News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Let People Move to Jobs by WalterBright on Saturday January 18, 2020 @11:10PM (#22089410)
If your money goes 2x further after the move, then you might be much better off even with a salary reduction. This means a move could be a win for both google and the employee.

Also, pegging your salary to corporate profits has its downsides. At Boeing, a good chunk of the worker bees negotiated their bonuses to be pegged to the quarterly profits. They were pretty unhappy about this when the 737MAX problems tanked profits, and the bonuses vanished.

Re:Let People Move to Jobs by unlinked_dll on Saturday January 18, 2020 @11:56PM (#22089555)
I think profit sharing is totally awesome in all forms and losing bonuses when your business kills people is more than reasonable.

But anyway to me the math isn't about win/win but just supply and demand. If they can afford to pay it and were willing to before, it's not like you can't make the same amount (if not more) and have better future prospects without the stress and cost of moving.

I think a more realistic take would be a more decentralized approach to labor in general and allow many smaller satellites to pop up (which they already have) in many places and allow their people to move freely with minor salary adjustments. That way the costs and benefits even out in the long run, mass relocation to a single location probably isn't great for anyone involved long term.

Re:Let People Move to Jobs by WalterBright on Sunday January 19, 2020 @01:17AM (#22089773)
Supply & demand is exactly about win/win. People don't wittingly make deals where they are worse off than if they decline the deal.
Re:Let People Move to Jobs by Zenbit_UX on Sunday January 19, 2020 @10:51AM (#22092016)
> They were pretty unhappy about this when the 737MAX problems tanked profits, and the bonuses vanished.

I have no doubt, likely more unhappy at lost bonuses than the fact they contributed directly to many lives being lost.