[kccqzy]

There was an internal tool that simulated your pay change when you move. For example, if your office is in Santa Clara county but you move to Santa Cruz county the pay will drop by a lot. But if you move from Santa Clara county to San Mateo county there's no change at all.

[dekhn]

That's terrible (specifically, for the people driving to the office over 17 with their reduced paychecks). What a slap in the face.

[wildrhythms]

Getting paid less for doing the exact same job, just a few miles away. :) Isn't that wonderful? But at least the corporate real estate market is happy.

[WWLink]

Oh no, I would bet some money that the C level execs at these companies own a lot of residential property near their campuses. Likely purchased before they announced building said campus! It's just good business sense.

If the employees move away rent goes down, so does demand for their properties.. so yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

[iancmceachern]

Yeah. Someone could have lived there long term, had a Job, and now are suddenly getting a pay cut?

[shagie]

... if they are charging from being in the office from 5 days a week (before times) to 0 days a week (now) rather than 3 days a week in office and 2 from home.

5 -> 0 is a pay cut based on where you live.

5 -> 3 is not a pay cut as you're still working out of the same office.

[dekhn]

Ah, OK I thought anybody who lived in Santa Cruz and reported to the office 5 days a week would take a pay cut. This is just if you're fully remote, I guess. Still seems like a slap, Santa Cruz ain't cheap even if it's slightly better than San Mateo or Mountain View.

[saalweachter]

So I'm a "super commuter"; I can take the Metro North from the end of the line to NYC, although I usually go for Amtrak for several reasons.

If I were to go fully remote, I would take a pay cut ... but it would be almost identical to my commuting costs, once you account for rail fair, parking, vehicle mileage, taxes, snacks, etc.

I don't know how representative my case is, but the pay cut ends up being a non-factor in my decision whether or not to apply for full remote.

[toomanyrichies]

The above seems to put the lie to the argument I've often heard that the justification for these cost-of-living adjustments is that in-person employees deliver more value than remote employees.

If this were indeed the reason for the salary adjustment, it wouldn't matter whether an employee was moving to Santa Cruz, San Mateo, or San Salvador. Either way they're remote, and unless one city has markedly different internet bandwidth, the value that a given employee delivers from any remote location should be the same.

Next time I hear someone making this argument, I'm calling BS. It's a bald-faced attempt for the company to capture value which rightfully belongs to the employee.

[tick_tock_tick]

> The above seems to put the lie to the argument I've often heard that the justification for these cost-of-living adjustments is that in-person employees deliver more value than remote employees.

Only the horribly uninformed would ever make such a bad faith argument. You've never been paid based on your "value" but rather what it takes to keep you as an employee. The company only wants to pay you enough to keep you and if you move some place cheap well they don't need to offer as much.

[bo1024]

> The company only wants to pay you enough to keep you and if you move some place cheap well they don't need to offer as much.

I think that depends what your other options are. It might work if everyone in the industry offers you less based on where you live, which is almost collusion in my opinion.

[toomanyrichies]

> Only the horribly uninformed would ever make such a bad faith argument.

Nevertheless, it's one that I've heard repeated quite often.