4 ms·

To me it is a cost issue. Living within 5-day-a-week commuting distance to an office is expensive for the weighted majority of technology jobs. You are trading

To me it is a cost issue. Living within 5-day-a-week commuting distance to an office is expensive for the weighted majority of technology jobs. You are trading space/rent for facetime. That is fine, but the salaries for 5-day-a-week-from-office jobs need to compensate for this -- not just for execs, but also for normal workers. Living in a 1br was charming as a 25yo, and not so much for someone with a family. Driving for 1hr+ is also not so charming. As a former co-founder, i'd happily take this trade -- 1. Not compete on city salaries 2. Employees 100% WFH, work from wherever you want. NO salary grading based on metro area (that is so unfair) 3. Quarterly on-site, paid for by company 4. Invest in processes to enable good WFH productivity

ghaff 6y ago
No salary grading, at least within a country, is easier when you don't try to compete at the high end. And it's effectively what a lot of companies do anyway even if they don't say so publicly. If someone can get a job with one of the big tech employers in the Bay Area and they want to work there, a lot of companies won't even try to salary match.
kritiko 6y ago
Your trade assumes that none of your employees will want to live in a high cost of living area if given the opportunity to WFH. If their age / hobbies / etc. make city living attractive you will need to compensate them appropriately or be unable to attract them. I love living in the city. If work wants to keep me remote, I need an extra bedroom or dedicated office space.
- TuringNYC 6y ago
  >> Your trade assumes that none of your employees will want to live in a high cost of living area if given the opportunity to WFH. If their age / hobbies / etc. make city living attractive you will need to compensate them appropriately or be unable to attract them. This is a fair point. Not sure if you're from the US, but I'll note that the weighted majority of all US technology job opportunities are in cities and major metro areas. If someone wants to live in a high-cost-of-living area, thats a great problem to have, because probably half the tech jobs are already there in the Bay Area especially. There is also no shortage of compensation in such high-cost-of-living areas.

ghaff 6y ago

No salary grading, at least within a country, is easier when you don't try to compete at the high end. And it's effectively what a lot of companies do anyway even if they don't say so publicly. If someone can get a job with one of the big tech employers in the Bay Area and they want to work there, a lot of companies won't even try to salary match.

kritiko 6y ago

Your trade assumes that none of your employees will want to live in a high cost of living area if given the opportunity to WFH. If their age / hobbies / etc. make city living attractive you will need to compensate them appropriately or be unable to attract them. I love living in the city. If work wants to keep me remote, I need an extra bedroom or dedicated office space.

TuringNYC 6y ago
>> Your trade assumes that none of your employees will want to live in a high cost of living area if given the opportunity to WFH. If their age / hobbies / etc. make city living attractive you will need to compensate them appropriately or be unable to attract them. This is a fair point. Not sure if you're from the US, but I'll note that the weighted majority of all US technology job opportunities are in cities and major metro areas. If someone wants to live in a high-cost-of-living area, thats a great problem to have, because probably half the tech jobs are already there in the Bay Area especially. There is also no shortage of compensation in such high-cost-of-living areas.