4 ms·
True, but I'm not sure that's equivalent. A company that employs onsite employees in a high cost of living area is demanding that they pay higher rent as a cond
by tfehring 6y ago
True, but I'm not sure that's equivalent. A company that employs onsite employees in a high cost of living area is demanding that they pay higher rent as a condition of employment and should bear the associated cost. It may still make sense for the company to bear that cost even if it's solely the employee's choice to live in a high cost of living area (e.g., for the reasons GitLab mention), but it's much fuzzier for remote employees than for onsite employees.
- kube-system 6y agoI don't think companies have ever done COL adjustments out of altruism. It's because of market effects. If you pay Kansas rates for an employee in NYC, you're not going to get qualified candidates. This doesn't make a difference if the employee is driving to an office or not. Both remote and and onsite employees live somewhere. When you hire someone in NYC remotely, you're also competing with employers onsite in NYC, paying NYC rates. If there's anything that results from the shift to remote, it's going to be that companies hire fewer people in high COL locations.