If your rent/mortgage gets cut in half, it seems reasonable for the company to also benefit some. It shouldn't be dollar for dollar though or why move? It should probably be negotiated between the employer and the employee. In stripe's instance, they aren't making them move. If someone doesn't want to move to a place 20% cheaper and take a 10% paycut then that's their choice.
So what you're saying is: the company should benefit by paying me less for things I choose to do outside of work, away from the domain of my employer, as they rely on my co-workers and colleagues ratting me out for... trying to save money... which I earn from my employer?
So what you're saying is: the company should benefit by paying me less for things I choose to do outside of work, away from the domain of my employer, as they rely on my co-workers and colleagues ratting me out for... trying to save money... which I earn from my employer?
Cost of living adjustments *UP* have been the norm for a while and one of the main draws of outsourcing is paying less. In a perfect world, an employee that is worth X to an employer should probably be paid some percentage of X but we know that's not the case because employers pay employees in different cities different amounts.
If your rent/mortgage gets cut in half, it seems reasonable for the company to also benefit some. It shouldn't be dollar for dollar though or why move? It should probably be negotiated between the employer and the employee. In stripe's instance, they aren't making them move. If someone doesn't want to move to a place 20% cheaper and take a 10% paycut then that's their choice.
If I winterize my house and realize a savings, how much should my employer get? If I trade in my automobile for a luxury model, should I demand a raise? If you choose not to reply, am I entitled to half the equity of the time you save?
If I winterize my house and realize a savings, how much should my employer get?
Thats not the correct logic.
If someone with the same skillset as you winterizes their house, and because of this lower cost of living they are willing to work for less than you...
Location-based pay wasnt a problem for all these years that people who moved to silicon valley for the ability to earn it benefited from...
If I winterize my house and realize a savings, how much should my employer get? If I trade in my automobile for a luxury model, should I demand a raise? If you choose not to reply, am I entitled to half the equity of the time you save?
These are all things you choose to do. In this case, Stripe is making an offer. To use your example, this would be the same as an employer offering to winterize your house or install solar panels on your house in exchange for a 5% cut in your salary.
You got it bang on there. My employer should not pay me more because I spend more on fancy cars, and I should not be paid less because I am careful with my money. However, if my employer makes an effort to save money by providing facilities for workers, then surely the employer should see some financial return.
It seems reasonable only until you start using your brain. If the company saves on operating costs, is it also reasonable to give a pay raise their employees to also benefit some? We all know that's not how it works.
It is reasonable in some cases. It will depend on where the employee moves to.
If they take a 10% cut in pay, but move to a place that cost of living is 30% less than by the parent company they effectively get a 20% pay raise. That's on top of the $20K moving bonus.
The employee also wouldn't have to worry about paying more tax on the portion of money earned in a higher tax bracket ( if the normal pay + 20% reached the next bracket ) saving them a few extra dollars VS. if they just got a 20% bump...
If your rent/mortgage gets cut in half, it seems reasonable for the company to also benefit some.
It shouldn't be dollar for dollar though or why move?
It should probably be negotiated between the employer and the employee.
In stripe's instance, they aren't making them move.
If someone doesn't want to move to a place 20% cheaper and take a 10% paycut then that's their choice.
So I scrimp and save and pay off the mortgage for the privilege of taking a pay cut? Why should the company benefit from that as they didn't contribute to it?
But I guess it means when there is a corporate buyout with big bonuses they will be all around not just to the board of directors? When there is a massive surge in profits EVERYONE gets a share right? Somehow I doubt that profits get shared all around by the company so why should they benefit from my finding ways to spend less in my personal life?
So I scrimp and save and pay off the mortgage for the privilege of taking a pay cut? Why should the company benefit from that as they didn't contribute to it?
But I guess it means when there is a corporate buyout with big bonuses they will be all around not just to the board of directors? When there is a massive surge in profits EVERYONE gets a share right? Somehow I doubt that profits get shared all around by the company so why should they benefit from my finding ways to spend less in my personal life?
Noone is talking about you personally saving money. This is about the company offering you a way to save money and you accepting that offer.
They produce the same value for the company. That alone should dictate their salary as John and Jane may make the same, produce the same value, but have completely different living expenses due to their choices.
In addition employee bears more costs due to dedicating a portion of their living space and expenses to office use (our electrical already more than doubled as an example). This includes additional wear and tear, office furniture, space, heating/cooling, electricity, backup/increased internet conne
If your rent/mortgage gets cut in half, it seems reasonable for the company to also benefit some.
No, it is not reasonable. It is insane. My employer owns 40 hours of my time each week. They do not own me. They do not own my home. Matching my expenses to my income is my business, not my employer's. If they want a say in how I spend my money...
I don't even have some sort of hyperbolic follow-up to that. There is no situation where it's reasonable to them to get a say in how I spend my money.
No, it is not reasonable. It is insane. My employer owns 40 hours of my time each week. They do not own me. They do not own my home. Matching my expenses to my income is my business, not my employer's. If they want a say in how I spend my money...
I don't even have some sort of hyperbolic follow-up to that. There is no situation where it's reasonable to them to get a say in how I spend my money.
Noone said they have a say in how you spend your money. But they do have a say of where you work. In this case they are offering to move you to a cheaper place in exchange for a slightly reduced salary. The alternative which they could also do would be to move their entire headquarters to the new place and force you to either move and accept a lower salary or quit.
It seems reasonable to split the difference. (Score:1)
If your rent/mortgage gets cut in half, it seems reasonable for the company to also benefit some.
It shouldn't be dollar for dollar though or why move?
It should probably be negotiated between the employer and the employee.
In stripe's instance, they aren't making them move.
If someone doesn't want to move to a place 20% cheaper and take a 10% paycut then that's their choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is: the company should benefit by paying me less for things I choose to do outside of work, away from the domain of my employer, as they rely on my co-workers and colleagues ratting me out for... trying to save money... which I earn from my employer?
Cost of living adjustments *UP* have been the norm for a while and one of the main draws of outsourcing is paying less. In a perfect world, an employee that is worth X to an employer should probably be paid some percentage of X but we know that's not the case because employers pay employees in different cities different amounts.
Re: (Score:3)
If your rent/mortgage gets cut in half, it seems reasonable for the company to also benefit some.
It shouldn't be dollar for dollar though or why move?
It should probably be negotiated between the employer and the employee.
In stripe's instance, they aren't making them move.
If someone doesn't want to move to a place 20% cheaper and take a 10% paycut then that's their choice.
If I winterize my house and realize a savings, how much should my employer get?
If I trade in my automobile for a luxury model, should I demand a raise?
If you choose not to reply, am I entitled to half the equity of the time you save?
Re: (Score:2)
If I winterize my house and realize a savings, how much should my employer get?
Thats not the correct logic.
If someone with the same skillset as you winterizes their house, and because of this lower cost of living they are willing to work for less than you...
Location-based pay wasnt a problem for all these years that people who moved to silicon valley for the ability to earn it benefited from...
Re: (Score:3)
If I winterize my house and realize a savings, how much should my employer get?
If I trade in my automobile for a luxury model, should I demand a raise?
If you choose not to reply, am I entitled to half the equity of the time you save?
These are all things you choose to do. In this case, Stripe is making an offer.
To use your example, this would be the same as an employer offering to winterize your house or install solar panels on your house in
exchange for a 5% cut in your salary.
Re: (Score:2)
You got it bang on there. My employer should not pay me more because I spend more on fancy cars, and I should not be paid less because I am careful with my money. However, if my employer makes an effort to save money by providing facilities for workers, then surely the employer should see some financial return.
Re:It seems reasonable to split the difference. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
It is reasonable in some cases. It will depend on where the employee moves to.
If they take a 10% cut in pay, but move to a place that cost of living is 30% less than by the parent company they effectively get a 20% pay raise. That's on top of the $20K moving bonus.
The employee also wouldn't have to worry about paying more tax on the portion of money earned in a higher tax bracket ( if the normal pay + 20% reached the next bracket ) saving them a few extra dollars VS. if they just got a 20% bump...
Re: (Score:1)
If your rent/mortgage gets cut in half, it seems reasonable for the company to also benefit some.
It shouldn't be dollar for dollar though or why move?
It should probably be negotiated between the employer and the employee.
In stripe's instance, they aren't making them move.
If someone doesn't want to move to a place 20% cheaper and take a 10% paycut then that's their choice.
So I scrimp and save and pay off the mortgage for the privilege of taking a pay cut? Why should the company benefit from that as they didn't contribute to it?
But I guess it means when there is a corporate buyout with big bonuses they will be all around not just to the board of directors? When there is a massive surge in profits EVERYONE gets a share right? Somehow I doubt that profits get shared all around by the company so why should they benefit from my finding ways to spend less in my personal life?
Re: (Score:2)
So I scrimp and save and pay off the mortgage for the privilege of taking a pay cut? Why should the company benefit from that as they didn't contribute to it?
But I guess it means when there is a corporate buyout with big bonuses they will be all around not just to the board of directors? When there is a massive surge in profits EVERYONE gets a share right? Somehow I doubt that profits get shared all around by the company so why should they benefit from my finding ways to spend less in my personal life?
Noone is talking about you personally saving money. This is about the company offering you a way to save money and you accepting that offer.
Re: (Score:3)
The employer is already realizing a huge benefit: not paying for (as much) expensive real estate to plant butts. HVAC, electricity, etc.
You'll note that most of the big tech companies happen to have offices in some rather expensive cities.
Re: (Score:2)
They produce the same value for the company. That alone should dictate their salary as John and Jane may make the same, produce the same value, but have completely different living expenses due to their choices.
In addition employee bears more costs due to dedicating a portion of their living space and expenses to office use (our electrical already more than doubled as an example). This includes additional wear and tear, office furniture, space, heating/cooling, electricity, backup/increased internet conne
Re: (Score:2)
If your rent/mortgage gets cut in half, it seems reasonable for the company to also benefit some.
No, it is not reasonable. It is insane. My employer owns 40 hours of my time each week. They do not own me. They do not own my home. Matching my expenses to my income is my business, not my employer's. If they want a say in how I spend my money...
I don't even have some sort of hyperbolic follow-up to that. There is no situation where it's reasonable to them to get a say in how I spend my money.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not reasonable. It is insane. My employer owns 40 hours of my time each week. They do not own me. They do not own my home. Matching my expenses to my income is my business, not my employer's. If they want a say in how I spend my money...
I don't even have some sort of hyperbolic follow-up to that. There is no situation where it's reasonable to them to get a say in how I spend my money.
Noone said they have a say in how you spend your money. But they do have a say of where you work. In this case they are offering to move you to a cheaper place in exchange for a slightly reduced salary. The alternative which they could also do would be to move their entire headquarters to the new place and force you to either move and accept a lower salary or quit.
Re: (Score:2)
If your rent/mortgage gets cut in half, it seems reasonable for the company to also benefit some.
So if I move 5 miles away to get lower rent, should I also get a pay cut because of that? Why not?
Re: (Score:2)
So if I move 5 miles away to get lower rent, should I also get a pay cut because of that? Why not?
Because that was a voluntary move. This is a 20k bonus for accepting a lower paying job in a different location.