3 ms·

It seems unfair to me that I might be paid less because I've opted to live in a cheaper area. Why should I have to subsidize my teammate's expensive, hip, urban

It seems unfair to me that I might be paid less because I've opted to live in a cheaper area. Why should I have to subsidize my teammate's expensive, hip, urban NYC lifestyle if I've decided to live somewhere cheap and save money for early retirement, starting my own business, supporting a larger family etc?

toyg 15y ago
Sorry, am I reading correctly? Peldi should subsidize you starting your own business? That seems unfair to me :) Aside from the clear moral judgement you're making here, which doesn't belong in any salary policy, the problem with your argument is that chances are that you made that choice while maintaining a "urban" salary... i.e. you are fundamentally exploiting a loophole in "classic" remuneration systems thanks to telecommuting, and you're now complaining that those systems might be catching up.
- cageface 15y ago
  If I'm providing exactly the same quality and volume of work, why should my zip code matter? You're reading a moral argument in my comment that I'm not making. If anything this sets up a reverse incentive to live in NYC like a college student and pocket the difference. What you're calling a loophole is the new reality of information-based labor. Companies that penalize their employees for taking advantage of this flexibility to set their own lifestyle priorities are going to suffer in the market for top talent.
  - toyg 15y ago
    "If anything this sets up a reverse incentive to live in NYC like a college student and pocket the difference." It's a choice; everyone makes lifestyle choices, like you say, as an employer there's nothing you can do about that. Peldi's policy gives you a chance to make enough money to live comfortably wherever you want to live; I think that's quite a perk, for most people. If your lifestyle choices completely trump your professional interest in joining the company, you'd probably not be a good match anyway. Besides, the policy is weighted by bonuses, and sounds more like the starting point for a conversation rather than a straight-jacket. Knowing the man a little -- we went to the same highschool, although he already was a celebrity and I wasn't ;) -- I'm quite confident he'd do his damnedest to find a satisfying and realistic agreement for anyone interested in joining.
    - cageface 15y ago
      If you're willing to effectively penalize people for making lifestyle choices, why not also cut salaries for people without kids? Or people with spouses with good jobs? They don't need the extra cash. This sounds like a deal you'd offer a co-founder, not an employee. I'm sure Peldi's intentions are good here but from a potential employee's point of view I don't see why anything but the quality of my work should determine my salary.

toyg 15y ago

Sorry, am I reading correctly? Peldi should subsidize you starting your own business? That seems unfair to me :) Aside from the clear moral judgement you're making here, which doesn't belong in any salary policy, the problem with your argument is that chances are that you made that choice while maintaining a "urban" salary... i.e. you are fundamentally exploiting a loophole in "classic" remuneration systems thanks to telecommuting, and you're now complaining that those systems might be catching up.

cageface 15y ago
If I'm providing exactly the same quality and volume of work, why should my zip code matter? You're reading a moral argument in my comment that I'm not making. If anything this sets up a reverse incentive to live in NYC like a college student and pocket the difference. What you're calling a loophole is the new reality of information-based labor. Companies that penalize their employees for taking advantage of this flexibility to set their own lifestyle priorities are going to suffer in the market for top talent.
- toyg 15y ago
  "If anything this sets up a reverse incentive to live in NYC like a college student and pocket the difference." It's a choice; everyone makes lifestyle choices, like you say, as an employer there's nothing you can do about that. Peldi's policy gives you a chance to make enough money to live comfortably wherever you want to live; I think that's quite a perk, for most people. If your lifestyle choices completely trump your professional interest in joining the company, you'd probably not be a good match anyway. Besides, the policy is weighted by bonuses, and sounds more like the starting point for a conversation rather than a straight-jacket. Knowing the man a little -- we went to the same highschool, although he already was a celebrity and I wasn't ;) -- I'm quite confident he'd do his damnedest to find a satisfying and realistic agreement for anyone interested in joining.
  - cageface 15y ago
    If you're willing to effectively penalize people for making lifestyle choices, why not also cut salaries for people without kids? Or people with spouses with good jobs? They don't need the extra cash. This sounds like a deal you'd offer a co-founder, not an employee. I'm sure Peldi's intentions are good here but from a potential employee's point of view I don't see why anything but the quality of my work should determine my salary.