• Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    11 months ago

    It also means that remote employers can pay less for better talent due to the intense competition. It’s somewhat of a win-win, as it results in cost savings for companies while allowing workers to choose if they prefer flexibility of remote work versus a higher paycheck. I imagine that the pay doesn’t make much of a difference in pocket money when considering commuting costs and higher CoL in areas closer to jobs.

    • Gumby@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      That’s making a pretty big assumption that in-person jobs are going to pay better.

      • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        I mean, companies that forced back to office had massive exoduses. It makes sense that they have to pay more to find replacements. I personally went from fully remote to hybrid and nearly doubled my salary.

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      Any company who sees that by going fully remote they pay less for better workers and avoid paying for office space and doesn’t do it is going to see investor backlash.