5 ms·

> Did the value to Google of the work these people are doing suddenly go down? No, and not even if they were previously working from San Francisco and now worki

> Did the value to Google of the work these people are doing suddenly go down? No, and not even if they were previously working from San Francisco and now working from South Lake Tahoe, or even Bumfuck Nowhere. I'm a senior developer who has chosen to live both in expensive cities like New York, as well as rural areas. I knew moving to the rural areas I'd make less in pay with the companies there, I accepted this because it also came with a lower cost of living. My skills grew but my pay was reduced. So was my rent. Under your logic the local companies should compete with San Francisco salaries, because I "could" be making that much there. When I moved out of NYC I wasn't expecting other companies to compete with my former NYC salary, that would be absurd. The pay is high there because the cost of living is high, not because that is specifically what my talents are "worth". Yes, the fact everyone is remote now is making everyone second-guess this assumption about pay and location. However, prior to remote work you got paid relative to the cost of living in your area. Programmers in Fargo, North Dakota made far less than programmers in Los Angeles, even with the same or greater skills.

seedless-sensat 5y ago
The pre-pandemic status quo is clear, but the point is that it doesn't need to be this way. Google can afford not to cut pay.
- quaintdev 5y ago
  Also, because the employee is at home now they can allocate that office space and resources to someone else. They are saving on individuals working from home! They should be compensating for office equipment at home.
actually_a_dog 5y ago
Yes, actually, you've got it exactly right. They should compete with SF companies for the type of workers SF companies want to hire and who have the capability to work remotely. In fact, they do, implicitly, because, by and large, people who can make SF salaries don't generally apply to companies that exist in rural areas in the first place.
- niij 5y ago
  Or they don't want to live on SF or California as a whole.
- machinebun 5y ago
  I keep hearing the trope of "people are paid the value of their work" come up, and it's completely false and absurd. People are paid the market clearing price (a.k.a. better or equal to the alternatives, given some reasonable amount of searching effort). Yes, this means there are many engineers in SF that are actually/currently paid MORE than they would be in an efficient market (and there are many software developers in developing countries that are paid LESS than they would be in an efficient market). Right now there's enough money going around that nobody cares about market efficiency, but if we have an actual, deep recession in the sector, I expect all the music to stop (and the efficiency of the developer market to go up on the whole). In software we can pretend to ignore these discrepancies, but it becomes patently obvious if you've ever dealt with international companies who discriminate based on nationality for people doing the exact same job (and not in software, where you can argue talent - literally the exact same job - two performers doing the same act in the same show. I've seen pay discrepancies of up to 2.5X or more for an American Expat in Hong Kong and a worker from the Philippines, for example). It's all about what your individual alternatives are.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    You don't get it. This is actually the free market in action. People love to talk about the virtues of the free market, until they actually get one. In a normal labor market, companies can pay based on geographic concerns because employees aren't mobile. In the case of engineers, designers, etc., these people can work from anywhere, including San Francisco. So, they always have the opportunity to make SF wages by working in SF. But, the thing is, none of this changes when these same people move to Bumfuck Nowhere. The same companies are still competing for the same employees, who are capable of earning the same wages they were before. And, like it or not, SF is the place where a software engineer can maximize their net income after expenses. So, guess what? Companies in Bumfuck are now competing with companies in SF. Remote work doesn't enable a truly free labor market, but it does significantly free things up. Regarding people not being paid what they are worth, I know that. It's also bullshit, but that's another comment. And, as I said in another comment, you know that, I know that, and Google knows that, but there are lots of people out there who either don't know that, or just refuse to acknowledge it to themselves. And, if you're Google, you really don't want to open those peoples' eyes, because it reduces the information asymmetry about the process that you exploit in order to get people to work for less than they're worth.

seedless-sensat 5y ago

The pre-pandemic status quo is clear, but the point is that it doesn't need to be this way. Google can afford not to cut pay.

quaintdev 5y ago
Also, because the employee is at home now they can allocate that office space and resources to someone else. They are saving on individuals working from home! They should be compensating for office equipment at home.

actually_a_dog 5y ago

Yes, actually, you've got it exactly right. They should compete with SF companies for the type of workers SF companies want to hire and who have the capability to work remotely. In fact, they do, implicitly, because, by and large, people who can make SF salaries don't generally apply to companies that exist in rural areas in the first place.

niij 5y ago
Or they don't want to live on SF or California as a whole.
machinebun 5y ago
I keep hearing the trope of "people are paid the value of their work" come up, and it's completely false and absurd. People are paid the market clearing price (a.k.a. better or equal to the alternatives, given some reasonable amount of searching effort). Yes, this means there are many engineers in SF that are actually/currently paid MORE than they would be in an efficient market (and there are many software developers in developing countries that are paid LESS than they would be in an efficient market). Right now there's enough money going around that nobody cares about market efficiency, but if we have an actual, deep recession in the sector, I expect all the music to stop (and the efficiency of the developer market to go up on the whole). In software we can pretend to ignore these discrepancies, but it becomes patently obvious if you've ever dealt with international companies who discriminate based on nationality for people doing the exact same job (and not in software, where you can argue talent - literally the exact same job - two performers doing the same act in the same show. I've seen pay discrepancies of up to 2.5X or more for an American Expat in Hong Kong and a worker from the Philippines, for example). It's all about what your individual alternatives are.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  You don't get it. This is actually the free market in action. People love to talk about the virtues of the free market, until they actually get one. In a normal labor market, companies can pay based on geographic concerns because employees aren't mobile. In the case of engineers, designers, etc., these people can work from anywhere, including San Francisco. So, they always have the opportunity to make SF wages by working in SF. But, the thing is, none of this changes when these same people move to Bumfuck Nowhere. The same companies are still competing for the same employees, who are capable of earning the same wages they were before. And, like it or not, SF is the place where a software engineer can maximize their net income after expenses. So, guess what? Companies in Bumfuck are now competing with companies in SF. Remote work doesn't enable a truly free labor market, but it does significantly free things up. Regarding people not being paid what they are worth, I know that. It's also bullshit, but that's another comment. And, as I said in another comment, you know that, I know that, and Google knows that, but there are lots of people out there who either don't know that, or just refuse to acknowledge it to themselves. And, if you're Google, you really don't want to open those peoples' eyes, because it reduces the information asymmetry about the process that you exploit in order to get people to work for less than they're worth.