3 ms·
> I don't see a problem with reducing Ann's pay. It does seem odd that an employer can use a person's lifestyle as a basis for adjusting their pay. Almost a vi
by solidsnack9000 11y ago
> I don't see a problem with reducing Ann's pay.
It does seem odd that an employer can use a person's lifestyle as a basis for adjusting their pay. Almost a violation of privacy.
- jacquesm 11y agoIt is and it wouldn't. An employer that would adjust their rate downward if someone's living conditions change would lose their best people rapidly. If you want 'presence' in a certain location you'll be paying market rates and those already factor in what it costs to live there.
- iopq 11y agoSomeone in silicon valley might have local job offers for said $170,000 which will not be there if she moves away (let's say those offers are NOT remote work)
- johnnyo 11y agoI was surprised they explicitly paid more based on the number of dependents. That seems odd, since it seems completely irrelevant.
- rtpg 11y agoIt does look bad in the "reducing salary" aspect, but if you're asking someone to come to SF I sure hope there's a major premium so you can afford your half-an-appartment
- solidsnack9000 11y agoIf you're asking them to move to SF, yes. But if they choose to move to SF...should they get a raise?