Hacker News Reader

> were willing to put 5-10% of their income in exchange for work from home.

Why? The company is going to use your home as an office and they should be paying that 5-10% extra. Why business paying corporate landlord for office space is okay, but when Joe Public offers his own lowly place then it's a no no? When people don't recognise their value, they are prime for being exploited.

View on HN

We did the experiment to check if people are serious about WFH. There is a lot of work to make it happen inside a company. In particular to treat remote people as first class citizens. WFH was also a choice after covid and not necessity.

With a pay cut we are sure people are serious about WFH and not only demanding.

> With a pay cut we are sure people are serious about WFH and not only demanding.

How that correlates with "seriousness"?

Wouldn't pay rise equally make sure people are serious about it?

In that case, I'd be seriously considering moving to another company.

There is no inherit value, it is determined by market, mostly supply and demand.

Maybe you folks don't have to pay property taxes, but in the US we do, and that's a pretty clear indication of an "inherent value".

Sorry if it was not clear, I meant value of work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com