3 ms·
No. The only fair way to adjust is based on value to the company, and what the potential employee is willing to accept. It isn't reasonable to use pay to remo
by randallsquared 8y ago
No.
The only fair way to adjust is based on value to the company, and what the potential employee is willing to accept. It isn't reasonable to use pay to remove the financial advantages of a candidate's choice of location, and then claim "you can now hire the best people on the planet in any particular function" as the original link does. If someone is among the best people on the planet, they'll likely be paid considerably more than the San Francisco average without regard to what their costs are.
One of the touted benefits of working remotely, for those who can, is exactly the ability to trade off the advantages and disadvantages of living in places with varying characteristics, and it's unsettling to have a company which claims to support and encourage remote work also be upfront about actively working against remote workers' ability to make these choices.
- rgoulter 8y agoYeah. "Paid to a standard of living" seems unfair for employees in that it dictates the employee's spending. (e.g. someone saving half of their salary in high-cost area saves more than someone saving half in a low-cost area, for the same 'standard of living'). AFAICT, the flipside is that "flat global pay" is that then the company can't offer as compelling an offer to those in expensive areas. (i.e. if everyone paid a flat fee and you were stuck in an expensive city, then you would be penalised when looking for remote work).
- pm 8y agoIt's either flat fee or adjust for cost-of-living based on a person's location. Flat fee is fairer, but it cuts out talent from the most expensive places.