Hacker News Reader

Comment by siva7 | Hacker News Reader

That it can hire the same guy for less in Nebraska.

This sounds like circular reasoning to me. “You can’t collect an SV-level salary working remotely from the Bay because the company could just hire someone from Nebraska, and the company won’t pay him an SV-level salary because he’s not located in the Bay.”

Do you also find this circular reasoning: “You can’t get paid SF rates for a haircut when your barbershop is in Nebraska because people will find a cheaper option and people getting haircuts in Nebraska won’t pay SF rates because they are not in SF”?

couldn't it do that before they hired them for more in SV?

Not if they wanted someone local who would come in to an office.

And that's the issue at play here, isn't it? The hiring was done when work was remote, paying SV rates for that, then the company decides to move the goalposts and now there's this weird justification being played to side with the company.

Take off your company-man hat, does it make sense to you as a worker?

AFAIK, the default expectation at most places was that the pandemic wasn't permanent and eventually people would be back in person.

> Take off your company-man hat, does it make sense to you as a worker?

I don't tend to analyze things along "class struggle" lines. Obviously, as a worker, I would prefer to make as much money and have as good of work conditions as possible, but I don't necessarily think any deviation from that is "unfair".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com