3 ms·
It's fair in the sense that they provide each with the means to live at roughy the same standard-of-life: a Stamford $ has more buying power because local price
by IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
It's fair in the sense that they provide each with the means to live at roughy the same standard-of-life: a Stamford $ has more buying power because local prices are lower, so they need fewer of them.
Or, one could simply see it as answering a different question. Not "how much are you worth", but rather "how much do you need". If that sounds unfair, consider that it's close to the principle by which most parents care for their children' needs.
Or, more prosaically, the New York employee simply has more options besides Google, and they might chose to work in an office if it means a 15% difference.
- usaar333 5y agoThe problem with COL adjustments is that they are very crude. Different workers consume more (and consume different baskets), so see wildly different impacts. Being "fair" then becomes risky from the point of view of everyone as they'll actually find it unfair. I think it's easier to align on market demand on which case I agree with OP - market rate adjustments by location don't make sense for remote workers.
- dougmwne 5y agoShould companies provide salary adjustments for each child an employee has so they can maintain a certain quality of life? Should the company reduce the salary of employees that have lots of investments so that they don't have a higher quality of life than someone with fewer assets? Should companies pay people with chronic health conditions more than healthy people so they can live a more equal life?