Sam Szuchan

My entire team is remote — and it's not about dodging an office lease.

It’s about:

→ Massively reduced employee stress
→ Access to a global talent pool
→ No sitting in traffic for hours
→ More time spent with family
→ Full location freedom

You might ask, “What about communication?“

Easy.

Slack and Loom bridge those gaps effortlessly. Throw in an occasional Zoom meeting, and we're as connected as we'd ever be in a physical space.

So, what's the result?

I get a team that's not just talented, but happy. A team that's focused, not sitting through mind-numbing commutes.

So trust me—

Good work can happen anywhere.

And in my experience, it’s most likely to happen when people are where they want to be.

It's not just a win-win.

It's how work should be.

I’ve never met my team — we’re fully remote.

Here's why it's a non-issue:

→ Projects are completed on time
→ We’re perfectly in-sync on client work
→ Our output is miles ahead of the competition

All while they’re:

→ Traveling the world, working from Bali to Berlin
→ Clocking in hours from their favorite local coffee shops
→ Eating healthy homemade meals (and no expensive downtown lunches)

Here’s why it works for us:

→ I trust them
→ I set reasonable deadlines
→ They get paid above-market rates

And yeah, I’ve received some criticism for my remote-first approach…

Some people think I’m letting employees “slack off” on my dime—

Or my team would be more productive at an office.

And I’ll be first to admit it:

If you’re a micro-manager who likes to hover over your team (probably to make sure they’re not applying to new jobs)...

…remote probably won’t work for you.

But us?

We're crushing it, and it feels effortless.

No need for strict oversight, no burning the midnight oil in a cubicle.

We do great work. And we do it where we want.

It’s really that simple.

Managers and CEOs:

When you micromanage employees, you...

→ Destroy trust
→ Lower morale
→ Increase stress
→ Reduce creativity
→ Increase turnover
→ Guarantee burnout
→ Hurt decision-making
→ Disrupt communication

...all while gaining nothing.

Why is this still a thing?

So do this instead:

→ Praise in public...
→ ...and critique in private
→ Let people work remotely
→ Give them plenty of time off
→ Keep meetings to a minimum
→ Don’t hesitate to pay their worth
→ Listen to (and apply) their feedback

And most of all,
have an open-door, judgment-free, no-drama culture.

The result?

A happier, more creative, and more productive team…
…with sky-high retention.

Why wouldn’t you want that?

“Remote workers aren’t productive—you have no control over them.”

That’s a real response I got from someone dissing my remote-first approach.

Dear micromanager, here’s the deal:

I don’t need “control” over anyone…

Because I only hire people I “click” with.

Y’know, folks who get that I only care about quality work done on time—

…not how long it takes (or where it happens).

This approach gives me a huge competitive edge—

Less stress for me…

And more focus on what actually matters in my life.

But micromanagers? They’re busy making their team’s life miserable.

I feel bad for them—being that kind of leader has to be exhausting.

So how about we control less, and trust more?

It’s good for business—and good for your mental health :)

I keep hearing this line about remote work:

Bosses saying they need everyone back in the office “to maximize productivity.“

Really? Not sure about that.

Because what’s going to make people perform better:

→ Pizza parties or spending more time with family?
→ An espresso machine or dodging an hour of traffic?
→ Office chatter or taking a quick walk around the neighborhood?

Because here’s the deal:

You have to understand what drives your people.

Maybe it's not the conventional office setup…

Maybe they want something different—flexibility, autonomy, life.

Honestly, I don't have all the answers.

But I CAN tell you this:

If you don't adapt to the rise of remote work—

You're going to lose some of your best people to employers who do.

Remote work is the best thing to happen to the modern family.

Here's why:

First, it’s flexible.

Parents can run kids to school, soccer games, you name it—

Remote work fits around that like a glove. Awesome.

And hours-long commutes? They don’t exist.

Hundreds of hours wasted pointlessly in traffic…

Now, they're family time. Priceless.

Tons of money saved, too.

Less shelled out for gas, three-piece suits, and full-time daycare.

All that represents more money in your pocket.

You’ll spend way more time at home, too.

Remote-working parents aren't just names on a school form anymore—

They're there, in the thick of it, day in, day out.

Because remote work's not just a job thing—

It's a family thing.

Balancing life, work, and everything in between…

That’s an employee benefit if I ever saw one.

And why I’m delighted to be a remote-first studio.

My team works completely remote from around the world.

We’ve never shared an office. Or even met in person.

And here’s why I love it:

→ No hours-long daily commutes for anyone
→ We have way more time with family
→ I spend $0.00 on office space
→ I can work with global talent

Some other cool things about my remote team:

→ One writer, based in California, works at the beach AND the mountains
→ My designer in Spain regularly travels with family
→ Another works from Asia on a flexible schedule

Some say this isn’t possible — we’re too distant, can’t synergize, etc.
But that isn’t the case at all. We make it work with…

1. Clear expectations and deadlines from the get-go.
2. Mutual trust as the foundation of our culture
3. Occasional check-in calls to sync up

Because remote work isn’t just about freedom or flexibility, honestly—

I truly believe this kind of team is the most productive. Why?

No racing to beat the traffic, no pressure of face time in the office…

Just focus on the work at hand. It’s almost impossible *not* to focus.

Makes sense, doesn’t it?

Want to retain your best employees?

→ Let them work remotely
→ Leave your ego at the door
→ Don’t let clients disrespect them
→ Never hesitate to pay their worth
→ Don’t expect them to be online 24/7
→ Encourage (and accept) their feedback
→ Avoid messaging them on the weekend
→ Never discourage them from taking time off
→ Measure productivity by results created, not hours spent at a desk

Just try it—

Your talent retention issues will disappear.

Managers and CEOs of the world:

When you micromanage employees, you...

→ Destroy trust
→ Lower morale
→ Increase stress
→ Reduce creativity
→ Increase turnover
→ Guarantee burnout
→ Hurt decision-making
→ Disrupt communication

...all while gaining absolutely nothing.

So I have to ask: why is this still a thing?

Let’s do this instead:

→ Praise in public...
→ ...and critique in private
→ Let people work remotely
→ Give them plenty of time off
→ Keep meetings to a minimum
→ Don’t hesitate to pay their worth
→ Listen to (and apply) their feedback

And most of all, have an open-door, judgment-free, no-drama culture.

Because instead, you’ll get a happier, more creative, and more productive team with sky-high retention. And you’ll feel better, too.

And who wouldn’t want that?

My inbox is overflowing with people asking for work.

Even though don’t have any job postings—

Nor have I signaled in any way that I’m hiring.

But people are still reaching out. Non-stop.

You might think it's just job seekers, right? Wrong.

Most are actually employed—even from big companies you’d recognize.

But they all have one thing in common:

They're being pushed back to the office…

And they're desperate for remote work.

So what's the message here? Simple:

If you hire remote (even just for some roles)...

You instantly become a top choice for talent around the world.

My little agency is picking first from the global talent pool…

All because I offer freedom:

Work from home, on your own hours—

Just get good work done on time.

So, employers: if you CAN go remote—even partially—but DON'T?

In 2023, that's self-sabotage. Big time.

“Busy” workers are not productive workers.

Why?

Because everyone in your company should exist to solve a specific set of problems as efficiently as possible.

And, if while trying to solve those problems, they’re bogged down with:

→ Excessive emails
→ Micromanagement
→ Constant meetings
→ Waiting for approvals
→ Being assigned to tasks outside their scope

…they’re not being productive; they’re just spinning their wheels (on your dime, to boot).

Instead, strive to build a team of people that:

1. Sign on
2. Solve the problems they exist to solve (with zero friction)
3. Sign off

This way, they’re happier, and you’re happier.

Everyone wins.

Remote work isn’t just awesome for employee flexibility—

It's a revolution for *employer* flexibility, too.

Why?

Because remote infrastructure has incredible fluidity in scaling up or down.

After all, you’re not constrained by an office—

So whenever you need to adjust your workforce,

You can do it incredibly efficiently (and much less costly).

That's a massive advantage for any company—

Because that sort of flexibility is unparalleled.

We’re talking about streamlining operations like never before.

It's not just convenient…

It's strategic.

So, when I think about remote work, I don’t just think “convenient.”

I see a powerhouse tool for business excellence.

So embrace it.

Because in a world where change is constant...

Adaptability isn’t just an asset—

It’s a necessity.

And remote work is sure way of unlocking it.

When ChatGPT launched three years ago, the consensus was obvious: Writers were in real trouble. AI could already write better than most people, and it was only getting better.

Then Anthropic posted a writer job for $320,000.

But it’s not just Anthropic.

OpenAI posted a content strategist at $310,000 to $393,000. PayPal posted Head of CEO Content at $292,000.

Anthropic has two editorial roles: AI/Science and Economics/Policy. Policy pays $65,000 more.

The Economist pays senior writers around $100,000. Traditional journalism (the profession built on writing) pays a third of what AI companies pay for "editorial work."

Why?

Look at the Anthropic posting: "Advance productive conversations about AI policy" with "strong instincts for identifying which policy questions will matter most."

They're hiring someone to shape what questions get asked. In policy, questions determine answers.

"How do we regulate AI safety?" gives one set of outcomes. "How do we maintain American leadership?" gives completely different ones.

The skill isn't writing. It's predictive judgment about which frames become infrastructure.

Modern discourse needs specific knowledge worth listening to and legibility to audiences that matter.

Most people do one. Academics often produce rigorous but unreadable work. PR often produces polished but empty messaging.

AI can explain any position. But it can't tell you which position to take, which question to elevate, or read institutional power dynamics.

A16z is building infrastructure for this. They recruited James Reina from Mr. Beast (450M subscribers) for a fellowship that forward-deploys media operators into portfolio companies."

Their new service explicitly offers to "win the internet for a day" for portfolio companies. They're building "the best turnkey media operation in venture" - the "F1 Pit Crew" for narrative control.

This explains why Musk and Andreessen spend hours posting online. They're not just expressing opinions. They're building infrastructure to control which ideas become consensus before anyone realizes there's a contest.

We're watching influence centralize around systematic infrastructure.

Elite institutions are building machinery to occupy where public opinion forms. A16z embeds operators in portfolio companies. Anthropic wants to be "at the center of critical conversations."

The bad writers are finished. The okay writers are finished.

The people who can identify which questions will matter before they're obvious? Who engage with institutions while maintaining strategic clarity?

They own discourse.

In a world where narrative shapes reality, where questions determine policies and who gets to build, owning discourse means owning outcomes.

The $300,000 isn't for writing.

It's for power.

P.S. Full breakdown with receipts in the comments

MrBeast just said what a lot of creators are thinking. When AI content becomes as good as normal content, millions of creators are screwed. This problem exists on every platform right now, including LinkedIn.

Here's what to understand (and how to stay ahead):

1. We just exited the scarcity era (and algorithms don't know it yet)

You can spin up a full content calendar - 3 posts a day for 365 days - instantly. In 2022, that same AI-generated copy would've been considered excellent. Now it's free and infinite. Platforms were built for effort-gated content. That friction was the filter.

The filter is gone. Supply is exploding faster than platforms can adapt. Attention is zero-sum. Every AI post getting one impression is one less impression for you.

2. Platforms are celebrating the wrong metric

Social platforms are excited AI is increasing “engagement.” But they're confusing “activity” with value. Every AI post, even garbage, steals from a finite amount of attention. Spam existed before, but not at this scale and definitely not this speed.

Platforms are in FOMO mode about AI. Creators are watching their reach change. The platforms will eventually adapt, but you can't wait for that.

3. You're not competing with AI - you're competing with forgettability

AI can generate “content.” It cannot generate the feeling of "I can't wait to see what they post next." That only comes from never wasting someone's attention. Post at least 3x/week for consistency. Every post either builds credit with your audience or diminishes it.

4. The “bookmark test” beats “engagement”

Deep posts providing real value are 3x more likely to get engagement. But engagement is a lagging indicator.

Before you hit publish, ask: Can someone do something with this information right now? Would they share this with a colleague? Would they bookmark it to reference later? All three have to be yes, or you're just adding to the noise.

Example: "Post consistently" fails this test. "Run every post through these three questions before publishing" passes it.

5. AI can't replicate experience - so stop writing like it can

Posts need to be fluff-free but dense with insight only you have. The "Would someone pay money to hear this?" filter is brutal but necessary. If not, you're competing with infinite free content.

The only moat is original knowledge - specific decisions, costly mistakes, frameworks from failures. And repurpose ruthlessly. A good LinkedIn post becomes a newsletter, video, thread. Don't depend on one platform's algorithm.

KEY LESSON:

You're not competing for visibility anymore.

You're competing for memorability.

AI can flood feeds with content. It cannot make someone think "I will never forget who wrote this."

The creators still winning aren't posting more.

They're posting things people can't forget.