4 ms·

Sorry, your idea is lunacy, and here's why: >Employees could take home more of their salaries. That's not how it works. These companies would pay much lower

by magduf 7y ago

Sorry, your idea is lunacy, and here's why: >Employees could take home more of their salaries. That's not how it works. These companies would pay much lower salaries, with the justification that "the cost of living is much lower". We already see this whenever companies have multiple locations, with any of those locations in low-CoL areas. They'll push employees to relocate to the cheap place, but the employees don't get to keep those high salaries.

opportune 7y ago
We’ll see, since these employers are near the top of the pay scale usually they are pretty competitive with pay to attract employees. I know for a lot of them, they don’t pay that much lower (maybe 10%) even for offices in low CoL areas For businesses in general, I agree. But there’s a reason I listed these particular ones
srj 7y ago
Pay is not based on the cost of living but on the area job market. These can have a relationship but are not the same. London is an example of an expensive city where software engineering wages are relatively low. If there's robust competition and a shortage of people, the salaries will be high.
- magduf 7y ago
  >If there's robust competition and a shortage of people, the salaries will be high. Yes, but if some software corp builds a campus in the middle of nowhere, there won't be robust competition, obviously. So the salaries are going to be terrible. The only reason the corporation would do this is to save money, so they're not going to offer salaries similar to the high-CoL location; doing so would cost them more money (paying for building the new campus, the huge administrative cost of opening and staffing this location and getting it productive, plus the lack of savings in salaries). The whole idea doesn't make any sense at all. If you look at the way companies operate, they never do this, except for manufacturing (where they're looking for low-skilled workers they can train). For high-skilled knowledge workers, they always go where the workers are.

by magduf 7y ago

opportune 7y ago

We’ll see, since these employers are near the top of the pay scale usually they are pretty competitive with pay to attract employees. I know for a lot of them, they don’t pay that much lower (maybe 10%) even for offices in low CoL areas For businesses in general, I agree. But there’s a reason I listed these particular ones

srj 7y ago

Pay is not based on the cost of living but on the area job market. These can have a relationship but are not the same. London is an example of an expensive city where software engineering wages are relatively low. If there's robust competition and a shortage of people, the salaries will be high.

magduf 7y ago
>If there's robust competition and a shortage of people, the salaries will be high. Yes, but if some software corp builds a campus in the middle of nowhere, there won't be robust competition, obviously. So the salaries are going to be terrible. The only reason the corporation would do this is to save money, so they're not going to offer salaries similar to the high-CoL location; doing so would cost them more money (paying for building the new campus, the huge administrative cost of opening and staffing this location and getting it productive, plus the lack of savings in salaries). The whole idea doesn't make any sense at all. If you look at the way companies operate, they never do this, except for manufacturing (where they're looking for low-skilled workers they can train). For high-skilled knowledge workers, they always go where the workers are.