Google is right to cut remote workers' pay. Alternative is inequity

Except... it would actually help everyone in her area because she will have much more money to spend around which would benefit local businesses? And the good thing is that because people would be spread all over the country then this wealth won't concentrate in one single area (which will lead to inflation in the local prices, as we see in SF).

This person says they've worked in tech and HR for a while but I don't think they've ever opened an economics textbook.

All in all, Google does this not because they think it's the best for workers, but because if they can pay someone in Nebraska 80k instead of the 140k they would pay them in SF they will be saving a significant amount of money. That's the bottom line. The truth is that Google will outsource as much work as it can, as people learn how to work online more efficiently it'll be much easier for Google to start hiring people in Argentina, Pakistan, Colombia, who knows.

I think a lot of people forget that automation and off-shoring are basically the same to any local employees and what Google is looking for is being able to get the work done with as little money as possible, in the end, that's one of the most profitable ways to run a business.

Currently, remote employees in the middle of nowhere are in local markets without companies with such a burning need to scale and with fewer resources to pay for it. Their BATNA seems to be not much good, so their employer can pay them less now. Right?

I'm not so sure. Won't other side of the remote coin, remote employers, increase competition for remote workers such that they push up pay, particularly if they can identify talent or acceptable proxies thereof?

What does BigTech do when Joe Hotshot, who had their remote work request accepted along with pay cut, gets a better offer from LargeCo? Market forces is what happens, IMO.

I think a likely outcome from all this is increasing inequality - higher salaries for the most talented people, who are competed for globally, and lower salaries further down the curve, where there are more people of equivalent talent in lower cost locations.

I also think some degree of co-location actually matters, though. Time zone especially.

Having remote workers means needing less office space and its associated costs, and pushes costs onto the remote employees.

As such, remote employees should be paid more not less.

Ie, we have to introduce pay inequality because otherwise there will be inequality. If nobody cuts their pay, they will be overpaid, because they are nomadic? And some discussion about how pay should match cost of living rather than value added or competitive rates? The author may have a good point but the article itself is not great and wanders a lot

By the same reasoning, artists, writers, and athletes income should be capped too. Also, what is the alternative to the inequity? Collusion between the companies, similar to what was uncovered in the Google/Apple anti-poaching lawsuit? The state regulating the salary range, similar to the Soviets?

Remote employment at this scale is a new phenomenon. The market has not yet adjusted to it and reached the equilibrium. Likely, the salaries would reflect the global supply and demand more than the cost of living.

That seems to make sense, but I wonder why the opposite isn’t just as likely to happen, more employees ask for more, if companies paid more for remote workers

Or are they just going to ignore the reduction in operating costs and focus on how remote employees are saving money on commuting?

I disagree. I think you should be paid for how well you can do your job.