Live data from Hacker News

How to Pay Remote Workers

npf.io

71–78 of 78 posts

Re: How to Pay Remote Workers

#71
post #12

> Why on earth would it matter where your desk is? It matters to product managers. Managing remote team is more difficult therefore PMs will always push against this.

Why is it more difficult? Do you have some data or anecdotes to back up your claim? I'm really interested. I've been working remotely for years now, and my relationships with the various PMs I've had has always been: talk about what needs to be done, and then be left alone to actually do it, check back when I have progress or if I have outstanding questions that arose from better understanding the problem domain. Plu…

> Why is it more difficult?

First, I think it's important to point out that there's a difference between a fully distributed team and a mostly-local team with some remote members. A lot (not all) of the problems have to do with the disparity between the colocated and non-colocated workers. For example, the colocated majority in a mixed team will often cling to old habits wrt soliciting or providing feedback/approval on commits, conveying important news, etc. Just turn your head a bit and speak a bit louder; everyone will get the cue and listen in. Ditto for learning new tricks by hearing or seeing someone near you. There's no incentive for them to do anything but what works for them. On a fully distributed team people do develop alternatives because they have to.

Other things that are more difficult remote include anything involving a whiteboard, from design discussions to planning sessions. Online alternatives are never as good. Inability to participate in group social activities, or to detect nuance in conversation based on tone of voice (where a fully distributed team would come up with textual alternatives) can lead to a surprisingly quick erosion of mutual trust. This is why people who do work "full time" remotely - like me BTW - still benefit from frequent in-person visits.

> Is this uncommon across the industry?

I think your experience sounds a bit exceptional, but there's probably a lot of variance according to technical area and project characteristics. For me, working on a large codebase with lots of hidden coupling so that no individual project can be accomplished without tight collaboration at least across the dozen-person immediate team (if not the broader 40-person team), being remote is a real handicap. Can/should the codebase be fixed? Sure, but that project itself requires even tighter coordination until it's done. Were I to attempt it, I'd have to be on-site for months.

I think there are more bad codebases and weak teams than there are the opposite, so my guess would be that my experience (and this is not the first team in which I've been a remote minority) is not far from the norm.

Re: How to Pay Remote Workers

#72
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the point though. Having an honest relationship with your employees and treating everybody fairly doesn't prevent you from profiting. It think this point is explained really well in the article: why should someone who lives in a city with a high cost of living be paid more than someone who lives in a low cost of living one? Effectively, what you are doing is giving the person in, say, SF, more money to be…

But as an employer, why I should strive for honestness? Does it bring me more profit? To me it sounds like paying too much. I pay market rates which doesnt consider cost of living or value produced, but the the average salary for the skillset/experience.

Why indeed.

It kind of illuminates the whole system.

The fact that business shouldn't need to pay a fair, or even a living wage (in fact, they're kind of obligated not to, if possible, because, competition).

It works as long as there are people desperate enough to take any offer at all - which will always be the case because people need to eat, so they can't opt out because wages are too low. So not really a "free market" at all.

Re: How to Pay Remote Workers

#73
post #9
post #3

If anything remote workers should be paid more for being environmentally friendly

They are, in a way, given that they'll spend less on tax than their commuting colleagues - assuming that taxes are used as a method for government to incentivise behaviour.

Mr Money Mustache (MMM) estimated that you saved something like $700 bucks per mile per year you don't drive.

I've been remote for ~5 years, haven't owned a car for ~3, and I've saved a bunch of money. Uber and public transit handle most of my needs, and even after monthly passes and uber surge rates I estimate I save close to $500-600 USD a month in car payment/insurance/maintenance.

The main downside is that I'm in Canada, and being carless in the winter can get ugly.

Re: How to Pay Remote Workers

#74
As a remote contractor, I'm strongly against this idea.

Living in a country with the cost of living lower than in the US allows me to take a job of an equally qualified American programmer by working for a smaller salary which is still twice as big as the highest offer from a local company.

The downside is that an equally qualified programmer from Egypt or Bangladesh can easily take that job from me, but I can find solace in the fact that this reduces the global poverty :)

Re: How to Pay Remote Workers

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's trivial to justify. Companies exist to maximize profit. You make more profit by paying your employees less. Also, plenty of people in my responses are denying that this is what profit is.

It is still inhumane. There are other ways of running businesses, but rarely tried as they are typically squashed by bankers or VCs not providing financing. Examples include directly hiring trade unions, cooperatives, associations...

Yes, a society organized around the profit motive is inhumane. That is the point I was making.

Re: How to Pay Remote Workers

#76
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are, in a way, given that they'll spend less on tax than their commuting colleagues - assuming that taxes are used as a method for government to incentivise behaviour.

Mr Money Mustache (MMM) estimated that you saved something like $700 bucks per mile per year you don't drive. I've been remote for ~5 years, haven't owned a car for ~3, and I've saved a bunch of money. Uber and public transit handle most of my needs, and even after monthly passes and uber surge rates I estimate I save close to $500-600 USD a month in car payment/insurance/maintenance. The main downside is that I'm in…

How does that add up? So if I don't drive 1000 miles in a year, I have an extra $700K?

Re: How to Pay Remote Workers

#77
One way that in-office workers can be more valuable is more accessible and a higher quality of communication.

Being able to discuss things face-to-face gives us more and higher quality (diagramming, eye contact) communication channels, in addition to avoiding things like bad audio, bad video, etc.

There is also lower friction in haphazard discussions; someone can overhear things and chime in a thought that could turn out to be useful. Sometimes, the effort of messaging or calling someone will cause us to not bother to include someone in the conversation for a chance that they could contribute.

If different timezones are involved, then a remote worker's value is lowered due to the higher friction in addition to the round trip time for communication.

Re: How to Pay Remote Workers

#78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where will the extra money come from ?

There are costs associated with working in an office - consider rent, cleaning, furniture, power, a receptionist, maybe an entire facilities management department, security and so on. These costs are split amongst the revenue earned per worker in that office. But homeworkers provide all those things for the company “for free”. And even more the homeworker might even provide the PC, the phone line, any tech support th…

Yes that is true. Except for the cases when workers already _start_ the job as remote. In such cases these costs are never created and therefore never avoided.

You should also consider that the costs you've outlined are not paid "per headcount" but rather collectively for the company / per company site. This means that often the company would need to completely disimss the office location or move to a smaller location.

I do not disagree with you, I'm just showing that money are not some magical points that you allocate with everything else falling into place.

Post reply on HN