5 ms·

I've been making similar calculations, but I include the travel time. An hour or so each way adds about 25% to the remuneration I expect. Given that the time is

I've been making similar calculations, but I include the travel time. An hour or so each way adds about 25% to the remuneration I expect. Given that the time is effectively fallow time that the company will receive zero benefit from, but would be available to me for reading, I can come down to 20%. However, having to travel in to the office at all, even one day a week, would mean I still have to live within travel distance; this is a massive and expensive inconvenience. Not sure quite how to price that in.

namdnay 3y ago
The thing is, if you’re not within commuting distance, why would the company pay you London rates and not standard UK rates :)
- EliRivers 3y ago
  Why wouldn't they pay me a higher rate? They'll pay me the least they can to get my services; where I live makes no difference to them. I'm sure that if they can get away with "we'll pay you less because you live far away" they will; it's up to me (us) to put a stop to that nonsense.
  - saiya-jin 3y ago
    That works if you have upper hand in negotiations. In case they have 50 applicants for the job, and 5 pretty good then this can easily be a showstopper. Which is fine if you have 4 other negotiations happening in parallel, or possess a unique skill they desperately want (many think they do, most don't). Its trivial for company to understand the relationships with location and pay in given country, when you come to an interview these rules are probably already sort of set in stone.
  - mavelikara 3y ago
    Why is that nonsense?
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      The nonsense is the idea that they are paying based on your location due to your presumed costs. That is the nice way of saying they are paying you what they think you will accept because they think you are in a region where you do not have better options. If you rejected the offer, and they wanted you, then the location based pay would magically change.
    - hirako2000 3y ago
      The non sense is the fallacy. Like most fallacies they sound in the right but they are deprived of true sense. Your personal cost cannot be a determinant of your compensation. Get into a huge dept or whatever and see whether your employer adjust your comp due to your particularly high must expenses or lunatic lifestyle. What does make sense is what the market says is true. Even when it isn't. Back then location was a predictor of a delta in compensation and that's exactly because there was no other way than to go to the office, hence be nearby. Behind the fallacy is simply that they want to pick from the global pool of talent thanks to remote work, and want to use the location facfor to also lower the wage burden as they are at it. There is a job market, i agree we should all put a stop to the non sense and if all goes well we can also start to ask ourselves why certain individuals are able to move to a limited number of locations in the world, other individuals having about the same profile only able to move to a more limited number of locations, and among those some only able to move to an even more limited number of places. While political reasons also involved it doesn't make them ethically justifyable. A defence for more remote work and compensation not tied to location of the worker moves the needle towards the more justice direction.
  - mikhailfranco 3y ago
    Ask HN about geo-adjusted pay: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36981745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36981745

namdnay 3y ago

The thing is, if you’re not within commuting distance, why would the company pay you London rates and not standard UK rates :)

EliRivers 3y ago
Why wouldn't they pay me a higher rate? They'll pay me the least they can to get my services; where I live makes no difference to them. I'm sure that if they can get away with "we'll pay you less because you live far away" they will; it's up to me (us) to put a stop to that nonsense.
- saiya-jin 3y ago
  That works if you have upper hand in negotiations. In case they have 50 applicants for the job, and 5 pretty good then this can easily be a showstopper. Which is fine if you have 4 other negotiations happening in parallel, or possess a unique skill they desperately want (many think they do, most don't). Its trivial for company to understand the relationships with location and pay in given country, when you come to an interview these rules are probably already sort of set in stone.
- mavelikara 3y ago
  Why is that nonsense?
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    The nonsense is the idea that they are paying based on your location due to your presumed costs. That is the nice way of saying they are paying you what they think you will accept because they think you are in a region where you do not have better options. If you rejected the offer, and they wanted you, then the location based pay would magically change.
  - hirako2000 3y ago
    The non sense is the fallacy. Like most fallacies they sound in the right but they are deprived of true sense. Your personal cost cannot be a determinant of your compensation. Get into a huge dept or whatever and see whether your employer adjust your comp due to your particularly high must expenses or lunatic lifestyle. What does make sense is what the market says is true. Even when it isn't. Back then location was a predictor of a delta in compensation and that's exactly because there was no other way than to go to the office, hence be nearby. Behind the fallacy is simply that they want to pick from the global pool of talent thanks to remote work, and want to use the location facfor to also lower the wage burden as they are at it. There is a job market, i agree we should all put a stop to the non sense and if all goes well we can also start to ask ourselves why certain individuals are able to move to a limited number of locations in the world, other individuals having about the same profile only able to move to a more limited number of locations, and among those some only able to move to an even more limited number of places. While political reasons also involved it doesn't make them ethically justifyable. A defence for more remote work and compensation not tied to location of the worker moves the needle towards the more justice direction.
- mikhailfranco 3y ago
  Ask HN about geo-adjusted pay: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36981745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36981745