4 ms·
> That would improve the quality of life of your workers currently required to be near SF by allowing them to relocate to lower cost of living areas I don't th
by rifung 8y ago
> That would improve the quality of life of your workers currently required to be near SF by allowing them to relocate to lower cost of living areas
I don't think you can assume that people would consider this to be an improvement in overall quality of life, especially when many (or most?) current employees joined the companies presumably knowing they would work in SF.
I personally enjoy seeing my coworkers in person and I know others on my team have requested more face time with coworkers in other offices.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoAs long as you are comfortable knowing this problem won’t be fixed for you, but maybe your kids, that’s a fine stance to take. It’s reasonable you spend your money as you choose. It’s irrational for a company to pay you more to be in SF when they can pay talent less that chooses to live elsewhere.
- landryraccoon 8y ago> It’s irrational for a company to pay you more to be in SF when they can pay talent less that chooses to live elsewhere. There’s almost no way its true that they can get the same talent for less elsewhere. You’re arguing that somehow every major tech company is simultaneously irrationally acting against their own very strong profit motives.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoI don't think many of them have bothered to try.
- saudioger 8y ago>I personally enjoy seeing my coworkers in person and I know others on my team have requested more face time with coworkers in other offices. If you had to choose between the two... would you prefer seeing your co-workers, or being able to work literally anywhere you want?