3 ms·
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 an
by 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 agoWages 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 agoDon'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 agoUmm 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 agoHollywood has glamorized these locations, propaganda is strong.