Google employees who work from home could lose money • Hacker News Board

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#201

Post by tzs » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

> Screenshots of Google's internal salary calculator seen by Reuters show that an employee living in Stamford, Connecticut - an hour from New York City by train - would be paid 15% less if she worked from home, while a colleague from the same office living in New York City would see no cut from working from home. Screenshots showed 5% and 10% differences in the Seattle, Boston and San Francisco areas.

This makes no sense.

For employees who are required to work in the office it makes sense to pay more at offices in places with higher costs of living. That's because your pool of potential employees is only people who live there or will move there. The company is requiring that employees live in a specific area so must pay based on the costs of that area.

For full time work from home employees the company has no reason to care where the employee lives (other than regulatory--they might not want employees who live in areas where dealing with taxes or regulations are complex or costly). Hence the company should have one uniform rate for full time work at home employees, high enough so that they can get fill all their openings.

If that means that the rate is too low for people in NYC why should the company care as long as they can get enough people from Stamford and other places with lower costs of living than NYC?

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#202

Post by 3princip » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

lelanthran wrote: post #143

peakaboo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone picks jobs based on top salary. I wouldn't work for Google even if they doubled my salary.

> Not everyone picks jobs based on top salary. I wouldn't work for Google even if they doubled my salary. So? I don't really like this kind of non-response response. It's like the guy who joins every conversation to point out that they don't, in fact, own a TV (Onion article, look it up). I mean, sure, there are people who have enough that they won't take a new job for double the money, but they are so few and far be…

Don't be ridiculous, you're just making assumptions based on your value system. I have children and I've passed on higher paying jobs (perhaps not double but 50%) out of principle. I also wouldn't work for Google whatever the compensation, and there are plenty of people who don't value money above everything else.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#203

Post by lanstin » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

mumblemumble wrote: post #182

Raphael_Amiard wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm used to the conversation in here being extremely US-centric, but realize that this is much less true for European cities with good public transportation. I haven't ever used a car to go to work in my life. I'm also very concerned about this better world where people stay home to save the planet. The common level of social interactions in the modern world is already low enough in my opinion. EDIT: It rarely happen…

In the case of the USA, people staying home to work might have a positive impact on social interaction in the long run. I'm pretty sure a large part of the reason why Americans are so lonely compared to the rest of the world is that the suburban bedroom community model physically divides us and makes it much more difficult to get to know one's neighbors. By the time you get home from work at 6:30 in the evening, it's…

Yeah I have gotten to know my neighbors a lot better during COVID. And it is nice. And when I change jobs I won’t loose them.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#204

Post by alistairSH » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #174

judge2020 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-t... . > A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. > This assumes the average gasoline vehicle on the road today has a fuel economy of about 22.0 miles per gallon and drives around 11,500 miles per year.

22mpg sounds like fleet average. I don't think the average commuter who could work from home is getting 22mpg, probably close to 30 average. I don't think the frequency of trucks and vans relative to cars and crossovers is not high enough within those demographics to drag down the average that far. I'd pad the estimate for carbon saved and say like 3.5ton/yr per work from home employee.

My Honda gets about 20mpg. My BMW about 25mpg. Maybe I'm the exception that proves the rule, but I seriously doubt 30mpg is remotely close to average (for office workers) in the US.

Edit - The Ford F-150 is the best selling "car" in the US by a long shot. That isn't all fleet sales - a significant number of normal people own trucks for one reason or another (myself included - Honda Ridgeline).

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#205

Post by Raphael_Amiard » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

mumblemumble wrote: post #182

Raphael_Amiard wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm used to the conversation in here being extremely US-centric, but realize that this is much less true for European cities with good public transportation. I haven't ever used a car to go to work in my life. I'm also very concerned about this better world where people stay home to save the planet. The common level of social interactions in the modern world is already low enough in my opinion. EDIT: It rarely happen…

In the case of the USA, people staying home to work might have a positive impact on social interaction in the long run. I'm pretty sure a large part of the reason why Americans are so lonely compared to the rest of the world is that the suburban bedroom community model physically divides us and makes it much more difficult to get to know one's neighbors. By the time you get home from work at 6:30 in the evening, it's…

Interesting. I'm symmetrically not used to think about those problems from an american perspective. Thanks for the insight.

I can indeed see a world where working from home might in the short term infuse some life in local life, from neighbors to associations etc.. So maybe it's actually a positive change!

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#206

Post by gowld » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

snicker7 wrote: post #173

purple_ferret wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's that? If you live in NYC, you get paid more. People who live in NYC have the amongst the lowest carbon footprint in the nation. If you live in a dense urban area, you generally will have a lower carbon footprint.

Not everyone who works in NYC is a NYC resident. The entire state of NJ basically exists for people commuting to NYC. half of the entire state is basically highways and parking lots.

But WFH is not commuting.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#207

Post by blueclue78 » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

Raphael_Amiard wrote: post #140

boplicity wrote: post #99

The cost of commuting on the environment is extremely high. We should be offering incentives to companies to switch to remote work. If 20% of jobs permanently switched to remote, the impact on carbon emissions would be immediate, and extremely positive.

I'm used to the conversation in here being extremely US-centric, but realize that this is much less true for European cities with good public transportation. I haven't ever used a car to go to work in my life. I'm also very concerned about this better world where people stay home to save the planet. The common level of social interactions in the modern world is already low enough in my opinion. EDIT: It rarely happen…

Whenever this topic comes up people present being social at work like a good thing. Everyone in all the jobs I've had were big drinkers, some of them probably used drugs, and some of them even used to boast about cheating on their wife. Not having to deal with these people any more than necessary is a blessing.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#208

Post by pimterry » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

midnightcity wrote: post #135

pimterry wrote: post #127

Interestingly, in Spain this would be illegal. After a law introduced last year, long-term remote working (>30% of hours outside the office for 3+ months) now requires the worker and company to agree written terms (who'll pay for costs, how much remote is allowed, what worker monitoring will be used, if any, on what schedule does the worker have to be available, etc). As part of that, there's legal protections agains…

I wonder at what point it becomes cheaper to simply establish an office in a different jurisdiction for the purpose of hiring remote workers...

The same applies to absolutely all employee protections, right?

Rather than providing paid holiday, paying overheads like social security, and following other anti-discrimination laws, you could always hire your local workers as non-employee contractors via a foreign jurisdiction. Most companies don't, for lots of good reasons. Remote work makes such tricks a little easier, but not dramatically so.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#209

Post by namdnay » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:28 PM UTC

gowld wrote: post #192

namdnay wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds good, but how do you determine this new universal salary? It's either going to be absurdly over market (are you going to pay fresh grads in Hyderabad 150k USD a year?) or absurdly under market (are you going to pay fresh grads in Mountain View 30k USD a year?)

Same way oil is priced, at the market clearing rate. Maybe it's $60K/yr and we have happy Indians and Romanians and no Californians.

Yes indeed, at that price you could hoover up all the talent in India, China, Russia, Ukraine etc

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#210

Post by eru » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:29 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #137

jensensbutton wrote: post #43

Companies were never paying based on value provided. They pay market rate which, until recently, was artificially limited to a few expensive markets. 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.

And it makes it plain to see that we need collective action. All the people who say "I bring a ton of value to a company and therefore can negotiate to capture that value" are fooling themselves, because no company willingly pays people based on the value they provide.

Huh? I don't see how the need for collective action follows?

Why would I or should I sabotage a trend that spreads wealth to poorer parts of the world?

> ..., because no company willingly pays people based on the value they provide.

That's what competition is for.