4 ms·

I read a similar article that cited the example of a 10% cut, for Google employees commuting from Connecticut to Manhattan. Your mileage may vary, but to me th

I read a similar article that cited the example of a 10% cut, for Google employees commuting from Connecticut to Manhattan. Your mileage may vary, but to me that's NO-BRAINER trade off. When you're making hundreds of thousands of dollars, how is an extra 10% really worth the lifestyle downgrade of being trapped in transit for hours each day? To say nothing of the life quality downgrade of trying to do focused mental work in an open floor plan office all day. I understand the gripes. But location, supply and demand, etc all factor into comp. Companies have to pay more to hire people in San Francisco than they do in Austin, TX because there are more people willing to work in Austin for less money. I imagine that long-term, WFH probably will result in lower comp than in-office work, simply because workers are competing against more people who want that lifestyle. Personally, after the initial shock and anxiety of the pandemic's first few months, the past year+ has been the greatest and most satisfying period of my career and life overall. I feel anxiety from worrying about the possibility of battles ahead, if my current employer decides to pivot away from remote-first policy next year. I would absolutely, without a moment's hesitation, take a 10% cut to lock in my current lifestyle from now until retirement. If my current lifestyle remains permanent, then I may never retire.

verganileonardo 5y ago
The point is that your compensation should not be based on where you live, but how much value you add. If you believe this, the 10% trade-off doesn't matter and is simply a distraction from the real discussion.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  Wages are based on supply, demand, and for those at the very bottom, minimum wage laws.
- geodel 5y ago
  > The point is that your compensation should not be based on where you live, but how much value you add. Well this seems rather naive view of things. Do these folks also pay same SFO/NYC rates for all services and infrastructure that they consume in cheaper area. Doesn't a beautiful home in mountains add same value that a million dollar condo in silicon valley offer? But remote promoters seem happy to pay 200K for a mountain home. Because of this real estate agent will get only 20 percent of potential commission on this deal as compared to expensive city.
  - taylodl 5y ago
    Don't forget to factor in the amount the employer is saving. My employer is now terminating leases on offices. That's a HUGE savings for them. They also no longer have to pay for facility upkeep - cleaning offices, security, mowing grass, clearing parking lots, etc. Companies like Google even have chefs providing their employees food. So they're saving a lot of money by having their employees work remotely - so why should the employees take a pay cut?
- flashgordon 5y ago
  Umm shouldnt homes also be same price by that logic especially if they are comparable in quality? Yet in bay area you pay 7 digits for a dump while else where you are getting mansions for a fraction of the price?
  - lumberingjack 5y ago
    Hollywood has glamorized these locations, propaganda is strong.
moron4hire 5y ago
It's one thing to offer remote hires 10% less than local hires. But once you have the job, your compensation increase/decreases should be based on performance. It's a completely other thing to dig into your employees lives, peer into how they are spending their time, and deciding "eh, you don't need that much money anymore" and cutting their pay.
- StevePerkins 5y ago
  If you're a Googler, and accept a transfer from Austin to San Francisco, then what is your reaction when they tell you, "No adjustment in comp. We only adjust based on performance, not location"? Location-based cost of living adjustments (in both directions) have been the norm since time immortal. By all means, make the argument. But I don't think it's very convincing one. Regardless, from a purely practical standpoint, I don't think the market will ever see it that way either.
  - moron4hire 5y ago
    Again, that's looking the wrong direction through the employee's window. If Google has offered a transfer to someone, then they are giving them a new job offer, and it might be "take it or leave it", but the employee still gets to the chance to decide if any/no compensation changes are worth the offer. But if Google gives that person the ability to work from home as much as they want, but then Google chooses to cut their pay if they incidentally move, that's snooping on the employee's private life. What other snooping behaviors are they going to start engaging in? One employee could eat out a lot more than another, or an employee could choose to stop eating out frequently to cut their expenses. Adult children of employees can get jobs and move out. People moving within cities can find drastically different costs of living. You could end up with a financial windfall from an inheritance. You're arguing from the side of universal corporate surveillance of employees.

verganileonardo 5y ago

The point is that your compensation should not be based on where you live, but how much value you add. If you believe this, the 10% trade-off doesn't matter and is simply a distraction from the real discussion.

MattGaiser 5y ago
Wages are based on supply, demand, and for those at the very bottom, minimum wage laws.
geodel 5y ago
> The point is that your compensation should not be based on where you live, but how much value you add. Well this seems rather naive view of things. Do these folks also pay same SFO/NYC rates for all services and infrastructure that they consume in cheaper area. Doesn't a beautiful home in mountains add same value that a million dollar condo in silicon valley offer? But remote promoters seem happy to pay 200K for a mountain home. Because of this real estate agent will get only 20 percent of potential commission on this deal as compared to expensive city.
- taylodl 5y ago
  Don't forget to factor in the amount the employer is saving. My employer is now terminating leases on offices. That's a HUGE savings for them. They also no longer have to pay for facility upkeep - cleaning offices, security, mowing grass, clearing parking lots, etc. Companies like Google even have chefs providing their employees food. So they're saving a lot of money by having their employees work remotely - so why should the employees take a pay cut?
flashgordon 5y ago
Umm shouldnt homes also be same price by that logic especially if they are comparable in quality? Yet in bay area you pay 7 digits for a dump while else where you are getting mansions for a fraction of the price?
- lumberingjack 5y ago
  Hollywood has glamorized these locations, propaganda is strong.

moron4hire 5y ago

It's one thing to offer remote hires 10% less than local hires. But once you have the job, your compensation increase/decreases should be based on performance. It's a completely other thing to dig into your employees lives, peer into how they are spending their time, and deciding "eh, you don't need that much money anymore" and cutting their pay.

StevePerkins 5y ago
If you're a Googler, and accept a transfer from Austin to San Francisco, then what is your reaction when they tell you, "No adjustment in comp. We only adjust based on performance, not location"? Location-based cost of living adjustments (in both directions) have been the norm since time immortal. By all means, make the argument. But I don't think it's very convincing one. Regardless, from a purely practical standpoint, I don't think the market will ever see it that way either.
- moron4hire 5y ago
  Again, that's looking the wrong direction through the employee's window. If Google has offered a transfer to someone, then they are giving them a new job offer, and it might be "take it or leave it", but the employee still gets to the chance to decide if any/no compensation changes are worth the offer. But if Google gives that person the ability to work from home as much as they want, but then Google chooses to cut their pay if they incidentally move, that's snooping on the employee's private life. What other snooping behaviors are they going to start engaging in? One employee could eat out a lot more than another, or an employee could choose to stop eating out frequently to cut their expenses. Adult children of employees can get jobs and move out. People moving within cities can find drastically different costs of living. You could end up with a financial windfall from an inheritance. You're arguing from the side of universal corporate surveillance of employees.