3 ms·
Don’t you think the amount of remote work has changed that? I think part of the problem is the presumed loss aversion of moving from a $300k salary to, say, a
by bumby 4y ago
Don’t you think the amount of remote work has changed that?
I think part of the problem is the presumed loss aversion of moving from a $300k salary to, say, a $175k one that is remote but allows for a better standard of living (particularly for families).
- bdangubic 4y agoYou say this as if getting a fully remote job that pays $175k is easy to come by… I’d guess that most people making $300k in high-priced areas would take this paycut to $175k every day of the week and twice on sunday if they were offered
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 4m1rk 4y agoThis just doesn't make sense to me. The employer can hire two instead of one while getting the same performance. Supposing we're not talking about 8+ hours timezone difference, it's much more valuable than just having someone physically in the office!
- deroanth 4y agoI keep wanting to think this way as well, but then I am reminded that there are more costs for a position than just the salary most of the time. Lots of administrative overhead. I don't know actual numbers, but it's probably more of a conversion of one position into two for 30-40% of the salary at best.