[jldugger]

> The $150k is not what your work is directly valued at

Indeed, presumably you are worth more than that to them. It's a pretty naked cash grab to cut salary in response to a location move, and somewhat illogical considering they moved their HQ to the bay area in the first place. If it's objectively bad and expensive, why not move your HQ to Austin or San Antonio or Portland?

> if Facebook starts to hire remote workers, then your value will drop because they now have the access to a pool of workers who don't want to drag their asses to San Francisco and can pretty easily settle for less since their rent doesn't require them to bleed money.

For now. It remains to be seen if bay area rents are high because of tech salaries, or if tech salaries are high because of rents. Likely they feed back into each other. And as a worker in SF, you have access to all the same remote opportunities.

[ipnon]

All business decisions are cash grabs.

[TeMPOraL]

Not all, but businesses with that attitude are worth trusting about as far as you can throw them.

[PunksATawnyFill]

Amen. Anyone running a company who opts to put it in San Francisco or Silicon Valley at this point is issuing a big F-U to employees.

And this pay-cut policy is bullshit. If employees are allowed to work offsite, then that site should not be dictated. It's a win/win, because although the employee saves money, so does the company. And thanks to Trump and Republicans, employees can't even deduct the money they spend on electricity, office equipment, and rent.

[GhettoChild]

I have heard so many people justify companies locating in the Bay are due to the talent found in the area. While that may be true I have a hard time believing that companies would not be able to recruit in cheaper large cities like Austin, Dallas, Chicago, Philly, Etc if they offered Bay Area money.

[stackcrash]

100% of the jobs I turn down are ones wanting me to move to the Bay area. I get paid the same already as my peers in the Bay and don't have to live there.