So if I can outsource most of my functions to another country and pay 75% less, should I also give my US staff a 75% pay cut?

Why wouldn't you? Or just get rid of them entirely and outsource everything. If you could achieve the same result for a lower price, you should do that. And a public company is legally obligated to do this if it is in the best interest of the shareholders.

I'll never understand the love of working at home on this forum. People are just demonstrating the ease with which their jobs can be outsourced. I worked at home for two years out of necessity and hated it. I like having work-life separation, and I'm a shy introvert who benefits from seeing actual people in person at work. I also made the choice to live downtown within walking distance of my job, so working at home cost me real money (lights, heat, etc., plus dedicating some of my apartment space to my employer without being paid for it.

If working at home works for you, that's great, but there are many of us who hated it. As soon as the pandemic was more-or-less over (February), I left that job and took an in-person job. It was one of my better decisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m federal government and we decrease pay based on where you live remotely. Except I think you can’t make more than where your work is located. Like we get the DC pay scale and you can’t be paid the nyc scale even if you’re working in nyc because we don’t need you to be in nyc.

This is kind of the opposite of how it works. There is a base salary for your work. Then the government increases pay based on cost of living where your work is located. If it's an office in DC, you get DC locality pay on top of the "base." If you go remote to a lower cost area, then you get whatever the locality pay is for that area because that's your new work location. E.g. Atlanta gets a slightly smaller COL increase than DC, and rural northern PA gets just the base.

You are right that you can't opt to get higher pay than where your office is located, because that would be a net loss to the government of having you work remotely.

Honestly, none of this seems remotely unfair to me.

It does to me. If we apply locality pay, I think we should also pay single people less. After all, they don’t have a family to support. Or what about people who have a working spouse?

I think an employer should pay a salary commensurate with the job and job market - not the lifestyle of the employee.

So if I can outsource most of my functions to another country and pay 75% less, should I also give my US staff a 75% pay cut?

DP. Sweet pea, you are trying to operate way above your pay grade. Maybe take an intro to economics course.

Cool.

Wanna answer the question, or just want to insult?

If your company would still need some US-based employees, then you will need to pay a salary that will attract the necessary employees, even if it more than you would need to pay similar employees in another country. If you want to outsource the rest, that is your choice.

For those US-based employees, if you need them near your physical office in a high COL area, then you need to pay huge local rate for that job. If the job can be done remotely, you can cut costs by employing people from lower COL areas. This is pretty basic management.

I am an attorney, and have been amazed at the shortsightedness of our legal assistants and other support staff clamoring to work from home full-time. They seem to have zero appreciation that if they demonstrate the job can be done just as efficiently fully remotely, there is no reason for us to pay DC wages for local legal assistants when we can hire people in the Midwest for a fraction of the cost.

Because companies are inefficient and everyone knows this. Technically anyone who works on a computer could have their job replaced via outsourcing. Including your job. But the reality is that it doesn’t happen. There are a variety of challenges in outsourcing work - the language barrier, time zone, culture, expense of one of these outsource workers traveling the globe to reach the home office etc.

Technically most office workers just demonstrated for two years that their job could be done remotely. Why don’t you try to save your company some money and hire legal assistants in India?

No, what the pandemic has demonstrated for many employers is that people can work well enough remotely in a crisis, but it often comes at some significant costs, especially if you are responsible for planning beyond the immediate moment. Now employers are trying to balance employees’ understandable interest in working from home with the employers’ interest in recapturing what was lost during WFH.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m federal government and we decrease pay based on where you live remotely. Except I think you can’t make more than where your work is located. Like we get the DC pay scale and you can’t be paid the nyc scale even if you’re working in nyc because we don’t need you to be in nyc.

This is kind of the opposite of how it works. There is a base salary for your work. Then the government increases pay based on cost of living where your work is located. If it's an office in DC, you get DC locality pay on top of the "base." If you go remote to a lower cost area, then you get whatever the locality pay is for that area because that's your new work location. E.g. Atlanta gets a slightly smaller COL increase than DC, and rural northern PA gets just the base.

You are right that you can't opt to get higher pay than where your office is located, because that would be a net loss to the government of having you work remotely.

Honestly, none of this seems remotely unfair to me.

It does to me. If we apply locality pay, I think we should also pay single people less. After all, they don’t have a family to support. Or what about people who have a working spouse?

I think an employer should pay a salary commensurate with the job and job market - not the lifestyle of the employee.

So if I can outsource most of my functions to another country and pay 75% less, should I also give my US staff a 75% pay cut?

DP. Sweet pea, you are trying to operate way above your pay grade. Maybe take an intro to economics course.

Cool.

Wanna answer the question, or just want to insult?

If your company would still need some US-based employees, then you will need to pay a salary that will attract the necessary employees, even if it more than you would need to pay similar employees in another country. If you want to outsource the rest, that is your choice.

For those US-based employees, if you need them near your physical office in a high COL area, then you need to pay huge local rate for that job. If the job can be done remotely, you can cut costs by employing people from lower COL areas. This is pretty basic management.

I am an attorney, and have been amazed at the shortsightedness of our legal assistants and other support staff clamoring to work from home full-time. They seem to have zero appreciation that if they demonstrate the job can be done just as efficiently fully remotely, there is no reason for us to pay DC wages for local legal assistants when we can hire people in the Midwest for a fraction of the cost.

Because companies are inefficient and everyone knows this. Technically anyone who works on a computer could have their job replaced via outsourcing. Including your job. But the reality is that it doesn’t happen. There are a variety of challenges in outsourcing work - the language barrier, time zone, culture, expense of one of these outsource workers traveling the globe to reach the home office etc.

Technically most office workers just demonstrated for two years that their job could be done remotely. Why don’t you try to save your company some money and hire legal assistants in India?

This is one of those things that the labor market is going to sort out naturally. What “should” happen is irrelevant. If employers can’t get enough workers with current policies, they’ll change the policy. If they can’t convince top talent to work for them when they pay less in ID, the top talent will go where they CAN be paid more. If a corporation can get enough workers with differentiated geographic pay, then that’s what it will continue to do.

What we’re seeing now is flux as the labor market is re-balancing itself after the pandemic, when it was discovered that almost 40% of US jobs can be done from home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m federal government and we decrease pay based on where you live remotely. Except I think you can’t make more than where your work is located. Like we get the DC pay scale and you can’t be paid the nyc scale even if you’re working in nyc because we don’t need you to be in nyc.

This is kind of the opposite of how it works. There is a base salary for your work. Then the government increases pay based on cost of living where your work is located. If it's an office in DC, you get DC locality pay on top of the "base." If you go remote to a lower cost area, then you get whatever the locality pay is for that area because that's your new work location. E.g. Atlanta gets a slightly smaller COL increase than DC, and rural northern PA gets just the base.

You are right that you can't opt to get higher pay than where your office is located, because that would be a net loss to the government of having you work remotely.

Honestly, none of this seems remotely unfair to me.

It does to me. If we apply locality pay, I think we should also pay single people less. After all, they don’t have a family to support. Or what about people who have a working spouse?

I think an employer should pay a salary commensurate with the job and job market - not the lifestyle of the employee.

So if I can outsource most of my functions to another country and pay 75% less, should I also give my US staff a 75% pay cut?

DP. Sweet pea, you are trying to operate way above your pay grade. Maybe take an intro to economics course.

Cool.

Wanna answer the question, or just want to insult?

If your company would still need some US-based employees, then you will need to pay a salary that will attract the necessary employees, even if it more than you would need to pay similar employees in another country. If you want to outsource the rest, that is your choice.

For those US-based employees, if you need them near your physical office in a high COL area, then you need to pay huge local rate for that job. If the job can be done remotely, you can cut costs by employing people from lower COL areas. This is pretty basic management.

I am an attorney, and have been amazed at the shortsightedness of our legal assistants and other support staff clamoring to work from home full-time. They seem to have zero appreciation that if they demonstrate the job can be done just as efficiently fully remotely, there is no reason for us to pay DC wages for local legal assistants when we can hire people in the Midwest for a fraction of the cost.

PP here and I think we're in agreement? PP appeared to be saying that geographic location should have nothing to do with it and everybody should be paid the same. I was attempting to make a hyperbolic point to the PP I was responding to that employers should pay the rate necessary to pay to get the talent they need to do whatever the job is, and the geographic location is an important factor in that rate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m federal government and we decrease pay based on where you live remotely. Except I think you can’t make more than where your work is located. Like we get the DC pay scale and you can’t be paid the nyc scale even if you’re working in nyc because we don’t need you to be in nyc.

This is kind of the opposite of how it works. There is a base salary for your work. Then the government increases pay based on cost of living where your work is located. If it's an office in DC, you get DC locality pay on top of the "base." If you go remote to a lower cost area, then you get whatever the locality pay is for that area because that's your new work location. E.g. Atlanta gets a slightly smaller COL increase than DC, and rural northern PA gets just the base.

You are right that you can't opt to get higher pay than where your office is located, because that would be a net loss to the government of having you work remotely.

Honestly, none of this seems remotely unfair to me.

It does to me. If we apply locality pay, I think we should also pay single people less. After all, they don’t have a family to support. Or what about people who have a working spouse?

I think an employer should pay a salary commensurate with the job and job market - not the lifestyle of the employee.

DP.. you seem really young and idealistic. That isn't how it works. It's about COL and commiserate pay. You having kids has nothing to do with your employer. Your employer is paying for your work and will pay you market rate of where you live. That's standard practice.

Don’t see how COL is any more or less than familial status. Or perhaps suburban versus. Perhaps they should lower salaries of workers who live in exurbs? Or what about employees who inherited their home?

Again, you seem really young and naive.

Your family life choices have nothing to do with your employer.

Exurbs are still part of the metro area, and pay will commiserate.

Then why are you suggesting that moving my a family to a different city should result in a decrease in pay?

Because of supply and demand. I think maybe look at it the opposite. Why would an organization pay more than they have to in compensation to get the talent they need to get the job done? If you paid $20 for a hammer in Boston, but could pay $5 for that hammer in Boise, wouldn't you do that? If you once paid a plumber $200 per hour, but could find another plumber to do it for $100 an hour, wouldn't you choose the latter?

Any worker that is unhappy with their pay can choose to look for another job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m federal government and we decrease pay based on where you live remotely. Except I think you can’t make more than where your work is located. Like we get the DC pay scale and you can’t be paid the nyc scale even if you’re working in nyc because we don’t need you to be in nyc.

This is kind of the opposite of how it works. There is a base salary for your work. Then the government increases pay based on cost of living where your work is located. If it's an office in DC, you get DC locality pay on top of the "base." If you go remote to a lower cost area, then you get whatever the locality pay is for that area because that's your new work location. E.g. Atlanta gets a slightly smaller COL increase than DC, and rural northern PA gets just the base.

You are right that you can't opt to get higher pay than where your office is located, because that would be a net loss to the government of having you work remotely.

Honestly, none of this seems remotely unfair to me.

It does to me. If we apply locality pay, I think we should also pay single people less. After all, they don’t have a family to support. Or what about people who have a working spouse?

I think an employer should pay a salary commensurate with the job and job market - not the lifestyle of the employee.

So if I can outsource most of my functions to another country and pay 75% less, should I also give my US staff a 75% pay cut?

DP. Sweet pea, you are trying to operate way above your pay grade. Maybe take an intro to economics course.

Cool.

Wanna answer the question, or just want to insult?

If your company would still need some US-based employees, then you will need to pay a salary that will attract the necessary employees, even if it more than you would need to pay similar employees in another country. If you want to outsource the rest, that is your choice.

For those US-based employees, if you need them near your physical office in a high COL area, then you need to pay huge local rate for that job. If the job can be done remotely, you can cut costs by employing people from lower COL areas. This is pretty basic management.

I am an attorney, and have been amazed at the shortsightedness of our legal assistants and other support staff clamoring to work from home full-time. They seem to have zero appreciation that if they demonstrate the job can be done just as efficiently fully remotely, there is no reason for us to pay DC wages for local legal assistants when we can hire people in the Midwest for a fraction of the cost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what many companies are doing. Its not an uncommon practice. PreCovid we had many threads about how much of a pay cut was worth a remote position. I took one and it worked well for me for many years! No surprises here

+1 There was a hug thread about this in late 2020 (I think) when Facebook announced this approach. Even with adjusting for cost of living differences, it’s not like these big tech companies are paying small company crap wages. Why should Google pay SV wages for the employees that opted to move to Idaho?

Because wages should be tied to the work and not the location.

You can believe that all you want, but employers disagree.

That's BS. Most employee who work remotely are highly sought after. The ones who go into office have to b/c they don't have options.

That’s not always true. Plenty of grunt work that didn’t require much talent gets shoveled off to remote employees. I think some full-time remote workers think too much of themselves and that’s part of the problem. It exists in-office too, but remote workers aren’t around people who can help deflate their self-perceptions.

Just b/c someone is in the office, doesn't mean they are productive. Plenty of people go to office and waste time--go out to lunch, shop online, gossip, etc. Oh but b/c they are in person, they must be working or are more committed...

You missed the point entirely. Many full time remote workers tend to think they are more valuable than they really are. They don’t have anyone to keep them in check or to give them a sense of reality. I’m not talking strictly about productivity. You are correct that people can waste time in either setting. And just because you’re remote working full time doesn’t mean you got to do that because you’re some Demi-god.

Maybe people who are hardworking, self-motivated and highly competent don't need to be kept in check? Perhaps more the point?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m federal government and we decrease pay based on where you live remotely. Except I think you can’t make more than where your work is located. Like we get the DC pay scale and you can’t be paid the nyc scale even if you’re working in nyc because we don’t need you to be in nyc.

This is kind of the opposite of how it works. There is a base salary for your work. Then the government increases pay based on cost of living where your work is located. If it's an office in DC, you get DC locality pay on top of the "base." If you go remote to a lower cost area, then you get whatever the locality pay is for that area because that's your new work location. E.g. Atlanta gets a slightly smaller COL increase than DC, and rural northern PA gets just the base.

You are right that you can't opt to get higher pay than where your office is located, because that would be a net loss to the government of having you work remotely.

Honestly, none of this seems remotely unfair to me.

It does to me. If we apply locality pay, I think we should also pay single people less. After all, they don’t have a family to support. Or what about people who have a working spouse?

I think an employer should pay a salary commensurate with the job and job market - not the lifestyle of the employee.

DP.. you seem really young and idealistic. That isn't how it works. It's about COL and commiserate pay. You having kids has nothing to do with your employer. Your employer is paying for your work and will pay you market rate of where you live. That's standard practice.

Don’t see how COL is any more or less than familial status. Or perhaps suburban versus. Perhaps they should lower salaries of workers who live in exurbs? Or what about employees who inherited their home?

Again, you seem really young and naive.

Your family life choices have nothing to do with your employer.

Exurbs are still part of the metro area, and pay will commiserate.

Then why are you suggesting that moving my a family to a different city should result in a decrease in pay?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m federal government and we decrease pay based on where you live remotely. Except I think you can’t make more than where your work is located. Like we get the DC pay scale and you can’t be paid the nyc scale even if you’re working in nyc because we don’t need you to be in nyc.

This is kind of the opposite of how it works. There is a base salary for your work. Then the government increases pay based on cost of living where your work is located. If it's an office in DC, you get DC locality pay on top of the "base." If you go remote to a lower cost area, then you get whatever the locality pay is for that area because that's your new work location. E.g. Atlanta gets a slightly smaller COL increase than DC, and rural northern PA gets just the base.

You are right that you can't opt to get higher pay than where your office is located, because that would be a net loss to the government of having you work remotely.

Honestly, none of this seems remotely unfair to me.

It does to me. If we apply locality pay, I think we should also pay single people less. After all, they don’t have a family to support. Or what about people who have a working spouse?

I think an employer should pay a salary commensurate with the job and job market - not the lifestyle of the employee.

So if I can outsource most of my functions to another country and pay 75% less, should I also give my US staff a 75% pay cut?

DP. Sweet pea, you are trying to operate way above your pay grade. Maybe take an intro to economics course.

Cool.

Wanna answer the question, or just want to insult?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m federal government and we decrease pay based on where you live remotely. Except I think you can’t make more than where your work is located. Like we get the DC pay scale and you can’t be paid the nyc scale even if you’re working in nyc because we don’t need you to be in nyc.

This is kind of the opposite of how it works. There is a base salary for your work. Then the government increases pay based on cost of living where your work is located. If it's an office in DC, you get DC locality pay on top of the "base." If you go remote to a lower cost area, then you get whatever the locality pay is for that area because that's your new work location. E.g. Atlanta gets a slightly smaller COL increase than DC, and rural northern PA gets just the base.

You are right that you can't opt to get higher pay than where your office is located, because that would be a net loss to the government of having you work remotely.

Honestly, none of this seems remotely unfair to me.

It does to me. If we apply locality pay, I think we should also pay single people less. After all, they don’t have a family to support. Or what about people who have a working spouse?

I think an employer should pay a salary commensurate with the job and job market - not the lifestyle of the employee.

So if I can outsource most of my functions to another country and pay 75% less, should I also give my US staff a 75% pay cut?

DP. Sweet pea, you are trying to operate way above your pay grade. Maybe take an intro to economics course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m federal government and we decrease pay based on where you live remotely. Except I think you can’t make more than where your work is located. Like we get the DC pay scale and you can’t be paid the nyc scale even if you’re working in nyc because we don’t need you to be in nyc.

This is kind of the opposite of how it works. There is a base salary for your work. Then the government increases pay based on cost of living where your work is located. If it's an office in DC, you get DC locality pay on top of the "base." If you go remote to a lower cost area, then you get whatever the locality pay is for that area because that's your new work location. E.g. Atlanta gets a slightly smaller COL increase than DC, and rural northern PA gets just the base.

You are right that you can't opt to get higher pay than where your office is located, because that would be a net loss to the government of having you work remotely.

Honestly, none of this seems remotely unfair to me.

It does to me. If we apply locality pay, I think we should also pay single people less. After all, they don’t have a family to support. Or what about people who have a working spouse?

I think an employer should pay a salary commensurate with the job and job market - not the lifestyle of the employee.

DP.. you seem really young and idealistic. That isn't how it works. It's about COL and commiserate pay. You having kids has nothing to do with your employer. Your employer is paying for your work and will pay you market rate of where you live. That's standard practice.

Don’t see how COL is any more or less than familial status. Or perhaps suburban versus. Perhaps they should lower salaries of workers who live in exurbs? Or what about employees who inherited their home?

Again, you seem really young and naive.

Your family life choices have nothing to do with your employer.

Exurbs are still part of the metro area, and pay will commiserate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m federal government and we decrease pay based on where you live remotely. Except I think you can’t make more than where your work is located. Like we get the DC pay scale and you can’t be paid the nyc scale even if you’re working in nyc because we don’t need you to be in nyc.

This is kind of the opposite of how it works. There is a base salary for your work. Then the government increases pay based on cost of living where your work is located. If it's an office in DC, you get DC locality pay on top of the "base." If you go remote to a lower cost area, then you get whatever the locality pay is for that area because that's your new work location. E.g. Atlanta gets a slightly smaller COL increase than DC, and rural northern PA gets just the base.

You are right that you can't opt to get higher pay than where your office is located, because that would be a net loss to the government of having you work remotely.

Honestly, none of this seems remotely unfair to me.

It does to me. If we apply locality pay, I think we should also pay single people less. After all, they don’t have a family to support. Or what about people who have a working spouse?

I think an employer should pay a salary commensurate with the job and job market - not the lifestyle of the employee.

DP.. you seem really young and idealistic. That isn't how it works. It's about COL and commiserate pay. You having kids has nothing to do with your employer. Your employer is paying for your work and will pay you market rate of where you live. That's standard practice.

Don’t see how COL is any more or less than familial status. Or perhaps suburban versus. Perhaps they should lower salaries of workers who live in exurbs? Or what about employees who inherited their home?

Do you find people who lists there homes for more money in Boston than an identical house would cost in Boise to be doing something unethical or unfair?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m federal government and we decrease pay based on where you live remotely. Except I think you can’t make more than where your work is located. Like we get the DC pay scale and you can’t be paid the nyc scale even if you’re working in nyc because we don’t need you to be in nyc.

This is kind of the opposite of how it works. There is a base salary for your work. Then the government increases pay based on cost of living where your work is located. If it's an office in DC, you get DC locality pay on top of the "base." If you go remote to a lower cost area, then you get whatever the locality pay is for that area because that's your new work location. E.g. Atlanta gets a slightly smaller COL increase than DC, and rural northern PA gets just the base.

You are right that you can't opt to get higher pay than where your office is located, because that would be a net loss to the government of having you work remotely.

Honestly, none of this seems remotely unfair to me.

It does to me. If we apply locality pay, I think we should also pay single people less. After all, they don’t have a family to support. Or what about people who have a working spouse?

I think an employer should pay a salary commensurate with the job and job market - not the lifestyle of the employee.

So if I can outsource most of my functions to another country and pay 75% less, should I also give my US staff a 75% pay cut?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m federal government and we decrease pay based on where you live remotely. Except I think you can’t make more than where your work is located. Like we get the DC pay scale and you can’t be paid the nyc scale even if you’re working in nyc because we don’t need you to be in nyc.

This is kind of the opposite of how it works. There is a base salary for your work. Then the government increases pay based on cost of living where your work is located. If it's an office in DC, you get DC locality pay on top of the "base." If you go remote to a lower cost area, then you get whatever the locality pay is for that area because that's your new work location. E.g. Atlanta gets a slightly smaller COL increase than DC, and rural northern PA gets just the base.

You are right that you can't opt to get higher pay than where your office is located, because that would be a net loss to the government of having you work remotely.

Honestly, none of this seems remotely unfair to me.

It does to me. If we apply locality pay, I think we should also pay single people less. After all, they don’t have a family to support. Or what about people who have a working spouse?

I think an employer should pay a salary commensurate with the job and job market - not the lifestyle of the employee.

DP.. you seem really young and idealistic. That isn't how it works. It's about COL and commiserate pay. You having kids has nothing to do with your employer. Your employer is paying for your work and will pay you market rate of where you live. That's standard practice.

Don’t see how COL is any more or less than familial status. Or perhaps suburban versus. Perhaps they should lower salaries of workers who live in exurbs? Or what about employees who inherited their home?