Hacker News Reader

Comment by qmarchi | Hacker News Reader

Honestly, I agree with the policy. The fundamental misunderstanding that people who say "Why aren't we paid for what you produce" is that the existing compensation _is_ paying for what you produce, it's also taking into account the price of the location you're working.

Why _should_ an engineer working from Seattle, where rent is ~2k for a 1bd, not get paid more than the engineer working from Bentonville, AR, where a 1bd is $800? Your compensation is made up of what the company expects for you to spend _because_ you're working in a particular location.

(Disc: I work for Google, opinion is my own tho.)

View on HN

Then the money Google saves on HVAC, restrooms, facilities, support staff and office space should be going directly into the pockets of the employees that convert to fulltime remote, right?

> Your compensation is made up of what the company expects for you to spend _because_ you're working in a particular location.

That's Google's model?! I can live 10 minutes away from the office or 1 hour away by train, I still live in the same city.

If I move my apartment 50 minutes closer to the office, I'm still going to the same office, but my rent will go up. I should get more compensation right? My compensation is based on what I'm expected to spend by location.

Conversely, I can also live 10 minutes away but in a different city. Think LA.

Funny, but off-topic story relating to this: I once had my debit card shut off because I tripped a fraud alert by being in 5 different cities on the same day. This was in LA, and I really was in 5 different cities that day, but I probably didn't drive 50 miles.

To be fair, they probably figured it was impossible, due to LA traffic.

The idea of people who object to this is that they're choosing to live in a cheaper location and they should be able to save the extra money from that.

If I bought a Kia Rio, would they say "You have lower car expenses compared to other employees, we're going to pay you less because you don't need the money"? Or conversely, if I choose to buy a $150,000 car should I be able to tell Google "Hey you need to pay me more because I have very high car expenses?"

That's obviously silly. But if you want to live somewhere that a house costs $2MM, it's your employer's responsibility to foot the bill for it, and if I buy a house in Bentonville AR for 1/10th of the price, my pay gets cut?

> Why _should_ an engineer working from Seattle, where rent is ~2k for a 1bd, not get paid more than the engineer working from Bentonville,

Why _should_ they do get payed more.

If home office is a standard it's their decision to live in a expensive area.

People are payed for the work they do, not because they live in a privileged area. You could go as far as say it's a form of discrimination to pay people depending on where they live.

I mean are you next reducing payments for people transmuting a lot because they live in a cheaper area.

And then shouldn't you also pay less to people owning property because they have long term less living cost?

The actual problem is Silicon Valley and similar places being completely out of balance.

You have the correct end result, but seemily misunderstand why wages are they way they are.

Google does not pay someone in Seattle more than AR simply because the rent is higher. The reason wages are higher is a result of people in Seattle demanding more money because their costs are higher, and if Google wants to attract talent there they have to offer a wage people will accept, that wage happens to be lower in Bentonville than Seattle

WFH changes the dynamic in that Google can now recruit from anywhere in the US, thus the competition for a given job is higher so in normal times that will mean a lower wage over all

There are many people that would not work for Google in the past in part because they could not or were unwilling to relocate to a city with a Google office, WFH eliminates this need thus more people will be willing to work for Google.

WFH changes the dynamic in that Google can now recruit from anywhere in the US, thus the competition for a given job is higher so in normal times that will mean a lower wage over all

People keep saying this, but it's only true in an employer's market. In an employee's market, it works the other way around, because now the good employees have a wider choice of potential employers. Which kind of market do you think software development is?

Why _should_ an engineer working from home in Seattle but enjoying all that Seattle and surrounding area have to offer get paid more than some poor bastard who is staying hear his family to help care give in Where-the-hells-ville, AR?

If we move to Beverly Hills should that person get paid more than Seattle? (yes of course Google has to have an office there per these rules)

Should employees who choose to own a car be paid more than someone who uses public transit or their own bike?

You are paid $x in order to produce $y. Assuming our $y's are the same what we choose to spend our $x on should be personal and private.

I am willing to bet, knowing personally many people in Arkansas, that most of them have no desire to live in Seattle, and would not view it as "enjoyable" if they had to move their.

Similar to me, living in the MidWest, there is no amount of money in the world that force me to move to Silicon Valley, the West Coast, or New England Area... None.... I would rather live in a box under a bridge.

Amusingly enough, they do have a Beverly office.

https://g.co/kgs/Je6f2F

Would you pay twice the regular rate for an identical pair of trainers that had been made in a different place? Unless the location of the employee has a material impact on their output, it seems bizarre to offer different payment for the same thing.

Maybe a particularly bad example? New Balance has a line of shoes made in the USA and made elsewhere, with about a 2x price difference ($185 for USA, $70 to $100 for non-US).

Obviously people are not rushing to pay double for USA made shows, so it seems like a fitting example.

Almost everyone does not care about the sellers costs (COGS). They only care or they can get what they want at a lower price from another seller.

i agree, it is bizarre. op has one of the worst takes ive heard about this whole thing.

I would consider your argument seriously, if the price of the products and services I work on were also adjusted to the location of the buyer, but they rarely are. So, I find it hard to justify that I have to be paid less based on location.

they could always move to a lower cost of living? lol why should the other guy earn less just cause seattle guy wants to live in seattle?

if one can do the work remotely at the same quality as they would in office. i dont get why they should be paid less.

What if Seattle guy was born in Seattle, do you want them to move? :-D

Reply on news.ycombinator.com