[treis]

The bigger cost would be a rent equivalent on a home office. That's probably low five figures annually.

But I don't agree with the overall conclusion. Ultimately the cost of an employee boils down to one number. If they have to pay 15k for home office rent then salary will just be 15k less.

[motive]

I agree with you generally but there’s also the question of whether an expense is reasonable. Should you be expected to put a desk in your bedroom and have that be sufficient? I live in New York and have an extra bedroom for my office, should my employer be forced to pay for that instead?

[treis]

Yeah, it's one of those laws that superficially makes sense but tends to not work in the real world. A California specialty.

Probably better to put an upper salary bound on it. Stops the abuse of minimum wage workers while avoiding most of the silliness.

[dragonwriter]

> If they have to pay 15k for home office rent then salary will just be 15k less.

I mean, if you assume a monopsony where market clearing prices are set by demand alone, with no supply side effect, sure.

[treis]

Not really. If the market clearing price was X before there's no reason it will change from X. The compensation will just in the form of Y rent + (X - Y) salary