This succinctly illustrates the problem. The worker is in a position to eliminate costs for themselves and their organization, and the organization has the gall to suggest that they are owed something in EXCESS of the cost saving they just received from the employee.
They should be giving everyone raises to leave, putting the office savings toward payroll. Instead they are trying to claw back.
Push back against this - it is a desperate attempt by the organization to retain outsized bargaining capability.
Both companies I worked for during the pandemic offered a reasonable equipment stipend. I had a pretty custom setup that was more specialized than what I would have had in the office and it was entirely covered. If you exceeded the budget your manager could approve exceptions which didn't seem so hard to get.
The main cost is the real estate, not the equipment. If you were comfortable in a 600sqft 1BR working from the office, you probably would need at least an additional 100sqft for the same comfort WFH.
My company did this. Sold an incredibly desired and prime location in my city because like 90% of IT can just do their jobs from home. COVID was a somewhat of a blessing in disguise.
If the company is reducing salary based on the employee's cost of living, it seems more fair for the employee to bill based on the cost of a desk or an office in NYC.
Specially when if you do business from home you can charge certain expenses to business and get tax deduction. WFH should certainly allow some similar tax benefits.
I always walked to the office, so I have no saving on gas while the commute was a very pleasant 20m walk.
But then, there are others who save a ton of money on gas and hours on not being stuck in traffic, so the company feels entitled to demand more from you for allowing you to work from home.
The company also of course must maintain at least some rent because a number of people will want to return to the office (I'd think the split is like 50-50).
Fancy coffee is like 6USD a pound. The benefit of having free coffee at work is to not having to arrange a coworker coffee shrine to put coins in - not the cost of the coffee.
Ah? Everywhere in the world? Why thank you, I had no idea!
Now, one cup = 20g of coffee (for me, could be more or less depending on your brew method).
2 cups a day = 40g of coffee.
5 days a week, 4 weeks in a month = 800g of coffee a month. Multiply that by 2 since my wife also takes her coffee.
Over here, a kilo of the same coffee I got in the office is $50. So that's extra ~$70 a month.
In Denver, 'fancy coffee' (i.e. Fair trade / Fair wage / environmentally sustainable, 100% Arabica) from the many local roasters starts at around $15.50 a pound and goes up to about $24 a pound.
Companies pay the salaries they do because they have to in order to attract and retain employees.
If the trend of WFH continues then it's inevitable that companies will start reviewing their pay policies if they think they can get away with paying less.
I imagine most members of Hacker News feel like they probably do pretty well financially.
Even if you think that way, your quality of life could potentially take a massive leap if you are able to retain your current salary and move to a lower cost area.
Don't waste a once in a lifetime opportunity for you and your family.
That is not going to happen because unlike a lot of the comments in this thread making various sorts of fairness arguments, prices are never determined by fairness but by supply and demand. Morgan Stanley pays high salaries in New York because it must, but if it can open those jobs to be done anywhere in the world where there is an internet connection, then the supply of workers for Morgan Stanley just increased massively.
Arguing that a massive increase in supply should not result in a price drop because of some fairness idea is like arguing that a ball should not drop to the ground because of some ethical concern (e.g. it may drop on someone's head). Look, that ball is gonna drop whether you like it or not, there is no amount of tweets and open letters and hunger strikes that will prevent that ball from dropping.
The only way to prevent the ball from dropping would be to try to make working from home illegal, thus forcing Morgan Stanley to hire from a much smaller labor pool.
Now there is a flipside to this, because the above argument was just for the highest paying employers. Lower paying employers will need to pay more, because their workers can now be poached by Morgan Stanley. E.g. Expanding the market increases supply for the highest paying firms but decreases supply by the same amount for the lowest paying firms. They are going to feel a big labor crunch, particularly those firms that opened up shops away from SF/NYC in order to pay low wages.
But the end game -- e.g. competing with global labor -- is going to be a big threat to Silicon Valley wages, especially for individual contributors.
Cost of living in New York is so bad, if you have a family it easily makes more sense to make 100 or so in Alabama then to make 200 in New York. New York has extremely punitive taxes so you can't just out earn your cost of living
Alabama resident here. You can make a decent chunk more than 100 as a software engineer without too much trouble if you are anywhere near a senior level.
In large numbers, employees are commodities for their employers and are treated as such. The larger the company, the worse HR is treating people as cattle. It sucks, but it is what it is.
To play devil's advocate... there is definitely a reason why a Goldman Sachs employee in NYC earns more than an employee at the same level in Salt Lake City.
Your salary is adjusted for cost of living where you are located, amongst many other things. You may not like it, but that's how it is. This whole talk about your home office being your space and so should be included in cost, OK cool. You are in West Virginia, a 2 br apt is ~$1000/mo, so how much is that home office you are making a fuss about? Say 500, that's $6000 a year. That is 2 month's rent in NY.
Other factors for higher pay in NY are immediate availability for in-person meetings with clients et al. Say what you want, but Zoom meetings will never be equal to in-person meetings for certain professions. Real closers will tell you that.
The same reason you feel you deserve more than a guy in India to do your job is the same reason a guy in NYC will tell you they deserve more to do their job.
31 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 30.1 ms ] threadThey should be giving everyone raises to leave, putting the office savings toward payroll. Instead they are trying to claw back.
Push back against this - it is a desperate attempt by the organization to retain outsized bargaining capability.
For me, personally, I pay a lot more on:
- food/drinks (Coffee)
- heating of my home office
- Internet (had to upgrade my speed)
I always walked to the office, so I have no saving on gas while the commute was a very pleasant 20m walk.
But then, there are others who save a ton of money on gas and hours on not being stuck in traffic, so the company feels entitled to demand more from you for allowing you to work from home.
The company also of course must maintain at least some rent because a number of people will want to return to the office (I'd think the split is like 50-50).
Ah? Everywhere in the world? Why thank you, I had no idea!
Now, one cup = 20g of coffee (for me, could be more or less depending on your brew method). 2 cups a day = 40g of coffee. 5 days a week, 4 weeks in a month = 800g of coffee a month. Multiply that by 2 since my wife also takes her coffee.
Over here, a kilo of the same coffee I got in the office is $50. So that's extra ~$70 a month.
If the trend of WFH continues then it's inevitable that companies will start reviewing their pay policies if they think they can get away with paying less.
I imagine most members of Hacker News feel like they probably do pretty well financially.
Even if you think that way, your quality of life could potentially take a massive leap if you are able to retain your current salary and move to a lower cost area.
Don't waste a once in a lifetime opportunity for you and your family.
Arguing that a massive increase in supply should not result in a price drop because of some fairness idea is like arguing that a ball should not drop to the ground because of some ethical concern (e.g. it may drop on someone's head). Look, that ball is gonna drop whether you like it or not, there is no amount of tweets and open letters and hunger strikes that will prevent that ball from dropping.
The only way to prevent the ball from dropping would be to try to make working from home illegal, thus forcing Morgan Stanley to hire from a much smaller labor pool.
Now there is a flipside to this, because the above argument was just for the highest paying employers. Lower paying employers will need to pay more, because their workers can now be poached by Morgan Stanley. E.g. Expanding the market increases supply for the highest paying firms but decreases supply by the same amount for the lowest paying firms. They are going to feel a big labor crunch, particularly those firms that opened up shops away from SF/NYC in order to pay low wages.
But the end game -- e.g. competing with global labor -- is going to be a big threat to Silicon Valley wages, especially for individual contributors.
Your salary is adjusted for cost of living where you are located, amongst many other things. You may not like it, but that's how it is. This whole talk about your home office being your space and so should be included in cost, OK cool. You are in West Virginia, a 2 br apt is ~$1000/mo, so how much is that home office you are making a fuss about? Say 500, that's $6000 a year. That is 2 month's rent in NY.
Other factors for higher pay in NY are immediate availability for in-person meetings with clients et al. Say what you want, but Zoom meetings will never be equal to in-person meetings for certain professions. Real closers will tell you that.
The same reason you feel you deserve more than a guy in India to do your job is the same reason a guy in NYC will tell you they deserve more to do their job.
cost of living seems to only apply to employees and not customers