So the employer punishes people that cannot afford to live close to the office? And on top of that, if they need to travel to conduct business, their pay is decreased? If I understand this right, it seems like a horrible idea, and I would not want to work at a place like that at all. If the company needs to hire talent that lives far away, why should they be punished?
> So the employer punishes people that cannot afford to live close to the office?
This already happens. If you aren't local, you can't even get the job.
> if they need to travel to conduct business, their pay is decreased?
Yes and no. If you're talking "I need you to go to China to meet with investors" no, if you're talking "we're having an all hands meeting on the first Monday of each month" then yes, but the employer is paying for your airfare and lodging as well.
> If the company __needs__ to hire talent that lives far away, why should they be punished?
Needs? Who said that? They just need employees. I'm talking about how much they need them in the office. If you don't need them in the office at all, then no pay differentials. But if you do need them in the office, well obviously there's different utility for that employee and should pay not reflect utility, as opposed to locality?
I mentioned in another thread the following scenario. Office in SF, one remote worker in Phoenix, another in NYC. How does the one in NYC have more utility than the one in AZ? (which is how pay works under current remote schemes) I'd argue it is easier/cheaper to get the AZ employee to the office. The AZ employee also shares the same time zone half the year and is only an hour off the rest of the year. How is that fair? So why not make it a function of distance and how much you are needed in the office rather than where you live?
