3 ms·

Intuitively, I'd think, it should be the opposite - no need to pay for the office space, money saved, can give that to the employees. But no, instead - save mon

• chii 5y ago
  > then save even more on the salaries the problem is that remote is seen as a benefit (which it is), and so naturally must be priced as part of the salary. The fact that being remote requires some discipline, and this discipline makes for a better employee doesn't play into it - because a employer would already expect such discipline, whether it actually exists or not.
• bradlys 5y ago
  > Intuitively, I'd think, it should be the opposite - no need to pay for the office space, money saved, can give that to the employees. But no, instead - save money on the office, and then save even more on the salaries. Just wow. Capitalism in a nutshell. :) Don't have to compete for your labor as aggressively because there are more candidates available for a lower wage. Until companies are fully socialist entities (I think the Starship Enterprise will come first), you're gonna keep seeing whatever saves the company the most money (or whatever goes straight to the execs pockets at least).