3 ms·
Not sure! My original point is just that the framing from WSJ doesn't capture accurate compensation factors well. To your point: I think that's irrelevant/of
by dogman144 6y ago
Not sure!
My original point is just that the framing from WSJ doesn't capture accurate compensation factors well.
To your point: I think that's irrelevant/off topic. There's probably a theoretical % of employees who could go remote that in turn will make a company move office space or fire cooks. Otherwise, those are fixed costs and don't come into the picture here.
I don't think either % get hit for the class of SWE I'm referring too, so it's just lost benefits to the SWEs.
- colinmhayes 6y agoWell the company is still paying for the benefits they offered you, you just can't use them. I see both sides of the argument but we're in unprecedented territory here and in the end what's "fair" has little no to impact on the outcome of negotiations.
- dogman144 6y agoThey're paying for the benefits still, but unless a certain % of SWEs go remote, there's diminishing costs per SWE to provide the benefits. You have to consider the scale the benefits "get provided at." At a certain point, it costs the same to feed premium salad to 500 engineers as it does 575 engineers (no idea if this is the math, but conceptually yeah). A cook can make 600 or 700 gallons of soup without much difference or new purchases required: huge vat of soup is 2/3 vs. 3/4 full. If the % of remote engineers hit a level such that cooks have to buy new soup bowls, idle hand cooks, or offices with cavernous empty halllways, then yeah, you're back under diminishing costs/eng and need to scale down.