4 ms·

If employers offered either a cash comp increase, or a conference, which would employees choose? Tanstaafl...

by tarr11 9y ago

freeordead 9y ago
Yeah I mean I think this is the crux of the matter here. That and the fact that most conferences are an exercise in circle-jerking about how smart you are.
hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
If you count the tax benefit (that is, for W-2 employees who couldn't otherwise get a write-off on the conference), I'd really prefer something like one or two conferences a year. That is, the company could spend $2k to send me to a conference, but if they just paid me an extra $2k I'd only have $1500 after taxes.
- daveFNbuck 9y ago
  Most employees regularly choose not to go to conferences without having the option of taking $1500 instead. I'd gladly take a $3000/year raise to continue not going to 2 conferences every year. If I was instead told that I was going to go to 2 conferences every year as part of my compensation, I'd start looking for new employment.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    There are a whole lot of companies you don't want to work for then. Few employers will word it quite so explicitly. But I'd say event attendance is an implicit perk at lots of places. Its considered mutually beneficial.
    - daveFNbuck 9y ago
      I'm fine with it being a perk, I meant I'd leave if it became mandatory like those awful company retreat perks.
      - ghaff 9y ago
        I doubt all that many consider company retreats a perk :-) As for events, it really depends on the event and your role. If your job in part involves working with partners, communities, etc. then F2F interactions with many of those people may be important. Many people also enjoy attending such events but they're usually not (and shouldn't be) complete boondoggles.
stenius 9y ago
If it was a conference I wanted to go to anyway, and I was going to get the ticket in addition to time off and all other logistics, I'd take the conferences.

If employers offered either a cash comp increase, or a conference, which would employees choose? Tanstaafl...

by tarr11 9y ago

If employers offered either a cash comp increase, or a conference, which would employees choose? Tanstaafl...

Yeah I mean I think this is the crux of the matter here. That and the fact that most conferences are an exercise in circle-jerking about how smart you are.

hn_throwaway_99 9y ago

If you count the tax benefit (that is, for W-2 employees who couldn't otherwise get a write-off on the conference), I'd really prefer something like one or two conferences a year. That is, the company could spend $2k to send me to a conference, but if they just paid me an extra $2k I'd only have $1500 after taxes.

daveFNbuck 9y ago
Most employees regularly choose not to go to conferences without having the option of taking $1500 instead. I'd gladly take a $3000/year raise to continue not going to 2 conferences every year. If I was instead told that I was going to go to 2 conferences every year as part of my compensation, I'd start looking for new employment.
- ghaff 9y ago
  There are a whole lot of companies you don't want to work for then. Few employers will word it quite so explicitly. But I'd say event attendance is an implicit perk at lots of places. Its considered mutually beneficial.
  - daveFNbuck 9y ago
    I'm fine with it being a perk, I meant I'd leave if it became mandatory like those awful company retreat perks.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      I doubt all that many consider company retreats a perk :-) As for events, it really depends on the event and your role. If your job in part involves working with partners, communities, etc. then F2F interactions with many of those people may be important. Many people also enjoy attending such events but they're usually not (and shouldn't be) complete boondoggles.

stenius 9y ago

If it was a conference I wanted to go to anyway, and I was going to get the ticket in addition to time off and all other logistics, I'd take the conferences.