|
|
|
|
|
by nanidin
4455 days ago
|
|
I don't think the house comparison is a good example - a house in Palo Alto can only be utilised in Palo Alto. A remote worker could work from anywhere and produce the same output, regardless of location. Pay levels based on location seem like a good way for companies to "save" money by providing a convenient excuse to pay someone less for the same work. |
|
If, after the obligatory expenses like housing and food, the employee has more after tax dollars to spend on whatever he wants and in many ways a higher quality of living (better housing, better control over crime although that's looking to change WRT California, etc.), is he getting cheated as you imply?
I've lived in the Boston area and the D.C. area for a dozen years each, and have now moved back to my smallish home town in SW Missouri ... the differences are staggering.
Look at imroot's policies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7568217
Officially the same pay, but the people in California get an extra 1K/month for their higher living expenses. Heck, the Federal government does this for civil servant compensation.
Flip side: if the company is nasty, it'll tie up it's outside of California employees with non-competes---although that could be a bit tricky, given that it would get no support in the California state courts. How would you establish jurisdiction in the employee's home state?