4 ms·
It seems impractical for employers to pay for an addition to your house if you don’t have a room (let alone moving you to an entirely new building if you don’t
by Armisael16 5y ago
It seems impractical for employers to pay for an addition to your house if you don’t have a room (let alone moving you to an entirely new building if you don’t own).
- pat2man 5y agoIn which case employers should just increase wages to take into account how much is saved on office space. Then workers might be able to afford larger houses or apartments.
- legerdemain 5y agoWouldn't landlords just raise the rent to compensate?
- oblio 5y agoLet's never get raises because landlords will also raise rent.
- legerdemain 5y agoYes, let's not all simultaneously get raises. The value of money is its inequity, not its quantity.
- oblio 5y agoYup, agreed. I vote that legerdemain doesn't get a raise, and the rest of us do. After all, you didn't specify who should be the target of that inequity.
- rtkwe 5y agoIf the person is working remotely they have a much larger market to look for. If every white collar/knowledge worker suddenly got all the office budget and went to work from home you'd see big shocks but it could be spread throughout the country not just in cities. Of course there'd be a huge new market opportunity for turning the suddenly empty office buildings into apartments or something too.
- tayo42 5y agoexcept they're cutting salaries because apparently col is lower and they think we don't need the money were earning...
- Johnny555 5y agoThen let employees work from home permanently so they can afford a larger house. Telling employees to work from home for a year but be prepared to come back to the office at any time is the worst of both worlds - they have to pay high housing prices to live within easy commute distance of the office, but meanwhile they have to work from home and may live in a very small home. Some employees may prefer to live in or near a city for other reasons, but others would be happy to move farther away.