3 ms·

A few of these would be big turnoffs for me: - everything at the office (both nine and ten): how about reasonable work hours so I can do things outside the off

by kenko 13y ago

A few of these would be big turnoffs for me: - everything at the office (both nine and ten): how about reasonable work hours so I can do things outside the office? - $500 if I live nearby: if this is just out of respect for the deleterious effects of a long commute, it strikes me as weirdly paternalistic, and actually kind of backwards; people who for whatever reason (spouse's employment, family, whatever) can't live within five miles and thus have a longer commute have both a long commute and $500/month less. Why not just subsidize transit for everyone? Or (and this is a bit tinfoil-hat-like, I admit) it's a way to get people to live near the office ... so it's less burdensome to spend a lot of time at the office.

crazygringo 13y ago
Indeed, when you look at these in reverse, they really take on a different meaning. Essentially: you salary would be X, except it's less because we're spending it on perks, except that you might not want some of them or qualify for them... What business is it of the employer's, where I live? Viewed in this light, it's actually discrimination against employees who don't live nearby, a salary cut in fact. It's almost amazing that it's even legal to do something like that. Imagine if a company said, an extra $500/mo for everyone who doesn't own a car, or everyone who is vegan, or everyone who volunteers 10 hrs/mo, or everyone who votes Republican.
rmc 13y ago
I don't think there's any totally right answer. People who live further away might have lower cost of accomodation, meaning less living expenses, meaning and effective pay rise! "Getting to the office" costs can be "cost of location + cost of getting there". If you live far away, "cost of location" can be less, but "cost of getting there" can be higher. If you live close, then "cost of location" can be higher, but "cost of getting there" is lower (sometimes zero if you can walk). Subsidizing the transit costs is common and only subsidises "cost of getting there", why not also subsidise the "cost of location" for those who don't have a high number on the "cost of getting there" side?

by kenko 13y ago

crazygringo 13y ago

Indeed, when you look at these in reverse, they really take on a different meaning. Essentially: you salary would be X, except it's less because we're spending it on perks, except that you might not want some of them or qualify for them... What business is it of the employer's, where I live? Viewed in this light, it's actually discrimination against employees who don't live nearby, a salary cut in fact. It's almost amazing that it's even legal to do something like that. Imagine if a company said, an extra $500/mo for everyone who doesn't own a car, or everyone who is vegan, or everyone who volunteers 10 hrs/mo, or everyone who votes Republican.

rmc 13y ago

I don't think there's any totally right answer. People who live further away might have lower cost of accomodation, meaning less living expenses, meaning and effective pay rise! "Getting to the office" costs can be "cost of location + cost of getting there". If you live far away, "cost of location" can be less, but "cost of getting there" can be higher. If you live close, then "cost of location" can be higher, but "cost of getting there" is lower (sometimes zero if you can walk). Subsidizing the transit costs is common and only subsidises "cost of getting there", why not also subsidise the "cost of location" for those who don't have a high number on the "cost of getting there" side?