Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday July 27 2020, @04:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the working-my-way-back-to-you dept.

There's been some recent speculation about the effects working from home will have on various parts of the economy, particularly the commercial real estate market. If companies can figure out how to keep employees productive, coupled with the desire for some to relocate to more rural areas (and consequently, farther away from the office), it's possible some companies may reconsider continuing to carry all the overhead associated with having an office.

Which leads to the question: should remote workers accept a pay cut for working remotely?

A recent survey of 600 U.S. adults found 66 percent willing to take a pay cut for the flexibility of working remotely.

To what degree varied, however.

  • Fourteen percent would take a one to four percent cut;
  • Twenty-nine percent would take a five-to-14 percent cut;
  • Seventeen percent would take a 15-to-24 percent cut;
  • Seven percent would take a 25 percent or more cut;
  • Thirty-four percent would not take a lower salary for flexible remote work.

The survey, taken from July 5 through 7 from Fast, a start-up specializing in online checkout, found COVID-19 safety concerns part of the current appeal of remote working. Thirty-nine percent were less comfortable returning to their physical office compared to 30 days before. However, 65 percent preferred a workplace that gives employees the flexibility to choose where and when they work remotely.

[...] The concept of "localized compensation" or paying someone less for the same work because of where they live is being hotly debated in human resources circles. In May, Facebook drew some backlash after announcing that employees choosing to permanently work remotely will receive salary cuts if they move to less expensive areas.

Originally spotted on The Eponymous Pickle.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by richtopia on Monday July 27 2020, @02:14PM (3 children)

    by richtopia (3160) on Monday July 27 2020, @02:14PM (#1027096) Homepage Journal

    As a counter argument, what if a small business wants to break into the Bay Area market? If you agree to relocate from Des Moines to San Jose, you would expect a cost of living raise.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @04:03PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @04:03PM (#1027147)

    Yep, it certainly works this way (COL raise), so why shouldn't it work the other way too? As long as things are negotiated fairly, it should be roughly a wash for the employee.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @05:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @05:49PM (#1027213)

      Because where does it end? Housing is expected to be 30% of expenses, so should I have my pay docked 15% if I get a roommate who cuts that in half or 30% if I move in with my parents? It's only fair, Bob has rent to pay and I don't... right?

      You're paying for my skills and on a macro level yes cost of living goes into their valuation. But, on a micro level, no. Whether I choose to spend that value on a mortgage, rent, hookers and blow or nothing at all is none of the business of the business.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2020, @02:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2020, @02:31AM (#1027471)

    Completely reasonable counter-argument, but it only applies to physical businesses. Once the work becomes remote, every employee lives in the Internet.

    If someone really wants to live in a particular place - and I have heard people say things like "I'd rather die in New York than live anywhere else" - then that's just how they choose to spend their money. Others might want to put it toward things like their children's education, retirement savings, paying off debt, nice vacations, a boat, a fancy car, or whatever else they want to do with their money. Only landlords benefit if they spend it on rent. Businesses saying they will pay you less for remote work depending on where you live are just saying "We will subsidize some of your lifestyle choices, but not others."

    What's worse, the lifestyle choice they're subsidizing isn't really a good one. We don't really need to encourage people to live in major cities. They're overcrowded, while rural areas are suffering from population depletion. And moving more white-collar workers into less urban areas would help with our political polarization problems. Environmentally, cities suffer from air pollution, homelessness due to overcrowding and high rent, displacement of minorities due to gentrification (and the people who work in the sort of jobs that can be made remote have major overlap with the people who cause gentrification) and all manner of overcrowding-related problems. People living in cities tend to drive less and use public transit more, but remote workers need to travel much less in general, and living in cities is strongly associated with higher consumption, use of disposable items, and general consumerism than living in rural areas - not to mention greater health problems from pollution exposure.

    Remote work has the potential to reverse, or at least stop, the rapid urbanization we've seen over the last few decades. The people who like dense urban living don't see it as a problem - but excess urbanization is not a good thing, and the last thing businesses should be doing is contributing to it just for its own sake.