7 ms·

I’m not sure why the company is responsible at an individual level for what’s going on in the Bay Area. They can’t tell you how to manage and interact with the

I’m not sure why the company is responsible at an individual level for what’s going on in the Bay Area. They can’t tell you how to manage and interact with the expenses of your life. If you’re mad at anyone, walk down to city hall and tell them to build more housing.

vkou 4y ago
> I’m not sure why the company is responsible at an individual level for what’s going on in the Bay Area. No, but it's responsible for not paying well, while mandating that everyone working for it must live in the most expensive region in the country. > If you’re mad at anyone, walk down to city hall and tell them to build more housing. Or walk across the street to a competitor. It is the Bay area, after all.
- listenallyall 4y ago
  Mandating? Every employee at the company voluntarily agreed to the terms of their employment, the wage, the location, etc. prior to starting.
  - vkou 4y ago
    It's a mandate. They could have mandated that remote work is acceptable. They didn't. They are now surprised that people are leaving. Just like how if you don't like the mandates issued by your government, you are free to move to a different country. Or to petition it to change them. They are still mandates, though, despite you choosing out of your own free will to submit to them, by virtue of not leaving. This website also has mandates about how its posters are expected to behave, that you submit to - despite being here voluntarily.
    - listenallyall 4y ago
      I'm a citizen of the country I was born in, which I did not choose. I can leave the country physically, but that itself doesn't invalidate my citizenship, or my obligation to pay taxes. You choose the company you work for, and you can leave at any time, and you don't owe them a thing. So no, it's not at all "just like"
anigbrowl 4y ago
It isn't. Nor should the company expect people to keep showing up if they are not being paid enough to live in the area where their offices are. This is just suppliers (of labor) advising that their costs are going up, and thus so is the price of their economic input. It's just business.
chrsig 4y ago
Because the company chooses to have a policy that mandates employees live within a viable commute radius of an office located in the city. I don't know why companies can't just take responsibility for their decisions. Or the company can walk down to city hall and tell them to build more housing, because they're unable or unwilling to pay enough for people to live in a viable radius. Or the company can relocate or establish a satellite office in a lower cost of living area. Or the company can pay people commensurately with the cost of living in the area. Or the company can deal with the inevitable attrition of their workforce as it happens, all the while denying that they have any agency and deflect blame onto individuals.
- RexM 4y ago
  The last one seems to be the most popular choice.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kelseyfrog 4y ago
Why artificially constrain the action landscape? In the realpolitik world of getting desirable outcomes, if forcing companies gets the results, then it gets the results.
cogman10 4y ago
You say this as if companies don't chose where to have their offices and their attendance policies. If a company places it's headquarters in a HCOL area and requires everyone come in 5 days a week, then yes, they have a responsibility to pay a salary high enough that their employees can survive there. If employers don't like the fact that COL is too high, THEY can go ahead and march on city hall to advocate for political action. Companies have a MUCH larger sway with local politicians than the average employee does. That, or they can increase the salary or change the attendance policies.
- kriops 4y ago
  Supply and demand. COL is a downstream price signal as far as a rational employer is concerned. While they might try to influence it to alter the supply of potential workers in their favor, it is by no means their responsibility to do so. And saying companies choose where the highest concentration of available talent resides is dishonest.
  - cogman10 4y ago
    > Supply and demand. Yup, there's a low supply of employees and a high demand for them. So guess what the absolute dumbest thing is an employer can do when employees start clamoring for COL adjustments?
    - kriops 4y ago
      There are so many other factors in play than whether "employees start clamoring for COL adjustments" or not, so the correct course of action when that happens might very well be to reduce wages or do nothing.
  - connicpu 4y ago
    They don't have a responsibility to do so, but they shouldn't be surprised when employees are angry at them if they don't do one or the other
  - humanrebar 4y ago
alistairSH 4y ago
They can’t tell you how to manage and interact with the expenses of your life. No, but they can move to a lower cost area, allow WFH, or gasp pay a fair wage for the region. Employers don't have a right to cheap labor
- sneak 4y ago
  It's the employee's job to remind an employer that they don't have the right to cheap labor by leaving. The market is two-sided.
pnemonic 4y ago
Companies are responsible at an individual level for understanding the state of the environment they chose to do business in. You seem to be implying that people in the Bay Area are just bad with money and if they weren't, this wouldn't be a problem. Some day soon, hopefully, companies that fail to do this will fail to stay in business.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fugalfervor 4y ago
If the people in the company want to be good (and they should, because being good makes you happy), they will ensure the financial success of their workers. If the people in the company want to be bad (and they shouldn't, because being bad makes you unhappy), then they will callously disregard the needs of their workers, and say it's someone else's fault.
- bulatb 4y ago
  As the Baltimore philosopher Butchie put it: "Conscience do cost." Feeling good makes people happy. What's measured to produce that feeling is the outcome of the am-I-good thing in your brain's evaluation of whatever you did, and Goodhart's law is always in effect. You can pay the cost of being good and earn a good evaluation—or you can do whatever you want, enjoy the rewards, and trick the am-I-good thing into always saying yes. Since the latter method makes you feel good cheaper and faster, I'd expect it to be fairly common. In my experience it is. So it's really option 3: do bad things and don't feel bad, with views on right and wrong aligned suspiciously precisely with your personal interests. (Hopefully I've made it clear I'm not endorsing this, just describing it.)
  - fugalfervor 4y ago
    Yes, it was clear that you aren't endorsing this. However, people who behave badly usually have to face consequences from other people. The selfish person is rarely just selfish at work. They take it home to their families and live with the consequences of pretty weak relationships. The greedy are never satisfied with what they have, so they're in a constant state of wanting. That's a pretty unpleasant place to be.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Spooky23 4y ago
That’s a pretty cynical and reductionist approach.

vkou 4y ago

> I’m not sure why the company is responsible at an individual level for what’s going on in the Bay Area. No, but it's responsible for not paying well, while mandating that everyone working for it must live in the most expensive region in the country. > If you’re mad at anyone, walk down to city hall and tell them to build more housing. Or walk across the street to a competitor. It is the Bay area, after all.

listenallyall 4y ago
Mandating? Every employee at the company voluntarily agreed to the terms of their employment, the wage, the location, etc. prior to starting.
- vkou 4y ago
  It's a mandate. They could have mandated that remote work is acceptable. They didn't. They are now surprised that people are leaving. Just like how if you don't like the mandates issued by your government, you are free to move to a different country. Or to petition it to change them. They are still mandates, though, despite you choosing out of your own free will to submit to them, by virtue of not leaving. This website also has mandates about how its posters are expected to behave, that you submit to - despite being here voluntarily.
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    I'm a citizen of the country I was born in, which I did not choose. I can leave the country physically, but that itself doesn't invalidate my citizenship, or my obligation to pay taxes. You choose the company you work for, and you can leave at any time, and you don't owe them a thing. So no, it's not at all "just like"

anigbrowl 4y ago

It isn't. Nor should the company expect people to keep showing up if they are not being paid enough to live in the area where their offices are. This is just suppliers (of labor) advising that their costs are going up, and thus so is the price of their economic input. It's just business.

chrsig 4y ago

Because the company chooses to have a policy that mandates employees live within a viable commute radius of an office located in the city. I don't know why companies can't just take responsibility for their decisions. Or the company can walk down to city hall and tell them to build more housing, because they're unable or unwilling to pay enough for people to live in a viable radius. Or the company can relocate or establish a satellite office in a lower cost of living area. Or the company can pay people commensurately with the cost of living in the area. Or the company can deal with the inevitable attrition of their workforce as it happens, all the while denying that they have any agency and deflect blame onto individuals.

RexM 4y ago
The last one seems to be the most popular choice.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kelseyfrog 4y ago

Why artificially constrain the action landscape? In the realpolitik world of getting desirable outcomes, if forcing companies gets the results, then it gets the results.

cogman10 4y ago

You say this as if companies don't chose where to have their offices and their attendance policies. If a company places it's headquarters in a HCOL area and requires everyone come in 5 days a week, then yes, they have a responsibility to pay a salary high enough that their employees can survive there. If employers don't like the fact that COL is too high, THEY can go ahead and march on city hall to advocate for political action. Companies have a MUCH larger sway with local politicians than the average employee does. That, or they can increase the salary or change the attendance policies.

kriops 4y ago
Supply and demand. COL is a downstream price signal as far as a rational employer is concerned. While they might try to influence it to alter the supply of potential workers in their favor, it is by no means their responsibility to do so. And saying companies choose where the highest concentration of available talent resides is dishonest.
- cogman10 4y ago
  > Supply and demand. Yup, there's a low supply of employees and a high demand for them. So guess what the absolute dumbest thing is an employer can do when employees start clamoring for COL adjustments?
  - kriops 4y ago
    There are so many other factors in play than whether "employees start clamoring for COL adjustments" or not, so the correct course of action when that happens might very well be to reduce wages or do nothing.
- connicpu 4y ago
  They don't have a responsibility to do so, but they shouldn't be surprised when employees are angry at them if they don't do one or the other
- humanrebar 4y ago

alistairSH 4y ago

They can’t tell you how to manage and interact with the expenses of your life. No, but they can move to a lower cost area, allow WFH, or gasp pay a fair wage for the region. Employers don't have a right to cheap labor

sneak 4y ago
It's the employee's job to remind an employer that they don't have the right to cheap labor by leaving. The market is two-sided.

pnemonic 4y ago

Companies are responsible at an individual level for understanding the state of the environment they chose to do business in. You seem to be implying that people in the Bay Area are just bad with money and if they weren't, this wouldn't be a problem. Some day soon, hopefully, companies that fail to do this will fail to stay in business.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

fugalfervor 4y ago

If the people in the company want to be good (and they should, because being good makes you happy), they will ensure the financial success of their workers. If the people in the company want to be bad (and they shouldn't, because being bad makes you unhappy), then they will callously disregard the needs of their workers, and say it's someone else's fault.

bulatb 4y ago
As the Baltimore philosopher Butchie put it: "Conscience do cost." Feeling good makes people happy. What's measured to produce that feeling is the outcome of the am-I-good thing in your brain's evaluation of whatever you did, and Goodhart's law is always in effect. You can pay the cost of being good and earn a good evaluation—or you can do whatever you want, enjoy the rewards, and trick the am-I-good thing into always saying yes. Since the latter method makes you feel good cheaper and faster, I'd expect it to be fairly common. In my experience it is. So it's really option 3: do bad things and don't feel bad, with views on right and wrong aligned suspiciously precisely with your personal interests. (Hopefully I've made it clear I'm not endorsing this, just describing it.)
- fugalfervor 4y ago
  Yes, it was clear that you aren't endorsing this. However, people who behave badly usually have to face consequences from other people. The selfish person is rarely just selfish at work. They take it home to their families and live with the consequences of pretty weak relationships. The greedy are never satisfied with what they have, so they're in a constant state of wanting. That's a pretty unpleasant place to be.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Spooky23 4y ago

That’s a pretty cynical and reductionist approach.