-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Facebook plans to possibly shift to 50% remote workforce in 5 years, will re evaluate pay based on location of workers who move in 2021
- Thread starter RastaMentality
- Start date
Is that a problem when they would have roughly the same standard of living? Arguably KY standard of living would be even better.
The truth of the matter is it's really hard to find top tech talent in places like KY which is why tech companies don't have much of a presence there.
Last edited:
Cost of living no longer makes sense with remote work because you can work from anywhere, you don't have to live in the Bay-area because you can do your work from rural Idaho. Fully remote employees should be paid an average market rate for the country otherwise everyone might as well move to California and get an 80k bonus.
Is there a much high quality talent out there? And if there is why wouldn't they negotiate for higher salaries than that?
Moreover, what do you think happens to a local economy when there's an influx of SF salaries?
An average market rate would be problematic as well, though, as then people in expensive cities couldn't afford to work for the company.
Overall, paying people based on the market in their physical area makes the most sense, as it will lower the cost of living in expensive cities by reducing the amount of people moving there, and incentivising people to move to lower-cost of living places.
Nah, these are software development jobs I am talking about. And the software we create isn't sold to customers.
Works like that here in Canada as well. I work for one of the bigger Canadian tech companies and I get paid more living in Toronto compared to my counter parts in the company who live in the Canadian Atlantic region like New Brunswick due to their lower cost of living.
its not just rent that's more expensive in California. Food costs more. Taxes are higher. Gas costs more. Electricity costs more. This is doubly so if you live in the Bay Area. You're not getting an 80k bonus. In practice, you're making out even in California with that extra money.
now you could get a ton of roommates and distribute the cost and in effect be getting an extra 80k but that's at the sacrifice of privacy.
Why do you think the salaries are so high in the Bay Area to begin with? They are high because they account for the cost of living of the location.
Man, this thread just shows that people continue to not understand how the cost of living impacts things and how you need to factor that in when looking at things like how much someone makes. No wonder so many people think making 6 figures makes you rich when they still can't grasp why the salaries are high to begin with as a result of the cost of living. I bet people would be shocked that the cost of a gallon of milk varies significantly depending on where you live and think milk costs the same everywhere.
I'm not really getting the outrage (well, I mean that isn't true), Facebook pay their staff very well, they will continue to, and this is an option that will suit a lot of people.
Basically this. Amazon gives 10% premium for SF/NYC over other cities. That's it.
It's purely to account for an increased cost of living.
That's what Apple Microsoft Amazon Facebook Google would pay though. Even in those areas.
correct. You're gonna be in the 85+ percentile for these companies. At a mid-senior or senior level, you'd be making that much.
good stuff... my company is in the bandwidth business, this is good for us as more and more companies will adopt this 'new norm'
If you pay people more to live in cities they will live in cities and drive costs up. If you want to distribute wealth geographically you need to let them spread out.
People were shocked when Dan Abramov posted his salary and is only getting 120K in the UK. An SF Facebook developer with those creds would be punching over 200K. Location matters a lot. Hell my cost of living bump moving to Seattle was about 25%.
most people actually do prefer face to face interactions even in tech companies. Most devs are not as introverted and/or anti-social as the stereotypes go especially when it comes to team projects.
I commuted into work for 15yrs and it destroyed me. These past few years I've been fortune that I can afford to get a degree so I'm in total control of my time. It's far better. When I graduate and start working as a software developer, I'm only taking jobs that let me work from home 2/3 days a week or give me full flexi-time.
Happened to Mrs. McKnight when we moved from California to rural Arkansas. The bottom of the tier she was paid in CA was higher than the top of the tier they put her in for AR...
You do realize living costs widely vary between different parts of the US right?
I don't think people understand that their wages are generally higher due to where they are living. If the cost of living wasn't so high in SF or NYC, then they would get paid less. In theory most employees should be in the same financial situation with the adjustment to cost of living.
It says in the article, there are rules to how people will be granted WFH, so clearly the employee has to weigh their options and see if it all works for them.
Eh, it's not as much of a burden as you think. You already have a house/apartment to live in. It's not some extra space you're having to lease (though those options do exist if you want).
Yup. I'm dying to have meetings with people in person. It's so much easier to communicate ideas and coach your colleagues.
Based on how my company works, it could be as much as cutting your pay by a third if you live in the most expensive areas and then move to the least expensive areas.
Taxes excuse isn't bullshit, they need to know where you live for correct tax filing.
I've lost money having to upgrade my work stations to be even close to par with the amenities in the office. Electric usage has skyrocketed, all groceries bills have dramatically increased.
Yikes. I'm not sure why it never occurred to me that they'd lower salaries, good deal for them when saving in expensive real estate too :-|
I am not sure if my job is going to get to be fully remote, but if I were to move it'd be somewhere still within commuting range but farther from the city.
I am not sure if my job is going to get to be fully remote, but if I were to move it'd be somewhere still within commuting range but farther from the city.
It depends on job expectations. If you are to be a on a call all day, or work with sensitive matters, you may be expected to be able to be away/close the door. And someone with roomates/spouse/children in the home may not have such a space. High speed internet is not reliably available in many areas and video calls can be demanding on bandwidth. There are some subtleties that shift the burden for some, but overall I think you are right, it is mostly doable.
I mean.. future workplace for tech companies.. maybe. But this is never going to be an option for many sectors.
Is it a good transition? Probably. Depends on the job and what the expectations are on people's time (and whomever they live with) in a space they've traditionally viewed as a sanctuary from their employer.
Honestly, I think WFH is totally appropriate for certain jobs. If you've made that transition during the pandemic and both you and your employer agree that it's working out well then it's totally appropriate to talk about a permanent shift.
However a transition to a 4-day workweek across all sectors would probably be more transformative in raising the quality of life of people.
Is it a good transition? Probably. Depends on the job and what the expectations are on people's time (and whomever they live with) in a space they've traditionally viewed as a sanctuary from their employer.
Honestly, I think WFH is totally appropriate for certain jobs. If you've made that transition during the pandemic and both you and your employer agree that it's working out well then it's totally appropriate to talk about a permanent shift.
However a transition to a 4-day workweek across all sectors would probably be more transformative in raising the quality of life of people.
Your grocery bills went up? Ok. So did mine, but my lunch budget tanked. Not eating out every day has been much cheaper.
As for equipment, I already had what I needed, but my company let us come in and grab whatever we wanted from our desks.
I'm looking at my budget and my bills and I'm way ahead of the game. 🤷‍♂️
Typing it all in caps doesn't make this sentiment not stupid.
Facebook is a global company. If they want to outsource, they will (and likely already do). They aren't going to outsource core talent.
Remind me to necro this thread in two years when FB is paying people in Ohio $40-50k for the same job that pays 100+ in SF.
A lot of companies offer free meals or highly subsidized priced meals on site. So for plenty of people it's easily conceivable that they're spending way more on food than they used to since not everyone eats out during lunch.
On the other hand, equipment should most definitely be something that's on the burden of the company and if not, you should be writing off those things as expenses.
I'm aware of the regional differences but don't see how cutting wages based on location of living would benefit anyone but the company. The company receives the same quality work, it has to pay less for renting, insurance etc. They can pay the living cost adjusted salary now, what are they doing with the money they save that directly benefits the employees?
OP
OP
be my guest
At my company, the devs are fine with staying and wfh. The sales and marketing people are the ones who wanna come in the most tbh.
CoL adjustments are normal across the industry within a company/across locations. The dynamic becomes a little more interesting when you factor in full-time remote work.
My company is kind of in the reverse situation, which creates some funny situations, where we are located in a very low cost of living area (but pay well) and often employees want to switch to remote full-time, which is fine, but ALSO want to move to a big city AND get a pay-raise to compensate for their choice to move there. Usually doesn't fly.
Yeah, that's not happening. Anyone willing to take $40k for a software gig is likely a dud and Facebook doesn't want them anyway. I'm in one of the top 10 poorest cities in the country and we pay our software engineers out of undergrad $80k lol.
My company is kind of in the reverse situation, which creates some funny situations, where we are located in a very low cost of living area (but pay well) and often employees want to switch to remote full-time, which is fine, but ALSO want to move to a big city AND get a pay-raise to compensate for their choice to move there. Usually doesn't fly.
Yeah, that's not happening. Anyone willing to take $40k for a software gig is likely a dud and Facebook doesn't want them anyway. I'm in one of the top 10 poorest cities in the country and we pay our software engineers out of undergrad $80k lol.
Oh I know that. Right now where I'm we are doing WFH, but after all this covid stuff happen I will try ask for a mixed routine. I kinda miss being at a office but I' fine doing at my home.
Because it's fair to the employee who is living in a high cost of living area? If someone is making the same amount of money in a place where the cost of living is 30% cheaper, then that person has more buying power with the salary they make than the person who lives in a high cost of living area. Plus it's normal to pay based off the region. You get paid essentially the base rate for your work plus an amount on top that accounts for the cost of living. So they're still paying for the same quality of work, you're just not getting the adjustment for living in an expensive area because you don't live in an expensive area. If you want to argue about the company not having to pay as much in rent, insurance, etc, then that would also impact the person who lives in the high cost of living area too, not just the person living in the lower cost of living area and you would be arguing for salaries across the board being changed factoring those things in.
And the obvious one, your cost of commuting goes to zero in cost but even more importantly (imo) in time.
Since this is a thread about FB, they gave all employees extra money to spend or not on getting set up to WFH.
But they aren't decreasing the wage of those who still live in the same area. They only are doing that if you now live in a lower cost of living area.
FB wants the top talent available in the world.
This isn't gonna change, and they're not gonna cheap out.
Building billion-scale codebases, you do not skimp on talent pay.
There's no such thing as quality outsourcing.
A quality Indian or Chinese software house has practically the same rates as a quality European or American one.
This isn't gonna change, and they're not gonna cheap out.
Building billion-scale codebases, you do not skimp on talent pay.
There's no such thing as quality outsourcing.
A quality Indian or Chinese software house has practically the same rates as a quality European or American one.
Last edited:
A house in Ohio is 1/4th to 1/8th the cost of a house in SF....
I think people are confusing this with a mandate. WFH in most companies is a privilege afforded to experienced-high performers who don't need heavy oversight/mentoring. If you want to WFH, go for it, there are plenty of benefits that make up for the added cost of converting your den into an office and using the internet connection you already have. If you don't the office is still there for you.
Any tech worker, while celebrating WFH policies, should also expect salaries to be lowered in the next 5-10 years if this becomes the norm.
I actually can't believe there's an outrage thread over Facebook salaries.
If a company wants to hire someone living in the Midwest to come to their office in San Francisco, they have to entice them by at least matching their earning potential after factoring cost of living. So it makes sense to pay people more if they are working in San Francisco, than if they're working in a satellite office in Kansas City.
Will this work with telecommuting though? If I'm working in KC, and my spouse takes a job in San Fran, can I tell Facebook that I'm gonna be working from home in San Fran now, therefore I expect a 20% bump, thanks? Does anyone believe FB would be cool with that? And yet, if the reverse happened, and I was 100% WFH, went from the Bay Area to the Midwest, FB wouldn't be burdened at all by issuing a paycut, so why wouldn't they just flip that switch?
Will this work with telecommuting though? If I'm working in KC, and my spouse takes a job in San Fran, can I tell Facebook that I'm gonna be working from home in San Fran now, therefore I expect a 20% bump, thanks? Does anyone believe FB would be cool with that? And yet, if the reverse happened, and I was 100% WFH, went from the Bay Area to the Midwest, FB wouldn't be burdened at all by issuing a paycut, so why wouldn't they just flip that switch?