4 ms·

> It's hugely expensive to do this and that money would be better spent on more important things. Unless the company is compensating folks for living closer to

> It's hugely expensive to do this and that money would be better spent on more important things. Unless the company is compensating folks for living closer to offices, they are likely just transferring those costs to the employees’ cost of living when forcing folks to live in higher cost of living areas.

dijit 3y ago
> Unless the company is compensating folks for living closer to offices, they are likely just transferring those costs to the employees’ cost of living when forcing folks to live in higher cost of living areas. Cost of living has historically been factored when determining salary, right? I don't live in a high cost of living environment (I live in Malmo, Sweden; pretty cheap by Swedish standards overall) and I won't earn as much here as I would if I was working in Zurich or Stockholm. What you say here comes across as hugely entitled since presumably you are already paid a really high salary and want to make even more relative to others in your area? By virtue of you being able to work remotely even if it comes at a cost to your productivity? As a counter: Large companies (such as IBM) typically have their campuses located outside of major metropolitan hubs where office space is cheap: is your predilection, then, that they should pay you now less? If they force a move to a lower cost of living area because they decide that? You are paid for a job in a place, and getting to that job is part of the salary for that job in some circumstances. You wouldn't expect Police officer to be paid the same in NYC vs Bryan, Ohio. If that police officer were to move to Bryan from NYC though: their travel costs and cost of living are on them, They would be paid to work in NYC.
- mathgeek 3y ago
  My comment was not in relation to my own situation. That aside, the situation you describe emphasizes my point. If the company is paying more for folks to live near the office, then the costs of travel for remote workers can and should be less than the additional compensation would be.

dijit 3y ago

> Unless the company is compensating folks for living closer to offices, they are likely just transferring those costs to the employees’ cost of living when forcing folks to live in higher cost of living areas. Cost of living has historically been factored when determining salary, right? I don't live in a high cost of living environment (I live in Malmo, Sweden; pretty cheap by Swedish standards overall) and I won't earn as much here as I would if I was working in Zurich or Stockholm. What you say here comes across as hugely entitled since presumably you are already paid a really high salary and want to make even more relative to others in your area? By virtue of you being able to work remotely even if it comes at a cost to your productivity? As a counter: Large companies (such as IBM) typically have their campuses located outside of major metropolitan hubs where office space is cheap: is your predilection, then, that they should pay you now less? If they force a move to a lower cost of living area because they decide that? You are paid for a job in a place, and getting to that job is part of the salary for that job in some circumstances. You wouldn't expect Police officer to be paid the same in NYC vs Bryan, Ohio. If that police officer were to move to Bryan from NYC though: their travel costs and cost of living are on them, They would be paid to work in NYC.

mathgeek 3y ago
My comment was not in relation to my own situation. That aside, the situation you describe emphasizes my point. If the company is paying more for folks to live near the office, then the costs of travel for remote workers can and should be less than the additional compensation would be.