7 ms·

This will accrue many negative comments here. I have to say that I can understand the reasoning behind this. I think it’s fair. I would expect that they increas

by baxtr 6y ago

This will accrue many negative comments here. I have to say that I can understand the reasoning behind this. I think it’s fair. I would expect that they increase the salary if you move to a more expensive place.

ende 6y ago
> I would expect that they increase the salary if you move to a more expensive place. lol
- w0m 6y ago
  my last company was a fairly global fortune 100. Our intranet had a hard list of salary adjustments they pertained globally for internal transfers per site. if I moved from a low COL area to SF, I got a 15% raise. SF to my office took a 15% hit. the transfer ratios were all (internally) public knowledge.
learnstats2 6y ago
>they increase the salary if you move to a more expensive place. At the moment, they increase the salary if they require you to move to a more expensive place. Why will they continue to pay you more if it's no longer required?
losteric 6y ago
Does the value you create for the company depend on location? I don't think it's fair for businesses to extract more profit from me because I live in a cheaper area than my coworkers
- temporalparts 6y ago
  Cost of living and taxes are very real. CA income taxes are > 10%. Some states have 0% income tax. On that basis alone, CA employees should make 10% more than those places without income tax. Then there's cost of living, rent, etc. You can legitimately earn more while being paid less by moving to a lower cost location.
- benhurmarcel 6y ago
  Your salary isn't proportional to the value you create. It only has to be less than that value, but otherwise it's just determined by offer and demand.
- erik_seaberg 6y ago
  Facebook is paying what it takes not to be outbid on hiring you. Currently that depends on supply and demand for the labor market you're in. If everyone paid for value, Intel and AMD would be getting almost all of my salary.
  - vkou 6y ago
    People working remotely from Palo Alto are in the same labour pool as people working remotely from Eugene, Oregon... And the wierdo who lives in a goat farm in the middle of nowhere, Idaho. The labour pool argument only makes sense if you commute into the office. With remote work, everyone in the same country + timezone belongs to the same labour pool. Companies that will treat the remote labour pool as uniform will trivially be able to outbid companies that underpay people in low COL areas, and overpay people in high COL areas. Why would I work for Gitlab, with its 0.66 COL multiplier for my town, and a 1.2 COL multiplier for NYC, when I could work for Foolab, which has an across-the-board 0.8 COL multiplier? Given that situation, you'll quickly find that the only people working for Gitlab are people based in high COL areas. Instead of a money-saving technique, it becomes a money-spending technique, as they end up subsidizing employees relocating to the highest-COL areas.
    - sytse 6y ago
      At GitLab our rates are not based on COL but a market rate https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation/#competitive-rate https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation... So as people are able to earn more in remote locations our rates will go up with them. I think most companies will end up paying local rates https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2019/02/28/why-we-pay-local-rates/ https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2019/02/28/why-we-pay-local-ra... so as more companies start hiring remotely the rates will go up gradually. I don't think think that there will be many Foolabs that pay one rate.
      - vkou 6y ago
        Market rate is, in reality, a close enough proxy for COL. I'm happy to use the two concepts interchangeably. My point still stands. Any firm that will provide an equal across-the-board wage, that's significantly below market rate in NYC/Bay Area, but significantly above market rate in low COL areas will eat your lunch, in terms of wage competitiveness among the latter group. They won't hire anyone from the former group - but just being in the bay area does not make you a better engineer. You'll be stuck paying expensive people in high COL areas, that are doing the same work as cheap people in lower COL areas.
- baxtr 6y ago
  I think were you live will become a lifestyle choice. Today, you would not subscribe to your question if it was asked on different topics, like: "Does the value you create for the company depend on the type of car I drive?" That might sound provocative. But where is the real difference?
falcolas 6y ago
The change in salary is not in proportion to the change in an employees cost of living. FB (and other companies, in all fairness) is saying "If the COL is half that of SF, your salary will be cut in half". Whereas the employee is looking at "I only spend 50% of my salary on living, the rest goes to paying off loans and investments", which results in a net loss in their after-COL loan payments and investment opportunities.
Markoff 6y ago
what difference does it make to work you provide for them? by your logic they should have full access to your bank account to accurately adjust salaries based on your expenses, you ride Tesla? here is bonus for you. you ride ford? bad for you... it's none of the company business where I live if I work from home and provide same results like anyone else salaries based on location make sense only with on site jobs where employer has to compete with other employers in area and potential employees with other employees in area. with no such thing at work from home, the offered salary should be fixed strictly based on productivity/results regardless if you are frugal or wasteful and to be able to attract the talent compared to other employers

by baxtr 6y ago

ende 6y ago

> I would expect that they increase the salary if you move to a more expensive place. lol

w0m 6y ago
my last company was a fairly global fortune 100. Our intranet had a hard list of salary adjustments they pertained globally for internal transfers per site. if I moved from a low COL area to SF, I got a 15% raise. SF to my office took a 15% hit. the transfer ratios were all (internally) public knowledge.

learnstats2 6y ago

>they increase the salary if you move to a more expensive place. At the moment, they increase the salary if they require you to move to a more expensive place. Why will they continue to pay you more if it's no longer required?

losteric 6y ago

Does the value you create for the company depend on location? I don't think it's fair for businesses to extract more profit from me because I live in a cheaper area than my coworkers

temporalparts 6y ago
Cost of living and taxes are very real. CA income taxes are > 10%. Some states have 0% income tax. On that basis alone, CA employees should make 10% more than those places without income tax. Then there's cost of living, rent, etc. You can legitimately earn more while being paid less by moving to a lower cost location.
benhurmarcel 6y ago
Your salary isn't proportional to the value you create. It only has to be less than that value, but otherwise it's just determined by offer and demand.
erik_seaberg 6y ago
Facebook is paying what it takes not to be outbid on hiring you. Currently that depends on supply and demand for the labor market you're in. If everyone paid for value, Intel and AMD would be getting almost all of my salary.
- vkou 6y ago
  People working remotely from Palo Alto are in the same labour pool as people working remotely from Eugene, Oregon... And the wierdo who lives in a goat farm in the middle of nowhere, Idaho. The labour pool argument only makes sense if you commute into the office. With remote work, everyone in the same country + timezone belongs to the same labour pool. Companies that will treat the remote labour pool as uniform will trivially be able to outbid companies that underpay people in low COL areas, and overpay people in high COL areas. Why would I work for Gitlab, with its 0.66 COL multiplier for my town, and a 1.2 COL multiplier for NYC, when I could work for Foolab, which has an across-the-board 0.8 COL multiplier? Given that situation, you'll quickly find that the only people working for Gitlab are people based in high COL areas. Instead of a money-saving technique, it becomes a money-spending technique, as they end up subsidizing employees relocating to the highest-COL areas.
  - sytse 6y ago
    At GitLab our rates are not based on COL but a market rate https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation/#competitive-rate https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation... So as people are able to earn more in remote locations our rates will go up with them. I think most companies will end up paying local rates https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2019/02/28/why-we-pay-local-rates/ https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2019/02/28/why-we-pay-local-ra... so as more companies start hiring remotely the rates will go up gradually. I don't think think that there will be many Foolabs that pay one rate.
    - vkou 6y ago
      Market rate is, in reality, a close enough proxy for COL. I'm happy to use the two concepts interchangeably. My point still stands. Any firm that will provide an equal across-the-board wage, that's significantly below market rate in NYC/Bay Area, but significantly above market rate in low COL areas will eat your lunch, in terms of wage competitiveness among the latter group. They won't hire anyone from the former group - but just being in the bay area does not make you a better engineer. You'll be stuck paying expensive people in high COL areas, that are doing the same work as cheap people in lower COL areas.
baxtr 6y ago
I think were you live will become a lifestyle choice. Today, you would not subscribe to your question if it was asked on different topics, like: "Does the value you create for the company depend on the type of car I drive?" That might sound provocative. But where is the real difference?

falcolas 6y ago

The change in salary is not in proportion to the change in an employees cost of living. FB (and other companies, in all fairness) is saying "If the COL is half that of SF, your salary will be cut in half". Whereas the employee is looking at "I only spend 50% of my salary on living, the rest goes to paying off loans and investments", which results in a net loss in their after-COL loan payments and investment opportunities.

Markoff 6y ago

what difference does it make to work you provide for them? by your logic they should have full access to your bank account to accurately adjust salaries based on your expenses, you ride Tesla? here is bonus for you. you ride ford? bad for you... it's none of the company business where I live if I work from home and provide same results like anyone else salaries based on location make sense only with on site jobs where employer has to compete with other employers in area and potential employees with other employees in area. with no such thing at work from home, the offered salary should be fixed strictly based on productivity/results regardless if you are frugal or wasteful and to be able to attract the talent compared to other employers