3 ms·
Yes but that isn't typically how the value-cost balance between employee and employer works, unless there is regulation in play. Working from home is a benefit
by CapmCrackaWaka 5y ago
Yes but that isn't typically how the value-cost balance between employee and employer works, unless there is regulation in play. Working from home is a benefit which many people would be willing to trade X% salary for. This is just market forces at work. I've been curious how the market for remote work would play out - I'm especially interested in knowing what X ends up being.
- eru 5y agoBut: if you can add a benefit that employees value a lot at zero or negative cost to the company, competition will go that way. No need for regulation in this regard: greed will do the work. Of course, if the cost to companies is positive, things are less clear cut. If you want any regulation here, the boring standard econ answer applies: a carbon tax.
- CapmCrackaWaka 5y agoYes one of the most interesting bits of information we will get from the market forces of remote work is seeing how much value being in the office brings to an employer. Obviously this will vary by industry, but if we see huge differences in salary between in-office and remote employees, then that means companies are willing to pay that premium to some people to be in the office. If there is no/little difference in salary, then I think it would be fair to assume that the value of in-office work to employers is negligible. These types of things are rarely this simple though, so I'm going to hold off on having any strong opinions.
- eru 5y agoI agree. I suspect that there are investments with large fixed costs companies can make to make remote productivity go up. (Not so much investments in eg actual hardware, but eg in how you set up team processes.) That would explain heavy pushback from companies before the pandemic, but also that things seem to be running ok now.