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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Monday July 27 2020, @02:17PM (3 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Monday July 27 2020, @02:17PM (#1027099)

    >In reality it costs a LOT to break into most markets so the vaunted competition == efficiency become a lie.

    I think you mean capitalism=efficiency has become a lie. Competition promotes efficiency, but competition is an enemy of profits, and capitalism will eliminate it wherever possible.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @10:09PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @10:09PM (#1027340)

    Maybe psuedocapitalism. IP law and the stricture of its enforcement is a substantive problem insofar as the global market is concerned, it is the singular mote most duopolies (or to be fair monopolies) are constructed on. It can take decades to usurp competition in certain domains, consider INTC v. AMD, and even that wasn't a guaranteed outcome, but rather fortune erring on the side of AMD.

    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday July 27 2020, @11:19PM (1 child)

      by Immerman (3985) on Monday July 27 2020, @11:19PM (#1027381)

      "IP" (there is no such thing - no *property* is involved) is just one of many tools. Vertical and horizontal monopolies. Collusion. Regulatory capture. That's what capitalism *is* - the wielding of capital for profit, NOT for efficiency. Efficiency is just a side effect when competition can't be avoided.

      Its proponents however are very successful at improving its image by equating it with its fictional cousin, "free market capitalism", which is (supposedly) far more honest and efficient, and distributes wealth far more equitably, but requires (even in theory) that all markets are sufficiently large that no individual actor (or conglomerate) is responsible for more than a percent or two of the total production or consumption of any given good or service.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2020, @01:04AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2020, @01:04AM (#1027444)

        You couldn't possibly evidence any other system that produces any fewer decremental divergence of outcomes, though. Ultimately it stems from stagnation, and to that end you must correct it by inducing fluidity in the underlying systems, specifically the civic platforms that enhance the conglomeration and concentration of power into the artificially cultivated conglomerates formed therein. By what means do we achieve that end? That's the golden ticket.