5 ms·

Location is one factor in cost of living, but there are a lot of others too: the type of car you drive (if you drive a car), the quality of food you buy/coffee

Location is one factor in cost of living, but there are a lot of others too: the type of car you drive (if you drive a car), the quality of food you buy/coffee you drink/restaurants you frequent, the number of kids you have, the schools they go to, etc. Should companies adjust compensation according to these variables too, or just city?

sigzero 5y ago
No because everything you listed is a personal choice.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- samstave 5y ago
  I have gone through a fair bit of your comment history and I find that you are much like me. I disagree with your comments on this though... I'd appreciate it if you would expand on what you feel is actual 'choice'
- tauntz 5y ago
  ... but so is location.
  - eyelidlessness 5y ago
    To an extent. But this is a terrific reminder to me that the life I’ve been able to live would have been impossible if I didn’t have the right combination of timely luck and dangerously stubborn determination to escape my home town when I did.
- jbay808 5y ago
  Location is only not a personal choice because of the location-based pay! It's funny, because that logic means that location-based-pay becomes its own justification. The city I live in is normally a personal choice. But by paying based on location, the city I live in no longer becomes a personal choice, which justifies the extra pay for living in that city. But the moment that my company discriminates pay based on anything that has an associated cost, it suddenly stops being a personal choice, which justifies that pay differential. If part of my pay was tied to wearing an expensive suit, then my clothes would no longer be a personal choice, thus justifying the extra pay for the suit. If part of my pay was tied to me driving a fancy car, then my car would no longer be a personal choice, so it would make sense for them to pay extra for the fancy car. If part of my pay was tied to enrolling my kids in a particular school, then enrolling in that school would no longer be a personal choice, so it would make sense for them to pay extra for that, and so on...
  - danans 5y ago
    > The city I live in is normally a personal choice. But by paying based on location, the city I live in no longer becomes a personal choice You still have the personal choice to live in the city of your choice, either by not working for a particular company because they don't offer you the ability to work from your preferred city, or working for the wage they are willing to pay you to work from there. > it suddenly stops being a personal choice, which justifies the extra pay for living in that city. I don't think "justification" enters the consideration for extra pay for living in city X or less pay or no job for living in city Y. You are offered a set of terms of employment working from a given place. There is nothing stopping you from attempting to negotiate different terms. Maybe you can improve on those terms. Some people have enough leverage to work from anywhere they want without any pay decrease. Not me, but maybe you!
    - jbay808 5y ago
      Sorry, I think this is a pretty pedantic distinction. It's along the lines of argument that your employer can't make anything mandatory, because you can always quit and work for another company. But anyway, if you follow the logic of the thread, it was: (A) location-based pay is justified because of location-based cost of living --> (B) then is car-based pay justified because of car-based cost of living? --> (C) no, cars are a personal choice --> (D) your car is as much a personal choice as your location; it's only not a personal choice to the extent that your employer pays you to choose in a particular way, so using that reasoning to justify location-based pay is begging the question --> (E) your reply, that location is a personal choice, which is a counter to the claim (C), not to my response (D). As far as negotiation goes, you might be amazed the extent to which companies are willing to shoot themselves in the foot to stand by their non-negotiable policy. I've seen it. And the calculus is this: you might be so skilled that you're a bargain even at $1 million, but if they pay you that much, it increases the market value of other skilled workers in your area. And if the market discovers this information, that might cost the employer a lot, even though it has nothing to do with you. So they'll tell you you can have the $X you want, but only if you move to a city where other skilled workers are already being paid that much, even though they don't actually care what office you're at, or even if you work remote full-time anyway.
bnj 5y ago
Why should cost of living be a factor in pay determination?
- tomnipotent 5y ago
  It shouldn't. Paying local market rates makes sense when your customers and business operate locally. Google's revenues, however, are not limited based on employee location and I sure as hell don't see why pay should be.
- tellitnow 5y ago
  you know why. Only hire in blue cities so that socialist authoritarian (so called democrat) party can keep control of tech companies that gather data on everybody for the party.
eyelidlessness 5y ago
Not that I’m advocating for location based comp for remote workers—I think it’s a complex issue and don’t feel especially confident leaning either way—but assessing cost of living based on location is more of an assessment of potential cost not actual. It would be more analogous to include the price of available goods/services, not which ones are consumed. The idea behind cost of living comp adjustments is to compensate relative to the value of money, not relative to how one uses that value.

sigzero 5y ago

No because everything you listed is a personal choice.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
samstave 5y ago
I have gone through a fair bit of your comment history and I find that you are much like me. I disagree with your comments on this though... I'd appreciate it if you would expand on what you feel is actual 'choice'
tauntz 5y ago
... but so is location.
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  To an extent. But this is a terrific reminder to me that the life I’ve been able to live would have been impossible if I didn’t have the right combination of timely luck and dangerously stubborn determination to escape my home town when I did.
jbay808 5y ago
Location is only not a personal choice because of the location-based pay! It's funny, because that logic means that location-based-pay becomes its own justification. The city I live in is normally a personal choice. But by paying based on location, the city I live in no longer becomes a personal choice, which justifies the extra pay for living in that city. But the moment that my company discriminates pay based on anything that has an associated cost, it suddenly stops being a personal choice, which justifies that pay differential. If part of my pay was tied to wearing an expensive suit, then my clothes would no longer be a personal choice, thus justifying the extra pay for the suit. If part of my pay was tied to me driving a fancy car, then my car would no longer be a personal choice, so it would make sense for them to pay extra for the fancy car. If part of my pay was tied to enrolling my kids in a particular school, then enrolling in that school would no longer be a personal choice, so it would make sense for them to pay extra for that, and so on...
- danans 5y ago
  > The city I live in is normally a personal choice. But by paying based on location, the city I live in no longer becomes a personal choice You still have the personal choice to live in the city of your choice, either by not working for a particular company because they don't offer you the ability to work from your preferred city, or working for the wage they are willing to pay you to work from there. > it suddenly stops being a personal choice, which justifies the extra pay for living in that city. I don't think "justification" enters the consideration for extra pay for living in city X or less pay or no job for living in city Y. You are offered a set of terms of employment working from a given place. There is nothing stopping you from attempting to negotiate different terms. Maybe you can improve on those terms. Some people have enough leverage to work from anywhere they want without any pay decrease. Not me, but maybe you!
  - jbay808 5y ago
    Sorry, I think this is a pretty pedantic distinction. It's along the lines of argument that your employer can't make anything mandatory, because you can always quit and work for another company. But anyway, if you follow the logic of the thread, it was: (A) location-based pay is justified because of location-based cost of living --> (B) then is car-based pay justified because of car-based cost of living? --> (C) no, cars are a personal choice --> (D) your car is as much a personal choice as your location; it's only not a personal choice to the extent that your employer pays you to choose in a particular way, so using that reasoning to justify location-based pay is begging the question --> (E) your reply, that location is a personal choice, which is a counter to the claim (C), not to my response (D). As far as negotiation goes, you might be amazed the extent to which companies are willing to shoot themselves in the foot to stand by their non-negotiable policy. I've seen it. And the calculus is this: you might be so skilled that you're a bargain even at $1 million, but if they pay you that much, it increases the market value of other skilled workers in your area. And if the market discovers this information, that might cost the employer a lot, even though it has nothing to do with you. So they'll tell you you can have the $X you want, but only if you move to a city where other skilled workers are already being paid that much, even though they don't actually care what office you're at, or even if you work remote full-time anyway.

bnj 5y ago

Why should cost of living be a factor in pay determination?

tomnipotent 5y ago
It shouldn't. Paying local market rates makes sense when your customers and business operate locally. Google's revenues, however, are not limited based on employee location and I sure as hell don't see why pay should be.
tellitnow 5y ago
you know why. Only hire in blue cities so that socialist authoritarian (so called democrat) party can keep control of tech companies that gather data on everybody for the party.

eyelidlessness 5y ago

Not that I’m advocating for location based comp for remote workers—I think it’s a complex issue and don’t feel especially confident leaning either way—but assessing cost of living based on location is more of an assessment of potential cost not actual. It would be more analogous to include the price of available goods/services, not which ones are consumed. The idea behind cost of living comp adjustments is to compensate relative to the value of money, not relative to how one uses that value.