Thanks for the link, but I'm not sure about the conclusion. Why do you think the company would reimburse you for $3500/mo for freeing up office space or using less of it?

A company basically pays you for your cost of living. That's why pay is high in the Bay Area or NY, and why you take a massive pay cut when you move out. If you choose to work remotely or sign up for shitty work conditions, they are not going to reimburse any of the costs you just saved them.

> A company basically pays you for your cost of living. That's why pay is high in the Bay Area or NY, and why you take a massive pay cut when you move out.

That's the essence of another issue companies are forcing with remote work. It puts the lie to any claim that compensation is based on business value. Do I not provide the same value to the business if I live in Omaha, Nebraska rather than San Jose, California?

But, the company has offices in Menlo Park, you're more valuable because you're closer to them, you say? But the company also has offices in Omaha, and a dozens other places around the world.

This isn't theoretical: companies have already said that pay scales for remote work will be tied to location, regardless of the contribution a person makes to the company.

Employers are going to have to reckon with the fact that if I can chose to live more comfortably, I can also choose to expect to compensated for my contributions rather than my postal code. Am I worth a six-figure salary or not?

any company that told me the value of my work is tied to the location at which i accomplish it would immediately hit a wall with me being willing to work there.

it simply is bonkers they've tried to pull that line out.

Agreed! Employees have to realize this is a very unique opportunity where the Companies have lost much of the strong arm wrenching used by what Human Resources has become. (basically, a way for companies to remind employees they are number and replaceable at any second.)

Companies are terrified that employees will flex some of these desires and flexibilities as not benefits, but open to as many jobs as possible. It removes their ability to keep employees focused on groveling in appreciation to be allowed to be in their presence.

If they let this go, employees may begin looking around and realizing why are the top 1% being paid ridiculous salaries with millions of shares given annually while whinning to unions, employees and anyone who can hear they have to continually cut benefits, pensions (what are those?) to barely keep profitable. (Question how can foreign companies continue to pay good benefits, have employee long term retention, etc. and not have it cause such damage to company profits?)

Employees have been trained and brainwashed for so long that only a scant few find the behvior described above as bonkers. Rather most have grown numb and believe it is normal for companies to tell them they deserve only what the company decides to toss their way.

It is bonkers they are pulling that line out, unfortunately it works very time.

Companies pay you minimum you're willing to accept. People don't have a habit of accepting jobs they know will cause their personal budgets to run red.

That is indeed a more accurate statement.

As an aside, its also a a reason why immigration from poor countries is so dangerous - people in the 2nd/3rd world have much simpler lifestyles and are thus willing to accept much lower salaries.

Note, I am from Ukraine, and I am speaking from personal experience moving to the USA. My American friends eat out all the time, buy very expensive home appliances, and tip extremely generously.

I live a frugal life since this is the standard of living I am accustomed to from my homeland. I was also willing to accept the lowest salary legally possible just to get into the country, which is already a huge upgrade to my income.

I also can't then change jobs easily, since the visa is tied to my employer.

If Tech workers want to maintain this state of demand, they should really oppose immigration from poor countries, such as requiring that the H1B visa has a maximum cap of 10% from any one country, which will have the effect of limiting the number of Indians who enter. Setting an additional maximum cap of 49% males from any one country would also be good to encourage gender diversity, instead of flooding in male migrants and then forcing companies to do it.

I see your point and agree with thing you’re saying in general. However, this impacts US workers due to the following:

- Visa workers paid less for a job with a higher rate of lay is illegal. The paperwork and justification to offer jobs to visa workers clearly makes the company liable for Fraud, Illegal Hiring, etc, etc. problem is to stop it things just happen:

   - they must be turned in
   - the US Govt must stop turning a blind eye 
   - companies at fault and convicted must face real consequences (fining a company $5 to $10M for this when savings over multiple positions over time has saved them 10x, 100x or more than the fine is useless
 - CEO, CFO, etc jailed no less than 10 years per instance (10 year min time served)
 - company fined out of business on 2nd or 3rd instance

NEXT…

- Americans can leave on lower lifestyle cost but refuse (tech high pay jobs, obviously not everyone) - Americans need to be educated in jobs as well. Many times positions go infilled as no available US worker or the $150k per year doesn’t allow to live and eat in places like the Bay Area and Americans while forced to share housing here couldn’t imagine to share a room with 4 or 5 or 6 others.

Yes visa worker process needs to be massively reworked and politicians need to stop screwing Americans for lobbyists pouring money, etc at them to bend to the business needs. But a lot is also caused by Americans keeping up appearances and government allowing the cost of housing and living to be so out of control.

I am actually in a very similar position to yours and agree with most of your points. I also assume you are in tech. I don't know what the immigration situation as a whole is, but I'm not sure tech is a good example of immigrants driving salaries down. Also, isn't it technically illegal for a company to pay the immigrant less? Rather than imposing limits on immigration, which I think is what the average conservative mindset would push for, I'd argue that companies should be punished for exploiting their workers -- regardless of where they come from.

It's just a thought experiment. It's one thing to say offices are good. It's another to say their benefit outweighs the cost.

I think the added cost may be worth it, but I'd be surprised to find majority agreement.

> A company basically pays you for your cost of living

I'd argue that companies generally pay market rates for employees, which in a well-functioning market will be well above the cost of living.

For what it's worth, I had the luck of working in an actual office, with walls and doors that close (it honestly sounds quite absurd to describe it this way; how low have we sunk?) and I prefer it very much that way for the same reasons described in your link.

And agree on the last statement, I had over-simplified that, though I did add the word "basically".

> upgrade from cube to desk

Wait, you get cubes? That would be an upgrade compared to the open offices I am talking about. I mean open-plan offices, where each worker gets a flat surface, a rolling filing cabinet, and a power outlet.

I'd almost go back to one job where I had a cube, because the cubes there were maybe 8' (2-1/2m) square, high-walled, enough desk space to spread out, and even a personal coat closet/locker with a door. Make it another foot or two high, put on a cover and a door that closes and I wouldn't care that it was made out of cheap fiberboard covered in ugly carpet.

I think those are rates per year - not per month. So maybe make that contribution to your paycheck per year - not per month. (Kinda surprised no one here knows that and hasn’t mentioned it yet)

Source in case you don’t believe me: https://www.squarefoot.com/leasopedia/dollars-cents-much-cos...

You're right! My bad.

Kinda changes your whole point. $10k/yr for a $400k/yr engineer is really not much at all. $10k/month is but $10k/yr is definitely not. Rounding error, basically.

And - personally - I might even take the $10k/yr pre-tax deduction for a nice private office. Certainly much cheaper than trying to do it at my own place.

I fondly remember days in my last office. It was ground-level in a small building, with a window that faced a small tree-lined space behind the building. I could sit at my desk and think while watching the birds and squirrels, and on a wintry day the snow would hang on the leaves.

Commercial property when quoted as “$X/sq ft” means an annual rental charge, not monthly.

Your employer might get some, all, or even more than the $3,500 differential back through increased productivity, less churn, etc.

Microsoft used to provide offices but has been slowly doing away with them in favor of open office spaces. From what I understand, any new buildings they construct are designed around open offices.

Why are you assuming employees are currently getting the cost savings from cubicles?

These are annual prices. Before covid you could get a private office in sfba for ~$10-12k/y in a coworking space. Cheaper if you get 2-3 person spaces

Oops, those costs should be per month, not per year... but now I can't edit the post.