4 ms·

You don't get paid based off your expenses. You get paid the minimum your employer thinks they can pay to get someone who does the job well. I'm not disagreeing

You don't get paid based off your expenses. You get paid the minimum your employer thinks they can pay to get someone who does the job well. I'm not disagreeing with you, but this argument will get you nowhere.

benjohnson 6y ago
This is true! And there's a good side to the same equation - if your expenses are low, you should still charge market rates. (speaking from experience as someone who undercuts themselves a lot)
vmception 6y ago
In Switzerland it is a valid argument and employers are now being told to cover a portion of their employees rent. So let's talk about how it can be a valid argument, instead.
webdood90 6y ago
You do when the expenses are required to do your job. Employees expense computer equipment, cell phone bills, gas, car rentals, hotels, and more. I don't view this differently.
rafiki6 6y ago
Well a Swiss judge seems to disagree. https://twitter.com/JaneLytv/status/1265619406941499392 https://twitter.com/JaneLytv/status/1265619406941499392
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  That's based off a swiss law that requires employers to reimburse required work related expenses. The us doesn't have that requirement, other than paying at least minimum wage after expenses. It looks like California does require reimbursement though, so you might have a case if you work there.
Simulacra 6y ago
Same with UBI
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Yes, but you wouldn't take the job for that wage (all else being equal) as wfh, because you need to fund an office space. Meanwhile the employer not funding accommodation (with all its concomitant costs: parking, cleaning, services, etc.) would have enough to pay you to have a home-office and still - by my estimations - save money. I'm working from my bedroom, we're already short on bedroom space; I'll gladly work from home for a fraction of what my employer pays to accommodate me in an office. But I probably wouldn't have taken this job knowing I'd be stuck in my bedroom 18 hours a day.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  With 20%+ unemployment, you'll probably take any job you can get.
  - pyuser583 6y ago
    Yeah that 20% unemployment is a bit misleading - experienced tech people are still very much in demand.
    - colinmhayes 6y ago
      Then I guess it's time for you to find a job that pays more or lets you work in an office.
    - Mikeb85 6y ago
      There will always be certain people who are more in demand than others. That doesn't mean aggregate demand isn't way down.
Ididntdothis 6y ago
“You get paid the minimum your employer thinks they can pay to get someone who does the job well.” Very true. Most of us also aren’t paid for the value we produce. We get paid for the replacement cost.

benjohnson 6y ago

This is true! And there's a good side to the same equation - if your expenses are low, you should still charge market rates. (speaking from experience as someone who undercuts themselves a lot)

vmception 6y ago

In Switzerland it is a valid argument and employers are now being told to cover a portion of their employees rent. So let's talk about how it can be a valid argument, instead.

webdood90 6y ago

You do when the expenses are required to do your job. Employees expense computer equipment, cell phone bills, gas, car rentals, hotels, and more. I don't view this differently.

rafiki6 6y ago

Well a Swiss judge seems to disagree. https://twitter.com/JaneLytv/status/1265619406941499392 https://twitter.com/JaneLytv/status/1265619406941499392

colinmhayes 6y ago
That's based off a swiss law that requires employers to reimburse required work related expenses. The us doesn't have that requirement, other than paying at least minimum wage after expenses. It looks like California does require reimbursement though, so you might have a case if you work there.

Simulacra 6y ago

Same with UBI

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

Yes, but you wouldn't take the job for that wage (all else being equal) as wfh, because you need to fund an office space. Meanwhile the employer not funding accommodation (with all its concomitant costs: parking, cleaning, services, etc.) would have enough to pay you to have a home-office and still - by my estimations - save money. I'm working from my bedroom, we're already short on bedroom space; I'll gladly work from home for a fraction of what my employer pays to accommodate me in an office. But I probably wouldn't have taken this job knowing I'd be stuck in my bedroom 18 hours a day.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
With 20%+ unemployment, you'll probably take any job you can get.
- pyuser583 6y ago
  Yeah that 20% unemployment is a bit misleading - experienced tech people are still very much in demand.
  - colinmhayes 6y ago
    Then I guess it's time for you to find a job that pays more or lets you work in an office.
  - Mikeb85 6y ago
    There will always be certain people who are more in demand than others. That doesn't mean aggregate demand isn't way down.

Ididntdothis 6y ago

“You get paid the minimum your employer thinks they can pay to get someone who does the job well.” Very true. Most of us also aren’t paid for the value we produce. We get paid for the replacement cost.