4 ms·

"So your position is a company should pay the same $ for the same job, no matter where the person lives?" Yes, no one should get paid less for the same work ju

"So your position is a company should pay the same $ for the same job, no matter where the person lives?" Yes, no one should get paid less for the same work just cause they live in a cheaper area. Not to mention living in SF, NYC gives you way more opportunities than living in a low col, people don't seem to ever think of that point.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Generally sympathetic but ... Suppose that company X wants to hire me, and they want me to move to NYC and I say "there's no way I'm living in NYC unless you pay me an extra $30k a year to be based in that hellhole". They really want to hire me because I'm the best candidate, and they believe I'm so good that even with the extra $30k compensation, it is still in their best interests? Should they be allowed to do this? Conversely, company Y wants to hire me but are fine with me continuing to live in rural NM where my cost of living is relatively low. They offer me less than the a Sausalito-based employee doing similar work for them. I dispute this, and they point out that I don't even pay $3k a year in property taxes. I think about it for a while, and realize that my quality of life/disposable income will at least match if not exceed the person in Sausalito. I decide to accept the offer. Should they prevented from doing this?
- Jiro 5y ago
  The salary that the company is willing to pay you depends on how much you are worth to them. In the scenario where you move to New York because they require your physical presence, your value to them depends on location so they would pay you more for being in New York. In the scenario where you work remotely, your value to them doesn't depend on location.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Far too simplistic. Companies have quite a lot of wiggle room in what they pay people. They might merely "prefer" my physical presence in NYC rather than require it, and prefer it sufficiently to pay me the extra. They might prefer that I was in the SF bay area too, but in that scenario, not so much that it's worth paying me the extra. It's gray zones all the way down, baby!

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

Generally sympathetic but ... Suppose that company X wants to hire me, and they want me to move to NYC and I say "there's no way I'm living in NYC unless you pay me an extra $30k a year to be based in that hellhole". They really want to hire me because I'm the best candidate, and they believe I'm so good that even with the extra $30k compensation, it is still in their best interests? Should they be allowed to do this? Conversely, company Y wants to hire me but are fine with me continuing to live in rural NM where my cost of living is relatively low. They offer me less than the a Sausalito-based employee doing similar work for them. I dispute this, and they point out that I don't even pay $3k a year in property taxes. I think about it for a while, and realize that my quality of life/disposable income will at least match if not exceed the person in Sausalito. I decide to accept the offer. Should they prevented from doing this?

Jiro 5y ago
The salary that the company is willing to pay you depends on how much you are worth to them. In the scenario where you move to New York because they require your physical presence, your value to them depends on location so they would pay you more for being in New York. In the scenario where you work remotely, your value to them doesn't depend on location.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Far too simplistic. Companies have quite a lot of wiggle room in what they pay people. They might merely "prefer" my physical presence in NYC rather than require it, and prefer it sufficiently to pay me the extra. They might prefer that I was in the SF bay area too, but in that scenario, not so much that it's worth paying me the extra. It's gray zones all the way down, baby!