[ReadEvalPost]

On one hand they cut my base salary by 25% when I went remote in AZ, but on the other I'm paying 35% less in housing to own a 3 bedroom house instead of renting a 1 bedroom apartment. I get the annoyance but there's something to be said about being grateful about the overall purchasing power increase.

[UncleMeat]

I'm also remote, and the 15% salary cut was covered by cost of living and state tax changes. Plus, the ability to support my family's goals by living in a different place is incredibly incredibly valuable.

But the Raleigh-Durham office situation is bullshit. They are paid less than US-REMOTE-NC. They are the only location in the US that had their equity refreshes cut directly rather than ratcheted down. It is the lowest paid location in the US and the research triangle isn't like 2009 Detroit in terms of housing prices. And teams were moved there so if you prefer working on site then it wasn't like it was an optional pay cut for a different location.

[mabbo]

You're worth that 25% more though. The value you provide is not based on your location.

You deserve better.

[misslibby]

Is this the new variation of value theory of labour?

Workers are just market participants, competing with other workers. One way they can compete is by lowering their living costs, so that they can get by for less and afford to offer their services for lower rates.

Likewise companies compete and try to make their products more affordable.

This is how we arrived at the situation of extreme surplus in Western countries. Not by some entity (or internet commentators) setting arbitrary price points for things.

[abernard1]

> Is this the new variation of value theory of labour?

I'm very confused here. The value theory of labour is based upon time spent in labour, and not value produced.

The argument was if for whatever reasons, the value produced before moving to Arizona allowed the employer to pay a certain wage, the value provided to the company is still the same post-move, and wages should not change.

This has nothing to do with the value theory of labour, and the employer's stance here more or less aligns with an "input costs determine output" theory of value. This is beyond silly.

[misslibby]

Presumably the value of remote work is not the same, then.

[deltree7]

your worth to any innovative firm is definitely based on where you are located.

On an average, Long Run, By collaborating with Silicon Valley minds, in-person, you'll generate more value than sitting Remote or hanging out in North Carolina.

These would have been never been possible if Jeff and Sanjay were remote https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/12/10/the-friendship...

[UncleMeat]

And Jeff and Sanjay wouldn't be like L11 or whatever ridiculous level they are if they hadn't achieved those things. There are already mechanisms for rewarding innovation and impact. Maybe remote workers will be less innovative and have less impact. That should be addressed in performance reviews, not through assumptions.

[anon23anon]

dis viewpoint be silly