41–50 of 699 posts
It's weird how directly the incentive is to increase your carbon footprint. They'll essentially pay you more for contributing to congestion and pollution.
Because employees in the office are more productive.
I can see why you’d pay a remote staff member differently from an on-prem staff member. As others have said if you’re hiring remote then your talent pool is effectively the whole world, so price competition is fiercer. But if everyone is remote or everyone is on-prem, then location-dependent pricing is complete nonsense. The employees are all still providing the same value to the company. Claiming that you can’t pay…
With remote, these companies are now able to do what every other large labor driven industry has done and lower their costs by finding labor in cheaper markets.
No, it's not fungible on a small scale, but it's certainly fungible on a large scale: reduce your office needs by 100 people and you can rearrange desks and sublet that 17000 sqft.
Google has other famous in-office benefits that cost per-person, so $12K per remote is a baseline savings. If Googlers had any collective bargaining power, they wouldn't be getting salary reductions: they would be getting extra expense money for desks, chairs, and ISP upgrades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They'll essentially pay you more for being more productive. There are very few people that are more productive out of the office. Google/Facebook/Apple have the stats ... if they want you back in the office it's because they've seen productivity go down.
Where is the data that shows this? I've worked remotely since 2015 and I don't buy this.
I think this is making a whole lot of out nothing, or at least not much. Google would determine your pay based on your work location, regardless of whether that's your home or the office. As a result people that lived far from the office in a typically less expensive area could see their pay drop.
Gitlab implements this compensation model openly(to the point where there is a calculator for it!) - I don't remember how well it was received when it was first announced, but looks like Google is applying a similar idea.
This will continue until enough high profile people publicly leave their jobs, and specifically mention how their new company doesn't cheat them out of the market rate based on their lifestyle choices.
That is based on the pretty bold assumption that SV salaries are the actual "market rate" while it is much more likely that the true market rate is much lower and SV salaries are inflated. There is enough talent outside of SV that is willing to work for much lower salaries. Actually there is orders of magnitude more talent of similar quality/intelligence available globally.
Yes and now they don't even have to move to SV anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They'll essentially pay you more for being more productive. There are very few people that are more productive out of the office. Google/Facebook/Apple have the stats ... if they want you back in the office it's because they've seen productivity go down.
Where is the data that shows this? I've worked remotely since 2015 and I don't buy this.
Endless loop: you need a higher salary to live where you have space to work from home.
This will continue until enough high profile people publicly leave their jobs, and specifically mention how their new company doesn't cheat them out of the market rate based on their lifestyle choices.