21–30 of 624 posts
Tell'em it's fine but you'd like to negotiate based on net pay after taxes. I don't have all these fancy things: kids, deductible mortgage interest, deductible medical costs and I just want to be even with those losing a less percent of their income to tax.
This, and similar moans, really misses the point. Employment is a social contract, looking for a compromise between two positions: * Employers want to essentially acquire a good (productive employee) for the best quality / price ratio. If a trained monkey could do the job for peanuts, employers would be happy. * Employees, and the society made up of employees, want stability, employment rights etc. as salary work is…
is there moral obligation to do your job well instead of let's say watching youtube and doing bare minimum not to get fired?
It's funny how people expect moral behaviour from other people but not from companies made of these people. Somehow it's fine for companies to be jerks.
Supporting remote work can come at a cost to an employer so it does make some sense to me to offer less money in those cases and inversely, more money if you move to their town to work there. Other than that equal pay is more fair indeed. I think things have mostly gotten crazy along with some housing markets. Perhaps this will slowly disperse the extreme concentrations of wealth throughout countries with employers o…
Right now, we are at an unusual point in time where workforces are going from geographically consolidated to dispersed. Thus, we think of the "standard" salary as what they pay in San Francisco, and ask for everyone to be paid that. But the advantage of a remote workforce, from the employer's point of view, is 1) getting the brilliant people who can't leave their hometown to work for you, and 2) not having to pay San…
Ofc, if they want people to come and sit in their SF office they have to pay more. On other hand if they can get replacement for their ex-local resource for remote for cheaper they might do that.
This, and similar moans, really misses the point. Employment is a social contract, looking for a compromise between two positions: * Employers want to essentially acquire a good (productive employee) for the best quality / price ratio. If a trained monkey could do the job for peanuts, employers would be happy. * Employees, and the society made up of employees, want stability, employment rights etc. as salary work is…
Employers trying to adjust salaries based upon COL really isn't much different to printer manufacturers software disabling printers and selling them at a cheaper price. It's an attempt at price differentiation - in the opposite direction.
This, and similar moans, really misses the point. Employment is a social contract, looking for a compromise between two positions: * Employers want to essentially acquire a good (productive employee) for the best quality / price ratio. If a trained monkey could do the job for peanuts, employers would be happy. * Employees, and the society made up of employees, want stability, employment rights etc. as salary work is…
> neither is a fundamental human right, and rather a societal contract This seems like a purely semantic distinction to me. Unless you're religious and believe that humans are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" then everything you're claiming as a 'right' is just some generally-agreed social principle that your ancestors fought hard to establish.
This reminds me a little of the 2008 recession where a lot of analysts at investment banks that were making a lot of money without much experience were fired and those jobs didn't return after the economic recovery. I believe that brought about increased algorithmic trading. It's tough to find sympathetic people to this issue.
I imagine displaced tech workers, now living in lower COL areas will have trouble finding sympathetic ears as well. I would certainly prefer to be the employer versus the employee in this contest.
This, and similar moans, really misses the point. Employment is a social contract, looking for a compromise between two positions: * Employers want to essentially acquire a good (productive employee) for the best quality / price ratio. If a trained monkey could do the job for peanuts, employers would be happy. * Employees, and the society made up of employees, want stability, employment rights etc. as salary work is…
On the one hand lying about your location to an employer seems sketchy. On the other hand COL adjusted pay seems pretty much equally sketchy. Employers trying to adjust salaries based upon COL really isn't much different to printer manufacturers software disabling printers and selling them at a cheaper price. It's an attempt at price differentiation - in the opposite direction.
I'm objecting to the critique of COL-adjustments on moral grounds: that it is wrong, according to some metric, to pay people differently, based on where they work remotely from. I don't think it is wrong. Maybe impractical, and maybe we agree it's a nuisance, and as workers can force the employers to reject that. But fundamentally fits in with what employment is.
This, and similar moans, really misses the point. Employment is a social contract, looking for a compromise between two positions: * Employers want to essentially acquire a good (productive employee) for the best quality / price ratio. If a trained monkey could do the job for peanuts, employers would be happy. * Employees, and the society made up of employees, want stability, employment rights etc. as salary work is…
employment is an actual contract, not just social.