|
|
|
|
|
|
by amadeuspagel
2082 days ago
|
|
|
Much of this discussion focuses on how already existing companies handle the transition to remote work. This necessarily involves subjective perceptions of fairness. But if you start a new company that's remote from day one, why on earth would you pay people based on location? |
|
|
Because a company always tries to spend less, however they try to put it.
That's exactly why Stripe is offering a pay cut to employees who volunteer to move to cheaper areas: Cheaper cost of living is an argument to lower salaries and thus to cut costs.
I think that the move to remote work, if it is here to stay, won't be good for people who leave in expensive areas and/or have high salaries. Suddenly they are in direct competition with people who are willing to accept a lower salary because they live somewhere cheaper.
A company has a financial interest in paying remote employees based on location. This is the same as opening an office in a cheap location/country in order to save on salary costs.
The problem is a human one within the team, let's call it 'fairness', indeed: People may object if some of their teammates (not some distant employee) make more than them simply based on where they live.