6 ms·

Basically every piece of advice on negotiating a promotion says something like "I just bought a car, and I need more money" is not a good argument in support of

Basically every piece of advice on negotiating a promotion says something like "I just bought a car, and I need more money" is not a good argument in support of a promotion. But now the employer is using the same reasoning against you!! Your cost of living went down, so you're going to get paid less? How about you go move to a super cheap place, and instead of paying rent, take out a loan and buy some crazy cars. Now my cost of living is back up again... can I have that money back? Just pay people for the value they provide. I think there's some room to argue that a remote only employee provides less value. Everyone in the same timezone, lack of face to face time, hallway encounters, going out to lunch, etc. have tangible value to the employer that is lost in the transition to remote work. But the arguments I see from Facebook and in this article are about cost of living. That's wrong. Price it based on value created by the employee. If the permanence of remote work indeed turns into a long term trend, I think we're going to see some bumpy road ahead while individuals grapple with first moving and then local supply and demand in their new location. Fix your location, and then consider that if given the same pay, and same work, would you rather work remotely or in person? I would rather work in person for a couple of reasons including socialization, removal of distractions in a workplace environment, etc.

erik_seaberg 6y ago
Cost of living is a red herring. The market-clearing price for your labor is lower because you cut yourself off from a lot of competing non-remote employers. But if most employers were to go fully remote, at that point the shortage-driven Silicon Valley wages would drop near the national average, regardless of how much more it costs us to live here.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  >you cut yourself off from a lot of competing non-remote employers Just because you're working remotely doesn't mean you wouldn't consider a non-remote job at any price. So the fact that you're local geographically does not reduce to a value of zero, even if you are currently in a remote arrangement. The employers are competing for people too.
- smcphile 6y ago
  > But if most employers were to go fully remote, at that point the shortage-driven Silicon Valley wages would drop near the national average, regardless of how much more it costs us to live here. Yes, and, using the same reasoning, at some point the cost of living in Silicon Valley would also go down so as to approach the national average.
  - erik_seaberg 6y ago
    Tech workers are only 7-12% of the population. Unless other industries also go remote and move away, the Bay Area is still going to have local and foreign speculators cashing in on a severe housing shortage.
missedthecue 6y ago
It's not an excuse by the company to pay less. It's an excuse by the employee to earn less. Employees will accept a lower income for the advantages that come with working remote. For instance, I would need a much much much higher salary to be convinced to move back to SF for work. I will voluntarily agree to earn less for the same work if I am able to work from my home office. To a company, paying me less may be more attractive than paying someone in else SF more. Remember, you are bidding against other applicants when you apply for job.
fancyfish 6y ago
Herein lies the basic problem: you are an expense to the company and will be paid as little as possible for the output the company wants and the cost of replacing you. Usually this means of course the going market cost of an engineer at your skill level, seniority, etc. The negotiating power is on the company’s side, save for some wiggle room. You can indeed negotiate that you provide more value than you’re being paid, and may successfully get a raise, but the cost of replacing you is always a factor.
smcphile 6y ago
> But the arguments I see from Facebook and in this article are about cost of living. That's wrong. Price it based on value created by the employee. Salaries aren’t based primarily on the value created by the employee and never have been. Salaries are based on supply and demand. Workers are in a market and they sell their time and skills to the highest bidder. They’re in competition with other workers capable of doing the same work. Of course not all workers are equally capable of doing the same work, so in that sense the value created by an employee does come into play when determining what they’ll be paid. But if two equally skilled and competent workers are competing for the same job, the one who will accept a lower salary will get the job. This will tend to favour employees living in an area with a lower cost of living.
- supercanuck 6y ago
  You should take this argument to the H1-B thread. Would love to see the reactions.

erik_seaberg 6y ago

Cost of living is a red herring. The market-clearing price for your labor is lower because you cut yourself off from a lot of competing non-remote employers. But if most employers were to go fully remote, at that point the shortage-driven Silicon Valley wages would drop near the national average, regardless of how much more it costs us to live here.

perl4ever 6y ago
>you cut yourself off from a lot of competing non-remote employers Just because you're working remotely doesn't mean you wouldn't consider a non-remote job at any price. So the fact that you're local geographically does not reduce to a value of zero, even if you are currently in a remote arrangement. The employers are competing for people too.
smcphile 6y ago
> But if most employers were to go fully remote, at that point the shortage-driven Silicon Valley wages would drop near the national average, regardless of how much more it costs us to live here. Yes, and, using the same reasoning, at some point the cost of living in Silicon Valley would also go down so as to approach the national average.
- erik_seaberg 6y ago
  Tech workers are only 7-12% of the population. Unless other industries also go remote and move away, the Bay Area is still going to have local and foreign speculators cashing in on a severe housing shortage.

missedthecue 6y ago

It's not an excuse by the company to pay less. It's an excuse by the employee to earn less. Employees will accept a lower income for the advantages that come with working remote. For instance, I would need a much much much higher salary to be convinced to move back to SF for work. I will voluntarily agree to earn less for the same work if I am able to work from my home office. To a company, paying me less may be more attractive than paying someone in else SF more. Remember, you are bidding against other applicants when you apply for job.

fancyfish 6y ago

Herein lies the basic problem: you are an expense to the company and will be paid as little as possible for the output the company wants and the cost of replacing you. Usually this means of course the going market cost of an engineer at your skill level, seniority, etc. The negotiating power is on the company’s side, save for some wiggle room. You can indeed negotiate that you provide more value than you’re being paid, and may successfully get a raise, but the cost of replacing you is always a factor.

smcphile 6y ago

> But the arguments I see from Facebook and in this article are about cost of living. That's wrong. Price it based on value created by the employee. Salaries aren’t based primarily on the value created by the employee and never have been. Salaries are based on supply and demand. Workers are in a market and they sell their time and skills to the highest bidder. They’re in competition with other workers capable of doing the same work. Of course not all workers are equally capable of doing the same work, so in that sense the value created by an employee does come into play when determining what they’ll be paid. But if two equally skilled and competent workers are competing for the same job, the one who will accept a lower salary will get the job. This will tend to favour employees living in an area with a lower cost of living.

supercanuck 6y ago
You should take this argument to the H1-B thread. Would love to see the reactions.