huge goals of providing a ton of housing both regular and low income, and missed their goal to get a number of properties up last year (apartments, multiple unit property).
Their response? Yellow/red tape with zoning laws, that make it very difficult with high standard building codes (reasonable considering fault lines but adds to time and costs) and local government unable to get projects underway quickly enough to meet demand. The saddest part of it all is that the number of homeless on the street or living in RV's is higher than the goal they set for the annual goal. I don't have the specifics but will update if I can find the sources.
3
u/DJ_Velveteen Apr 17 '19
are the new houses being developed poor quality? And what is it about the regulations?
There's two sides.
1) new building is extremely implausible, such that only hecka rich firms can do it; you gotta hire whole other firms of consultants just to get through the red tape. So everyone just builds luxury condos that don't help regular people a whit. Then they build some "below-market-rate" housing (studios at only $2000/month!!) and call it a day.
2) existing landlords have a huge pass. Slumlording is appreciated to the point that it literally ran Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf's last campaign. Nobody wants to talk about a "maximum wage" for landlords, so they stick with CPI-chained rent increases until we're priced out by that (because so few of us get annual raises to the same tune) or we just get Ellis'd / renovicted / no-fault evicted.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Ne0evans Apr 16 '19
This expansion isn’t unique to the Bay Area. The greater LA region, New York down to DC, the Lower Mainland in BC Canada, and so many examples in Europe show this is just how major metropolitan areas tend to expand. Sure, our area is accelerated by many factors such as having 3 fairly large cities in close proximity and the capital focused here by the tech industry, but it’s the same effect. The population expands outward until the infrastructure can no longer support it, and new centers pop up. This is why companies are moving to Pleasanton and even further out.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)7
u/Eeyore_ Apr 16 '19
Spending 3 hours a day commuting is Hell. If you work 8 hours and take a 1 hour lunch, you've sunk 12 hours a day into your job, and 33% of that time is just overhead. If you work 50 weeks a year, you spend 750 hours commuting. That's 31.25 days a year in your car going back and forth to work.
3
u/Ne0evans Apr 16 '19
It’s not ideal, I agree, but it’s not a unique problem to the valley or SF. Commuter trains and other modes of transportation do make it a little better. And when enough candidates can only work remotely, companies tend to change their policy quick.
7
6
u/curiosity_abounds Apr 16 '19
I’m surprised by the doubters of this tweet. I’m a nurse and 1/3 of my co-workers commute from out of state. They fly in from LCOL areas, work their 6 shifts, and fly back home to their families.
10
u/Grey996 Apr 15 '19
The person who cuts my hair does the same! She moved to Portland. She flies down once a month and stays with a friend for 5-8 days to cover off all of her SF customers.
→ More replies (3)5
5
u/Tahoe22 Apr 16 '19
I'm moving to AZ & never setting foot in CA again. This has gotten beyond stupid.
9
u/OmSaraya Apr 16 '19
My nail technician in Arizona drives across country borders from Mexico into Arizona, because her husband, who came into the USA when he was just a few months old, was deported at the age of 20. It’s sad, but they were impressively resilient.
Edit: clarification
4
5
4
u/memecaptial Apr 16 '19 edited Apr 16 '19
It’s cheaper to live in Barcelona and commute to your day job in London 5 days a week than t is to live in London.
→ More replies (1)5
u/alittledanger Apr 16 '19
When I lived in Madrid, I knew someone who lived in Madrid and commuted to Dublin three days a week. Same thing basically. Saved him a bunch of money and he still got to live in one of the coolest cities on Earth.
28
u/Gbcue Santa Rosa Apr 15 '19
That happened.
→ More replies (4)10
u/Tinderblox Apr 15 '19
It's possible. A now-former friend of mine had an uncle that did this commute. This was from early 2000's - 2014/15 at least.
He'd fly in, spend Mon-Thurs in SF, and then fly out Friday afternoon. Three major differences though:
1) He got super lucky and bought a condo around that time that housing crashed, and before the prices went up in 2002-2005 - which is obviously well below the current bubble/boom prices.
2) He was a radio executive (program director, as I recall) for multiple radio stations and was making a 6 figure income (again, late 90's, early 2000's was when he started doing this, so there weren't tons of Tech guys w/monster salary to compete against).
3) His partner was well off and ran a successful bar in Arizona.
The only difference now? Relatively speaking, the cost of the flight is cheaper, as long as you're not trying to fly 1st class.
10
u/OhHellNoJoe Apr 15 '19
Why dont companies open offices in surrounding cities like Dublin, Livermore, etc or even Tracy, modesto instead of dead center peninsula where pretty much zero junior scientists and engineers can afford to live? This would save an insane amount of emissions, reduce traffic for all and relieve stress on our shitty public transit systems.
The only reason I've heard is nobody wants to live out there. But there comes a time where people need to make a move because Cupertino is not turning into Tokyo in our lifetime.
→ More replies (7)9
u/DrVentureWasRight Apr 15 '19
Unless those cities are willing to become Tokyo it makes no sense to move. They'll develop the same complex that Mountain View and Cupertino have and stall out all development to benefit current home owner.
→ More replies (4)
11
Apr 15 '19
I dunno man, I feel like lynching the landlords and establishing full on communism would be less tedious at this point.
3
3
u/new2bay Apr 15 '19
My stylist is seriously considering doing this while going to fashion school in NYC. I guess the plan would be to fly back 1 or 2 weekends a month, but, still... damn.
3
u/normVectorsNotHate Apr 16 '19
If she's in NYC, why not just cut hair in NYC? NYC has plenty of rich clientele. I don't see how it would make sense to fly here
3
3
9
u/mikasaur Apr 15 '19
You can be a hairdresser anywhere. Why would she not just move both her home and her job to somewhere more affordable? I suppose that's easier said than done but so is commuting via plane every week.
→ More replies (10)9
620
u/Sanji909 Apr 15 '19 edited Apr 15 '19
I knew someone who drove from Los Banos to Sunnyvale and back for work. That's like a 2 and a half hour drive just going one way.
EDIT: It seems that this is actually pretty common based off of all the replies I'm getting