Anonymous wrote:
I don’t know why Facebook is trying this—Facebook sucks. Who really WANTS to work there anyway now—except for the money? Most young techies feel it’s sort of embarrassing. It just seems like people are extrapolating that all highly paid tech workers are going to be screwed now. My point was that many big tech companies have had remote workers or workers in satellite branches for years now, and those workers are still highly paid. Are they paid as much as people working in Silicon Valley? No. There’s a COL difference, but it’s not THAT much. Whatever Facebook does, I don’t think more remote jobs are going to dramatically hurt salaries for engineers.

LOL.. someone is jealous. FB is doing this because they can. They want to give their employees options. That's more than most most employers are doing for their workers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am shocked at how many people don’t understand a COL adjustment.

This is OPTIONAL, and you have months to decide if you want to move.

It’s necessary for FB to take the locality pay seriously because there’s real tax implications for both employees and FB.

The argument that a the job is unchanged and thus the pay shouldnt change is beyond stupid. By that argument, anyone who is recruited from Omaha at $80K shouldn’t make a penny more if they live in SF.

FB engineers are well compensated and in demand; market forces will dominate. FB isn’t going to offer someone $70K to work in Virginia who makes $250K in SV. Two very simple reasons: (1) If they did, competitors would just scoop that talent up, and (2) If they did and no one took the offer, they’d save nothing.

This is win-win. Half of you people are insane.

$250 in SV is likely south of $200 in the DMV. Nobody said it would be $80.

And come Jan 21, they’ll start RIF’ing people if they don’t meet their target. They aren’t doing this to promote remote work or work/life balance. Rather, it’s a strategic approach to look intentional to investors since a RIF now would tank their shares.

Go back enough pages and people were absolutely arguing the comp would drop to $80.

If RIFS are in the cards, they’ll happen regardless. This seems like a way to try and help employees who don’t want to stay in SF.

No one said $80K for D.C. Now if by the DMV you mean Richmond or west Sterling or you're talking Phoenix/Charlotte/Huntsville, yes your pay will absolutely did far down.

I love all the people not in big tech talking about things they know nothing about. Facebook and Netflix are different kinds of companies than Amazon, Microsoft, Google. I have no idea what Facebook would do--and no one does--because they have no history of remote workers! But Microsoft, Google and Amazon do not lowball employees who don't work in tech hubs. Microsoft and Amazon have had employees in various cities for years, mostly for sales although not all, and they pay quite well. Google is branching out now because of cloud and will likely be increasing their presence in other cities. They look for people who are really good and will pay for it. Also, it's not as though a programmer (or anyone else with specific tech related skills) who is good at what they do would work for Facebook just because it's Facebook and wouldn't have other competing strong offers from various companies, local or remote.

Regardless of what Facebook does, Facebook is not indicative of ALL tech companies. Most big tech companies already have plenty of remote workers and pay them well. Facebook's business model does not need remote workers.

Um, precisely. FB doesn’t need remote workers. Additionally, FB’s model has valued in-person/office work. Heck, they provide all kinds of perks to entice workers to voluntarily chain themselves to their desks!

They are not all of a sudden concerned about staff or work/life balance. They have been in crisis mode since well before the pandemic. They need to cut costs dramatically, but they can’t risk making investors any more nervous than they already are. Hence, the theatrics of choice: choosing to relocate and take a pay cut.

Are salaries typically set by local markets? Of course. We know that.

But this is different. This is a dramatic departure for FB operations, and experts are already predicting it won’t work. Google it.

To the pp who keeps chiding us as being clueless to the industry: I’m wondering if FB planted you here to cheerlead? It’s so weird that you think they aren’t trying to cut costs because they need to. Your refusal to acknowledge the theatrics is befuddling.

I don’t know why Facebook is trying this—Facebook sucks. Who really WANTS to work there anyway now—except for the money? Most young techies feel it’s sort of embarrassing. It just seems like people are extrapolating that all highly paid tech workers are going to be screwed now. My point was that many big tech companies have had remote workers or workers in satellite branches for years now, and those workers are still highly paid. Are they paid as much as people working in Silicon Valley? No. There’s a COL difference, but it’s not THAT much. Whatever Facebook does, I don’t think more remote jobs are going to dramatically hurt salaries for engineers.

Anonymous wrote:What if FB workers go really off the grid? Can’t they figure out how to block their VPNS?

I am not sure how FB does it, but the company that I work with has a remote offsite IP whitelist. Your IP has to be whitelisted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is effed up

It's not messed up. The tax issue is very real.

It’s been a long time since I lived in one state and worked in another, but at the time, I was taxed based on the state where I resided. Is that not typical?

You are taxed based on where you provide the service, or where you are based. That doesn't mean that if you spend 3 days in Boise doing consultant work then ID will tax you. If your base of operations is in CA, but you travel a lot, you will get taxed by CA, not by the other states.

If you have a home in ID, but your base of operations is in CA, and you travel to CA x # of days per year, you will get taxed by CA.

If you have a home in ID,, but your base of operation is NOT in CA, but you travel to CA x# of days per year, you will not get taxed by CA.

Someone mentioned LeBron James as an example of CA taxing him even though he lived in OH. The reason is because his base of operations (playing for the Lakers) was in CA. That's why he got taxed by CA.

I know someone who lived in a different state but he traveled to CA regularly for business because his base of operations was in Ca. He got taxed by CA.

I work remotely and provide service to a company in CA, but I don't get taxed by CA because my base of operations is not in CA.

For the FB workers, if they do not travel to CA regularly as part of their jobs, they may not be taxed by CA. If they do, then they could be taxed by CA but only for the number of days they spend in CA.


https://www.palmspringstaxandtrustlawyers.com/g-guidelines-for-determining-residency/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is effed up

It's not messed up. The tax issue is very real.

It’s been a long time since I lived in one state and worked in another, but at the time, I was taxed based on the state where I resided. Is that not typical?

What if FB workers go really off the grid? Can’t they figure out how to block their VPNS?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I see no problem with this policy applying to new employees, that said, so long as they go in knowing what the policy is.

No.. they have till Jan 2021 to decide whether they want to wfh permanently or not. Announcing the col adjustment now means they have the knowledge in hand before they make the decision. You are misinformed.

Yes, when things take a down turn, employers benefit. For decades in SV, it's been an employee's market, rather than an employer's market. No different to how real estate prices work, or any thing else. It's called supply and demand.

What I don't understand is, won't a ton of FB employees WFH while staying in the Bay Area where they likely have spouses with jobs and kids in schools? Seems like this is to address a small number of people who will move to lower COL areas.

There were a lot of people who left California or the coasts entirely to shelter elsewhere just like New Yorkers left Manhattan.

Other people were thinking about never coming back or not doing so for half a year or more. With schools closed, there was nothing forcing them too.

I'm seeing a lot of new SFH listings in San Francisco and in the Bay Area as well.

Facebook decided to get out ahead of the bullrush. People can still leave -- they just won't be taking those lucrative paychecks with them.

They will still come out ahead even with the locality adjustment. Unlike what our comp expert above is trying to claim, FB isn’t going go pay their engineers 80k.

OK, then why are some people so outraged over this? FB is giving them to Jan.2021 to make this decision. They have a half a year to decide, and that is pretty generous.

Well anytime you adjust someone’s comp down the person isn’t going to say, thank you sir may I have some more? If you shift someone from 350k to 280k, that’s still a significant loss. Do you really need that spelled out?

And those on this thread are pretty obviously uneducated as to how these programs really get implemented. Re-read the person who keeps posting about hiring a comp consultant. This board is also overwhelming used by Feds or lawyers. Neither have been through something like this.

But they could stay at $350K. They would just have to keep with their original deal and come to work. If they want to wfh, they can (already a big win). If they want to move and wfh, there will be a col adjustment. What is the issue?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am shocked at how many people don’t understand a COL adjustment.

This is OPTIONAL, and you have months to decide if you want to move.

It’s necessary for FB to take the locality pay seriously because there’s real tax implications for both employees and FB.

The argument that a the job is unchanged and thus the pay shouldnt change is beyond stupid. By that argument, anyone who is recruited from Omaha at $80K shouldn’t make a penny more if they live in SF.

FB engineers are well compensated and in demand; market forces will dominate. FB isn’t going to offer someone $70K to work in Virginia who makes $250K in SV. Two very simple reasons: (1) If they did, competitors would just scoop that talent up, and (2) If they did and no one took the offer, they’d save nothing.

This is win-win. Half of you people are insane.

$250 in SV is likely south of $200 in the DMV. Nobody said it would be $80.

And come Jan 21, they’ll start RIF’ing people if they don’t meet their target. They aren’t doing this to promote remote work or work/life balance. Rather, it’s a strategic approach to look intentional to investors since a RIF now would tank their shares.

Go back enough pages and people were absolutely arguing the comp would drop to $80.

If RIFS are in the cards, they’ll happen regardless. This seems like a way to try and help employees who don’t want to stay in SF.

No one said $80K for D.C. Now if by the DMV you mean Richmond or west Sterling or you're talking Phoenix/Charlotte/Huntsville, yes your pay will absolutely did far down.

I love all the people not in big tech talking about things they know nothing about. Facebook and Netflix are different kinds of companies than Amazon, Microsoft, Google. I have no idea what Facebook would do--and no one does--because they have no history of remote workers! But Microsoft, Google and Amazon do not lowball employees who don't work in tech hubs. Microsoft and Amazon have had employees in various cities for years, mostly for sales although not all, and they pay quite well. Google is branching out now because of cloud and will likely be increasing their presence in other cities. They look for people who are really good and will pay for it. Also, it's not as though a programmer (or anyone else with specific tech related skills) who is good at what they do would work for Facebook just because it's Facebook and wouldn't have other competing strong offers from various companies, local or remote.

Regardless of what Facebook does, Facebook is not indicative of ALL tech companies. Most big tech companies already have plenty of remote workers and pay them well. Facebook's business model does not need remote workers.

Um, precisely. FB doesn’t need remote workers. Additionally, FB’s model has valued in-person/office work. Heck, they provide all kinds of perks to entice workers to voluntarily chain themselves to their desks!

They are not all of a sudden concerned about staff or work/life balance. They have been in crisis mode since well before the pandemic. They need to cut costs dramatically, but they can’t risk making investors any more nervous than they already are. Hence, the theatrics of choice: choosing to relocate and take a pay cut.

Are salaries typically set by local markets? Of course. We know that.

But this is different. This is a dramatic departure for FB operations, and experts are already predicting it won’t work. Google it.

To the pp who keeps chiding us as being clueless to the industry: I’m wondering if FB planted you here to cheerlead? It’s so weird that you think they aren’t trying to cut costs because they need to. Your refusal to acknowledge the theatrics is befuddling.

It's not going to be like the government where everything is fixed across the board. COL adjustments will likely be on a case-by-case basis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am shocked at how many people don’t understand a COL adjustment.

This is OPTIONAL, and you have months to decide if you want to move.

It’s necessary for FB to take the locality pay seriously because there’s real tax implications for both employees and FB.

The argument that a the job is unchanged and thus the pay shouldnt change is beyond stupid. By that argument, anyone who is recruited from Omaha at $80K shouldn’t make a penny more if they live in SF.

FB engineers are well compensated and in demand; market forces will dominate. FB isn’t going to offer someone $70K to work in Virginia who makes $250K in SV. Two very simple reasons: (1) If they did, competitors would just scoop that talent up, and (2) If they did and no one took the offer, they’d save nothing.

This is win-win. Half of you people are insane.

$250 in SV is likely south of $200 in the DMV. Nobody said it would be $80.

And come Jan 21, they’ll start RIF’ing people if they don’t meet their target. They aren’t doing this to promote remote work or work/life balance. Rather, it’s a strategic approach to look intentional to investors since a RIF now would tank their shares.

Go back enough pages and people were absolutely arguing the comp would drop to $80.

If RIFS are in the cards, they’ll happen regardless. This seems like a way to try and help employees who don’t want to stay in SF.

No one said $80K for D.C. Now if by the DMV you mean Richmond or west Sterling or you're talking Phoenix/Charlotte/Huntsville, yes your pay will absolutely did far down.

I love all the people not in big tech talking about things they know nothing about. Facebook and Netflix are different kinds of companies than Amazon, Microsoft, Google. I have no idea what Facebook would do--and no one does--because they have no history of remote workers! But Microsoft, Google and Amazon do not lowball employees who don't work in tech hubs. Microsoft and Amazon have had employees in various cities for years, mostly for sales although not all, and they pay quite well. Google is branching out now because of cloud and will likely be increasing their presence in other cities. They look for people who are really good and will pay for it. Also, it's not as though a programmer (or anyone else with specific tech related skills) who is good at what they do would work for Facebook just because it's Facebook and wouldn't have other competing strong offers from various companies, local or remote.

Regardless of what Facebook does, Facebook is not indicative of ALL tech companies. Most big tech companies already have plenty of remote workers and pay them well. Facebook's business model does not need remote workers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am shocked at how many people don’t understand a COL adjustment.

This is OPTIONAL, and you have months to decide if you want to move.

It’s necessary for FB to take the locality pay seriously because there’s real tax implications for both employees and FB.

The argument that a the job is unchanged and thus the pay shouldnt change is beyond stupid. By that argument, anyone who is recruited from Omaha at $80K shouldn’t make a penny more if they live in SF.

FB engineers are well compensated and in demand; market forces will dominate. FB isn’t going to offer someone $70K to work in Virginia who makes $250K in SV. Two very simple reasons: (1) If they did, competitors would just scoop that talent up, and (2) If they did and no one took the offer, they’d save nothing.

This is win-win. Half of you people are insane.

$250 in SV is likely south of $200 in the DMV. Nobody said it would be $80.

And come Jan 21, they’ll start RIF’ing people if they don’t meet their target. They aren’t doing this to promote remote work or work/life balance. Rather, it’s a strategic approach to look intentional to investors since a RIF now would tank their shares.

Go back enough pages and people were absolutely arguing the comp would drop to $80.

If RIFS are in the cards, they’ll happen regardless. This seems like a way to try and help employees who don’t want to stay in SF.

No one said $80K for D.C. Now if by the DMV you mean Richmond or west Sterling or you're talking Phoenix/Charlotte/Huntsville, yes your pay will absolutely did far down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am shocked at how many people don’t understand a COL adjustment.

This is OPTIONAL, and you have months to decide if you want to move.

It’s necessary for FB to take the locality pay seriously because there’s real tax implications for both employees and FB.

The argument that a the job is unchanged and thus the pay shouldnt change is beyond stupid. By that argument, anyone who is recruited from Omaha at $80K shouldn’t make a penny more if they live in SF.

FB engineers are well compensated and in demand; market forces will dominate. FB isn’t going to offer someone $70K to work in Virginia who makes $250K in SV. Two very simple reasons: (1) If they did, competitors would just scoop that talent up, and (2) If they did and no one took the offer, they’d save nothing.

This is win-win. Half of you people are insane.

$250 in SV is likely south of $200 in the DMV. Nobody said it would be $80.

And come Jan 21, they’ll start RIF’ing people if they don’t meet their target. They aren’t doing this to promote remote work or work/life balance. Rather, it’s a strategic approach to look intentional to investors since a RIF now would tank their shares.

Go back enough pages and people were absolutely arguing the comp would drop to $80.

If RIFS are in the cards, they’ll happen regardless. This seems like a way to try and help employees who don’t want to stay in SF.

Anonymous wrote:Tech is the most lucrative/profitable (per employee) industry. It's also almost 100% talent driven, especially for social/consumer companies (as opposed to saas/enterprise). If they lose their best talent, Facebook can become obsolete in 2-3 years and they know it. Anybody who thinks they will nickle and dime high performers in their eng org who want to relocate is clueless.

This is false and old conventional wisdom.

Today’s tech benefits almost entirely from 1) regulatory recapture 2) monopoly power / deregulation 3) lack of enforcement on current barriers to entry. In fact many of the tech companies that do this aren’t lucrative at all - and instead just break everything (see Uber), while others benefited from being in the right place at the right time (see Apple, and Facebook).

Facebook’s product is tantamount to newspapers adds / classifieds pages. The best talent has nothing to do with it. The ROI for a Facebook campaign is terrible, but because Facebook broke the digital media advertising business, ad reps have literally no where else to place their clients marketing budgets. And like Microsoft, Facebook doesn’t need developer talent, they need lawyer and lobbyists - and not the best, but the most corrupt will do just fine. The UX could stay static for a decade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I see no problem with this policy applying to new employees, that said, so long as they go in knowing what the policy is.

No.. they have till Jan 2021 to decide whether they want to wfh permanently or not. Announcing the col adjustment now means they have the knowledge in hand before they make the decision. You are misinformed.

Yes, when things take a down turn, employers benefit. For decades in SV, it's been an employee's market, rather than an employer's market. No different to how real estate prices work, or any thing else. It's called supply and demand.

What I don't understand is, won't a ton of FB employees WFH while staying in the Bay Area where they likely have spouses with jobs and kids in schools? Seems like this is to address a small number of people who will move to lower COL areas.

There were a lot of people who left California or the coasts entirely to shelter elsewhere just like New Yorkers left Manhattan.

Other people were thinking about never coming back or not doing so for half a year or more. With schools closed, there was nothing forcing them too.

I'm seeing a lot of new SFH listings in San Francisco and in the Bay Area as well.

Facebook decided to get out ahead of the bullrush. People can still leave -- they just won't be taking those lucrative paychecks with them.

They will still come out ahead even with the locality adjustment. Unlike what our comp expert above is trying to claim, FB isn’t going go pay their engineers 80k.

OK, then why are some people so outraged over this? FB is giving them to Jan.2021 to make this decision. They have a half a year to decide, and that is pretty generous.

Well anytime you adjust someone’s comp down the person isn’t going to say, thank you sir may I have some more? If you shift someone from 350k to 280k, that’s still a significant loss. Do you really need that spelled out?

And those on this thread are pretty obviously uneducated as to how these programs really get implemented. Re-read the person who keeps posting about hiring a comp consultant. This board is also overwhelming used by Feds or lawyers. Neither have been through something like this.

I have worked in high tech for 20+ years (in SV) and I think the comp consultant poster is off-base.

Absolutely. They don’t understand what the consultant really was doing. That person also doesn’t work with the caliber of talent that gets hired at FB or they would know the numbers they are throwing out would never happen.

I was a Gs-14 making $110k in DC. Moved to a mid size city in the southwest and my pay only went down to $103k. But my rent went from $2500 to $1100, and that was from a 1 bed apartment to a 3 bedroom house!