Does your company pay onsite positions at multiple locations in different states the same wage for the same job? Do they adjust for cost of living? If so, is it normal for that wage to be 7% more even though cost of living only differs say 4%? Do you think this sends a strong message that one location is more important than the other?
Companies don't adjust for cost of "living". They adjust for cost of "labor" at a given location.
Well said. I was going to get into the labor pool aspect and staying competitive. But I had already written a novel so I didn’t bring it up. Thanks for picking up the slack.
And the cost of labor goes up when your customers are everywhere and your adjustment is to pick an area with a low cost of living to adjust for high costs of labor. Funny thing is the satellite offices get paid more than HQ so it's also a slap in the face.
Lol. Yes I understand all that however said employee is helping company with the ability to operate globally. The labor aspect is a great explanation for WHY but it doesn't explain why thats fair to an employee who works day in and day out with customers from all over the world. Labor is the non-global market excuse and a valid one. The minute that customer base extends to all over the world (and successfully) than it's ability to raise revenue is no longer bound to the local market where an employee lives. My position becomes more valuable to the company but theres zero trade off for the employee. I get it though, it's economics so we as employees need to make it not worthwhile. Until then just like any corporation they will use and abuse.
You work at liquid web, man. I know a bunch of people that work there and love it. Like probably 20+ people. And Lansing sure af isn’t a high cost of living area. Honestly, I don’t think your critique is valid. You want the higher salary? Move to NYC or SF. I don’t see the problem here... You’re awkwardly trying to tie employee compensation to revenue and customer base. That makes no sense and it’s not how labor markets operate. And if your position is as valuable as you claim, then you could negotiate for a raise. In all honesty, it sounds like your just upset that someone is making more than you. Don’t like it? Change jobs. Problem solved. I’ve lived in the multiple Midwest and east coast places. If you don’t like people making more than you, you’ll never be happy.
*you’re. I’m 8 beers deep. My bad.
I’ve worked at companies that have pay ranges for different locations. I think you’re thinking of things a bit backwards. The pay differential isn’t a punishment for working in a lower cost of living place. It’s an incentive for those that are able to work in high cost of living areas. You seem to be implying that the company you work for is headquartered in a high cost of living city like NYC or SF. And that you’re a remote employee or are at a lower cost of living office and you seem to feel slighted (making some assumptions here, obviously). Think of the reverse though. Would it be ok for a company headquartered in Des Moines to pay the lower Des Moines wages to employees in a small branch office in NYC? Also, maybe this person you’re comparing yourself to just makes more than you in general either through better salary negotiations or whatever. Additionally, you’re using some statistic for the cost of living of one place versus another. But there are additional factors that weigh in. For example, I live in NYC. I can’t own a car and, although my commute is relatively short (40 minutes for a 5 mile commute),most people spend at least an hour one way commuting. And that’s within the city limits. I know people that commute 4 to 5 hours per day, every weekday. So while the actual monetary cost of transportation may be about the same as if I lived in Des Moines, there’s an opportunity cost because I spend less time with my family. And all of that aside, your statistic could just be flat out wrong. Apologies if I’m reading this wrong. But the short answer is, yes, it makes perfect sense to adjust salaries based on geographical locations.