> Should remote workers have their pay reduced if they move somewhere cheap?
That makes the most economic sense for the company, as they can judge employees based on their local office, not the other global employees at that salary level. Also it's good to not have people in the same office doing ostensibly the same job with wildly differing salaries.
> Some call this unfair, and they’re probably right.
Agreed. But fairness rarely factors into business decisions.
> Why? My value to the company hasn’t changed! I am still worth the same amount as I was before! The only thing that changed is where I choose to reside. What difference is that to the company?
By moving to a low-COL area, you have proven to the company that you can't handle the high-stress high-stakes world of a financial center. The company usually has a bad idea of your worth. What do you think happens when you send them an indicator like this?
> If I worked remotely for Facebook and wanted to move somewhere central where rents are three times higher, would Zuck give me a raise? Somehow I doubt it.
No, but you can go next door and interview at Google the next day, and get bumped up to the standard big-city salary. So it's a pointless argument.
> Companies reduce your pay because they can.
Not only that, they have to to compete with all of the other companies that do it. They made a risk/reward assessment and decided that the ill-will toward their employees and potential resignations is worth the salary savings.
The rest of the article dives into comparisons with extremely impoverished areas, which I don't think are relevant for a discussion about remote work.
That makes the most economic sense for the company, as they can judge employees based on their local office, not the other global employees at that salary level. Also it's good to not have people in the same office doing ostensibly the same job with wildly differing salaries.
> Some call this unfair, and they’re probably right.
Agreed. But fairness rarely factors into business decisions.
> Why? My value to the company hasn’t changed! I am still worth the same amount as I was before! The only thing that changed is where I choose to reside. What difference is that to the company?
By moving to a low-COL area, you have proven to the company that you can't handle the high-stress high-stakes world of a financial center. The company usually has a bad idea of your worth. What do you think happens when you send them an indicator like this?
> If I worked remotely for Facebook and wanted to move somewhere central where rents are three times higher, would Zuck give me a raise? Somehow I doubt it.
No, but you can go next door and interview at Google the next day, and get bumped up to the standard big-city salary. So it's a pointless argument.
> Companies reduce your pay because they can.
Not only that, they have to to compete with all of the other companies that do it. They made a risk/reward assessment and decided that the ill-will toward their employees and potential resignations is worth the salary savings.
The rest of the article dives into comparisons with extremely impoverished areas, which I don't think are relevant for a discussion about remote work.