I think the thing to know is how creepage works in this. I know many WFH folks that long on early and stay later. While a great many in office people are have incentives to leave as soon as the clock strikes. Decision-making seems to evolve in this environment as well. There have been surveys in the past that show when cuts are needed remote workers are at the top and they are in the bottom for promotion.
I know my job is very different, but you're not going to catch me in a WFH version. I don't know how people teach fully online when it's so much more fun to be in the classroom.
Thank you, Jadrian-san, for such an insightful piece. It provides a great perspective on how we value our time and autonomy.
While a $120,000 pay gap is significant enough to sway many people toward the office, I believe forward-thinking companies should lean into the massive value of non-pecuniary benefits as a competitive edge.
Modern workers aren't just chasing a paycheck; they’re looking for a “total lifestyle package.” It’s about the overall life satisfaction they gain by being part of an organization. By framing remote work and flexibility as a strategic asset—rather than a reluctant compromise—companies can create highly adaptable organizations that naturally attract talent without being held back by labor shortages.
Designing value that goes beyond wages is no longer just a "perk"; it’s the future of organizational competitiveness.
I appreciate that you're highlighting the diminishing returns aspect, and it makes me wonder what threshold would prompt people to change their opinion.
The question is not fully formed. What's the job? Where's the office? What's the office setup like? What are the hours? Etc. There are so many more factors than simply "office vs remote".
Ex: $240k in office in Blacksburg VA or Lancaster NH? Sign me up! $240k in office in NYC or San Francisco? Hard pass.
I wasn't deep in the discussion, but I would have assumed an "all else equal" approach to the two offers. I guess in this instance it would be more like "as much as possible is the same"
It's striking that managers and CEOs resolutley fail to understand the basic economics of compensating wage differentials. Ever since 2020, they have been issuing Return To Office demands on the basis of vibes, without understanding that, sooner or later, the removal of a highly valued working condition has to be offset by higher wages.
What's really happening is that being able to stride about a buzzy office is a prized working condition for managers and CEOs, much better than having the work being done quietly and competently by people they can't see.
As well as workers, the losers here are shareholders, who are paying higher costs to feed the egos of managers. Theoretically, this would eventually be reflected in lower managerial salaries, but that's one set of wages where markets don't matter much.
My previous employer allowed work-from-home arrangements coming right out of the pandemic, but they explicitly stated that parents needed to have their children in daycare and should not attend to family matters during working hours. I was blown away that someone could be so dense in the middle of everything that was happening.
Fair enough, but that's really more arguing that the relative values don't matter as much as the absolute values. What threshold do you think creates this weird split where half of the people are picking remote jobs?
I don't actually believe most of those people (especially younger workers) would take a 50% pay cut to work remotely. I do think older workers or people with care responsibilities would do it.
I think the thing to know is how creepage works in this. I know many WFH folks that long on early and stay later. While a great many in office people are have incentives to leave as soon as the clock strikes. Decision-making seems to evolve in this environment as well. There have been surveys in the past that show when cuts are needed remote workers are at the top and they are in the bottom for promotion.
I know my job is very different, but you're not going to catch me in a WFH version. I don't know how people teach fully online when it's so much more fun to be in the classroom.
I wish I could. Im online only unfortunately! I think I wish I could get in a full-time post.
Thank you, Jadrian-san, for such an insightful piece. It provides a great perspective on how we value our time and autonomy.
While a $120,000 pay gap is significant enough to sway many people toward the office, I believe forward-thinking companies should lean into the massive value of non-pecuniary benefits as a competitive edge.
Modern workers aren't just chasing a paycheck; they’re looking for a “total lifestyle package.” It’s about the overall life satisfaction they gain by being part of an organization. By framing remote work and flexibility as a strategic asset—rather than a reluctant compromise—companies can create highly adaptable organizations that naturally attract talent without being held back by labor shortages.
Designing value that goes beyond wages is no longer just a "perk"; it’s the future of organizational competitiveness.
Flexibility is really important for a lot of workers, and it's also important for workers to have a variety of options to pick from.
I need the internet discussing 50k vs 100k because that's a lot more binding lol
Great article!
I appreciate that you're highlighting the diminishing returns aspect, and it makes me wonder what threshold would prompt people to change their opinion.
that would be an interesting paper!
The question is not fully formed. What's the job? Where's the office? What's the office setup like? What are the hours? Etc. There are so many more factors than simply "office vs remote".
Ex: $240k in office in Blacksburg VA or Lancaster NH? Sign me up! $240k in office in NYC or San Francisco? Hard pass.
I wasn't deep in the discussion, but I would have assumed an "all else equal" approach to the two offers. I guess in this instance it would be more like "as much as possible is the same"
It's striking that managers and CEOs resolutley fail to understand the basic economics of compensating wage differentials. Ever since 2020, they have been issuing Return To Office demands on the basis of vibes, without understanding that, sooner or later, the removal of a highly valued working condition has to be offset by higher wages.
What's really happening is that being able to stride about a buzzy office is a prized working condition for managers and CEOs, much better than having the work being done quietly and competently by people they can't see.
As well as workers, the losers here are shareholders, who are paying higher costs to feed the egos of managers. Theoretically, this would eventually be reflected in lower managerial salaries, but that's one set of wages where markets don't matter much.
My previous employer allowed work-from-home arrangements coming right out of the pandemic, but they explicitly stated that parents needed to have their children in daycare and should not attend to family matters during working hours. I was blown away that someone could be so dense in the middle of everything that was happening.
It’s worth taking account of taxes in this choice, too. The $240k/$120k choice is more like $160k/$80k.
Fair enough, but that's really more arguing that the relative values don't matter as much as the absolute values. What threshold do you think creates this weird split where half of the people are picking remote jobs?
I don't actually believe most of those people (especially younger workers) would take a 50% pay cut to work remotely. I do think older workers or people with care responsibilities would do it.