|
|
|
|
|
by cratermoon
1778 days ago
|
|
> A company basically pays you for your cost of living. That's why pay is high in the Bay Area or NY, and why you take a massive pay cut when you move out. That's the essence of another issue companies are forcing with remote work. It puts the lie to any claim that compensation is based on business value. Do I not provide the same value to the business if I live in Omaha, Nebraska rather than San Jose, California? But, the company has offices in Menlo Park, you're more valuable because you're closer to them, you say? But the company also has offices in Omaha, and a dozens other places around the world. This isn't theoretical: companies have already said that pay scales for remote work will be tied to location, regardless of the contribution a person makes to the company. Employers are going to have to reckon with the fact that if I can chose to live more comfortably, I can also choose to expect to compensated for my contributions rather than my postal code. Am I worth a six-figure salary or not? |
|
it simply is bonkers they've tried to pull that line out.