This week only. Pastebin PRO Accounts Christmas Special! Don't miss out!Want more features on Pastebin? Sign Up, it's FREE!
Guest

Untitled

By: a guest on Sep 2nd, 2013  |  syntax: None  |  size: 2.16 KB  |  views: 76  |  expires: Never
download  |  raw  |  embed  |  report abuse  |  print
Text below is selected. Please press Ctrl+C to copy to your clipboard. (⌘+C on Mac)
  1. > However, the flip-side of the same coin is what about when someone moves to a more expensive location? Should we then say "this is the fixed salary and you choose where to live, and if you move somewhere more expensive that is your choice"?
  2.  
  3. I'd say that's absolutely fair, it's kind of the default expectation in my mind at least - I provide a certain value to the company as a remote worker, for which they pay me accordingly. My value doesn't change if I move, so I wouldn't expect my salary to either. If you want to offer raises upon moving to a more expensive area, I think it's a cool perk that encourages people to live where they want to and probably decreases turnover when people move naturally - but the people on the other side of the coin certainly shouldn't be punished with the "anti-perk" version of this if they decide to move to a less expensive area. In fact, one of the draws of remote work (to me at least) is the idea that I could get paid as well as I do now in NYC, but move somewhere dirt cheap to live and save up some money.
  4.  
  5. It's kind of like when grade school teachers "grade tests on a curve" - that is, when most people don't do very well, their grades are raised to fit a bell curve. However, when many people do do exceptionally well, those who did well but not great are penalized - eg. an 85% can be a D when the average is a 90%. I always hated teachers who did this, but luckily most realized that this was not a good method and only applied the curve when it helped a student's scores.
  6.  
  7. More generally, I think you are overthinking employment a bit when you refer so much to "fairness" in terms of people living where they want to live. Most modern employees' concept of fairness is pretty closely tied to classical economic theory - simply the idea that, like I said, "I add X value to the company and get paid $X (and Y benefits/perks) in return." Regardless of where they decide to live, increasing someone's pay when their value to the company remains constant is a perk and should make them feel appreciated, which will often be repaid with loyalty. I imagine that reducing someone's pay would be seen as the opposite of a perk and would have the opposite effect.
clone this paste RAW Paste Data