3 ms·
Yeah. "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-c
by rgoulter 8y ago
Yeah. "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.