6 ms·

> Or put another way, your competitors can compensate me less and I'll consider it a better deal. It seems a lot of people disagree with you: > In an accompan

• jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
  But what if you turn that around? If you are currently remote but considering an offer from a place that's in-office, wouldn't you want a higher wage to compensate you for the extra hassle of commuting? That's extra free time you're never getting back.
  • randallsquared 5y ago
    There are people who prefer to work in an office, and some who have that preference even if it puts them on a train for an hour or two a day. As long as we don't get legislation to force employers one way or another, I'd expect employees to self-select into those who like being around others all day, and those who prefer to work in a private office. It's a serendipitous solution we've been presented to all those open plan offices that a certain set hate: you can have your own private office with a view, but you'll pay for it yourself.
    • tdfx 5y ago
      But shouldn't the employees that require extra subsidies (office space, commuting reimbursement, office utilities/supplies) receive the same overall compensation as those working from home with lower expense to the company? It seems to me that if being in the office is an optional preference for some, they should carry the cost of it.
      • randallsquared 5y ago
        Yes, that was my poorly-explained point: given that some people prefer to add the cost and time of commuting (possibly in order to rub elbows or attend happy hour), and others prefer to add the cost of a home office (possibly in order to retain focus or make lunch for the family), the costs might turn out similarly, and therefore I hope that remote working doesn't result in systematically lower salaries for those who prefer it.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • actually_a_dog 5y ago
    I'll make whichever argument gets me the most money in a salary negotiation.
    • isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
      Which is short sighted if you value your time at all. Spending an hour more a day commuting is directly decreasing the value of your life.
      • actually_a_dog 5y ago
        You miss my point, then. If I have to spend that extra hour, I will argue that it needs to be compensated. If I get to WFH, I may argue that I'm paying for dedicated office space at home and that the value of my work is the same here as in the office.
      • crisper78 5y ago
        it increases the value of my life and many others. Stay home pretty please, I am sure you will be very successful by switching jobs every few months!
      • seedless-sensat 5y ago
        I cycle into my office every day, 1h round-trip. It certainly increases my quality of life and I'm glad I had the choice (not requirement) to return
        • jjk166 5y ago
          If you didn't have to commute, you'd have an extra hour per day to cycle wherever you wanted instead of having to specifically bike that path. Hell you could still bike that path if that's what you like. In the absolute best case scenario, commuting is breakeven, but realistically you are objectively worse off for it.
          • mint2 5y ago
  • airstrike 5y ago
    Should I get a higher wage for living in a more expensive area in the city? My wage is related to the work I do. How I choose to spend my money is a personal decision.
    • refurb 5y ago
      Your wage is related to how much other people are willing to get paid to do the same job.
    • jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
      Your wage should also be related to how much work you have to put in. I would expect more money if I was going to work 10 hours a day than 8. And I consider commuting time similar to work time. So, given two otherwise equal job offers, one of which requires a 2 hour commute and one which requires no commute, for me the decision is an extremely easy one to prefer the latter. Effectively, the latter is paying me much more per hour of labor.
  • joelbondurant 5y ago
    I'd need a six figure signing bonus to tolerate coworkers who treat everyone like a biohazard.
• TrainedMonkey 5y ago
  Your compensation could change because of market forces, modern salaries are a product of supply and demand. Previously both supply and demand for high paying jobs was restricted to relatively small geographic areas. Now that remote working is in the supply can move out of high cost areas. However, the converse is also true, the demand can reach people who were not previously eligible. Some of those people would be happy with a significantly lower compensation package. So to summarize, your compensation could decrease because there are now a lot more people competing for your job. Or it could increase because there are a lot more companies competing for your services.
• inherently_juxt 5y ago
  I'm on the other side of the coin. I view the associated costs of working in an office as built into my salary. For example, if I go to an office, I suddenly now have to buy gas/repairs for my car, I have to buy office clothes, and I have suddenly lost days per year to commutes. If I work from home, I see myself as freed from those costs. Put another way, I see my salary as the sum of the cost of the work that I do PLUS the costs associated with me getting the job done. Working from home is simply more economical (and my work/life balance is significantly improved).
• PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  Never underestimate the gap between what people say they will do and what they'll actually do. If you poll employees about literally any topic where one answer benefits them and the other answer doesn't, people are going to respond with a preference for the answer that benefits them. But in the real world, they still have to go out and find that better job that pays more and doesn't factor their location into cost of living. They're out there, but there far more rare than these articles suggest.
• frutiger 5y ago
  > If my work is bringing in $X in revenue whether I'm sitting in a chair in an office building you're leasing or at home, I don't see why my share of that should be any less. This is a common but fundamental misunderstanding of what determines your salary. Your salary is determined by the market, with the tacit assumption that the total revenue generated by your employment will exceed the total cost of your salary & other costs over the course of your career.
  • staticautomatic 5y ago
    And yet that cost goes down when employers don’t pay for your office space…
    • actually_a_dog 5y ago
      And my cost goes up when I pay for my own office space.
      • isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
        But you don't have a commute and can do stuff at home during work.
        • actually_a_dog 5y ago
          So? That doesn't net me money during salary negotiation.
          • sokoloff 5y ago
            If it means that some actually-a-dog2 realizes that they prefer it enough to work for 5% less, then you need to compete with that.
          • jjk166 5y ago
            Let's say you get paid $100/hr for 8 hours per day of work, or $800/day. Now let's say you have to commute an hour round trip to and from work. Since you need to commute to get paid, it takes you 9 hours to earn that $800. Thus your real hourly wage is $88.89/hr. The person who doesn't need to commute works no harder, but it only takes them 8 hours to earn the same wage. They effectively have an 11% higher wage than the commuter, all else being equal. They could work for $95/hr, making them the more attractive option for the employer, while still being better off than the commuter.
• seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  In a free market where remote jobs are more desirable than in-office jobs, then eventually, the in-office jobs have to start paying a premium in salary to attract those who would rather want a remote job instead. It isn't "how much is your labor worth?" but rather "how much more do we have to pay someone to come into the office everyday?" Of course, given your preferences, it doesn't sound like they would have to pay you more to come in the office vs. working at home as long as they pay you what you think you are worth. That is, whether the job is remote or not doesn't affect your pay requirements. If enough people feel the same, then there won't be a pay discrepancy between remote and in-office jobs.
• geodel 5y ago
  > Put another way, if I'm worth $Y to you sitting in an office, and I can accomplish the same work at home, from anywhere, just as effectively, why should I get paid any less? There is something called Win-Win situation. Now you may call it management mumbo-jumbo. But what I see happening is if I save, say 15 hours of weekly commute and getting ready for work etc, I would be willing to take a cut that would seem reasonable based on my money/leisure need. If I keep looking at company's benefit and not mine (or maybe I have none) then of course pay cut seems insulting.
• FredPret 5y ago
  You haven't calculated the cost of living yet. If I need to be in an office, I have to live within x minutes of that office and any travel has to be on the weekends or paid time off. This leads to the phenomenon of cities, where a million shmucks try to do the same thing at the same times and drive up their own real estate prices in the process. Contrast this with moving to a holiday home or holiday destination, probably with a vastly lower cost of living, or going away for a "weekend" but during odd days and missing all the traffic. Sounds amazing to me.
• EMM_386 5y ago
  > Put another way, if I'm worth $Y to you sitting in an office, and I can accomplish the same work at home, from anywhere, just as effectively, why should I get paid any less? The problem is there are likely very competent engineers living in low cost of living areas who would gladly bid lower than your high "city salary" to maintain their preferred way of life. Given two comparable candidates, the company will go with the one with the lower salary demands.
  • kristianc 5y ago
    > The problem is there are likely very competent engineers living in low cost of living areas who would gladly bid lower than your high "city salary" to maintain their preferred way of life. And there always have been. There’s always been a pool of labor either in the Midwest or Ukraine that companies could call on. Maybe trying to hire top talent while playing arbitrage on salaries either isn’t that easy, or isn’t worth the (relatively) small amount saved?
• mint2 5y ago
  Office perks like almost free meals and stuff are fair game but wage differences are not going to fly assuming they want the same quality of labor remote. There might be faster career progression for in office people though, and that will be a harder and longer thing to quantify.
• Hakashiro 5y ago
  Aha. Interesting. So you're saying an Indian engineer should earn the same salary as a Californian engineer if they're both bringing in the same revenue? Interesting. But it won't happen. Or... you're not suggesting Indian engineers are worse, are you? Because that would be kinda racist. On the other hand, someone living anywhere in India on the same salary (per contract) as someone living anywhere in the US is earning a higher net paycheque because CoL in India is lower. Oh my! What should we do to resolve this?
  • CuriouslyC 5y ago
    Indian engineers in India did tend to be worse on average than American engineers of any ethnicity when I did a lot of hiring about 10 years ago. As far as I could figure out, the main reason for this was the large number of Indian technical schools with very outdated curriculae and low standards for matriculation, along with a rote learning style. Engineers from these schools needed to have every little detail meticulously specified to get anything done correctly. Pair that with frequently mediocre english, and you have a recipe for disaster.
    • Hakashiro 5y ago
      That's kinda racist. You can't possibly be saying that there's no way there exists an Indian engineer that can compete hand-in-hand with a Silicon Valley engineer on an intellectual level (connections is a different thing). So this being the case. Why does the Indian still earn less than the Silicon Valley peep?
      • CuriouslyC 5y ago
        Please tell me how saying Indian engineers trained in India are worse on average than Indian engineers trained in the United States is racist. Maybe you should also share your special definition of racism, I'm sure it'll be an entertaining read.
        • Hakashiro 5y ago