4 ms·

> There is a reason these are the same thing that should already be obvious: If you want people to take a job that costs them ~$30,000 more in expenses, you'll

> There is a reason these are the same thing that should already be obvious: If you want people to take a job that costs them ~$30,000 more in expenses, you'll have to pay them more. If you split the difference, you both come out $15,000 ahead. Sorry to be blunt, but I think this is incredibly naive given the current market. Since the explosion of remote work I've seen a ton of offshoring to excellent software developers in Latin American and Europe. There is absolutely zero benefit to paying an American salary in those situations because everyone is remote anyway (and there is enough timezone overlap that everyone can work roughly the same hours). Workers will simply get fired if they don't come in and execs really want RTO, they're not going to get paid more.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Workers will simply get fired if they don't come in and execs really want RTO, they're not going to get paid more. If execs really want RTO then people will quit and they'll have to hire new people, pay retraining costs, pay them more because other companies are still offering WFH, lose out on all those lower cost workers in Latin America (or Texas or Virginia) and still be paying millions of dollars for office space their employees don't even want to be in.
- kcplate 2y ago
  > If execs really want RTO then people will quit and they'll have to hire new people There have been 550k tech layoffs in the last 2 years. Pretty sure there are quite a few folks ready and willing to do a commute to work in an office to get a paycheck again.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    The question is not whether they can find someone else to hire. They can always do that for the prevailing market price. The question is, how much more do they have to pay to get someone to take on ~$30,000/year in commuting costs than they would if they didn't require that?
    - kcplate 2y ago
      You are so fixated on costs that literally do not matter to an organization that can fill an in office job at the rate they want to pay.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        The rate they want to pay is "less".
        kcplate 2y ago
        Doesn’t matter if someone will accept it and work in the office. That’s what the value the job is worth to both the employer and the employee.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        I feel like you're still not... So suppose the employer's benefit from having the employee is $150,000 if they work from the office and $140,000 if they work from home. Meanwhile the employee would accept $130,000 if they had to work from the office or $100,000 if they can work from home. You're saying, $150,000 is more than $130,000 so the employer can pay them $130,000 to work from the office and everything's fine. But the difference between $150,000 and $130,000 is less than the difference between $140,000 and $100,000. By quite a lot. So why isn't the employer going to want any of that money?

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> Workers will simply get fired if they don't come in and execs really want RTO, they're not going to get paid more. If execs really want RTO then people will quit and they'll have to hire new people, pay retraining costs, pay them more because other companies are still offering WFH, lose out on all those lower cost workers in Latin America (or Texas or Virginia) and still be paying millions of dollars for office space their employees don't even want to be in.

kcplate 2y ago
> If execs really want RTO then people will quit and they'll have to hire new people There have been 550k tech layoffs in the last 2 years. Pretty sure there are quite a few folks ready and willing to do a commute to work in an office to get a paycheck again.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  The question is not whether they can find someone else to hire. They can always do that for the prevailing market price. The question is, how much more do they have to pay to get someone to take on ~$30,000/year in commuting costs than they would if they didn't require that?
  - kcplate 2y ago
    You are so fixated on costs that literally do not matter to an organization that can fill an in office job at the rate they want to pay.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      The rate they want to pay is "less".
      - kcplate 2y ago
        Doesn’t matter if someone will accept it and work in the office. That’s what the value the job is worth to both the employer and the employee.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        I feel like you're still not... So suppose the employer's benefit from having the employee is $150,000 if they work from the office and $140,000 if they work from home. Meanwhile the employee would accept $130,000 if they had to work from the office or $100,000 if they can work from home. You're saying, $150,000 is more than $130,000 so the employer can pay them $130,000 to work from the office and everything's fine. But the difference between $150,000 and $130,000 is less than the difference between $140,000 and $100,000. By quite a lot. So why isn't the employer going to want any of that money?