I love how companies talk out of both sides of their mouth.
"“You moved somewhere cheaper? Let’s cut your pay!”
“Why do you think your raise should be higher just because inflation tripled?”
1 Like
I think the answer is yes. If a company needs to pay market price to have people work in the office in NYC or SF or some other high COL area, then that is a price of doing business. But why would they pay NYC prices for labor if they open up the potential workforce from 12M New Yorkers to 250M nationwide candidates?
Now, this may be a transitional situation that takes a few years for compensation to reach an equilibrium. You may not take a pay cut, but I think it is likely that your total compensation will eventually fall behind what you would have earned by staying in the high COL area.
But maybe it works out to one person’s liking. Maybe 100k per year is a better deal for someone who can telecommute from suburban Toledo rather than getting $150k hauling his or her butt to NYC every day. But again, why would a company pay you 100k to work from suburban Toledo when it can get the same work for $35k from a guy working out of suburban New Delhi, Dusseldorf, or Seoul?
In the long run, I think you devalue yourself by working at home, and your long term compensation will suffer as a result.
1 Like
but most companies are full time work from home right now, including mine in nyc, so what you’re saying isn’t a situation that really happens in 2022. pre-pandemic times this was the case.
1 Like
In the short term, perhaps not.
In the long term, it is 100% certain to be lower.
then everyone’s will be including those who stay local. even the locals are working from home.
if they are lowering salaries merely for wfh and EVERYONE works from home, it’s in your best interest to relocate to lower COL.
I think my (previous) company(ies) was doing this before already, prior to covid.
Where you work is based on where you’re taxed. And COL is adjusted accordingly. Your physical location doesn’t really matter. Of course, if you’re caught, you have bigger issues than just the COL adjustment, since you could be evading state taxes. You might also be fired if you’re caught.
deleted because I may have misinterpreted aof.
I don’t think that in the long run that you will make more money working from home and living in Manhatten than if you work from home and live in rural america.
I do think in the long run you will make more money working in the office in Manhatten than if doing WFH for a company in Manhatten.
but all our files are electronic now and nobody works in the office. there is no reason to go to the office anymore. times have changed.
so, it seems that manhattan jobs where you flat out have to go to an office are going to become pretty rare, thus paying a premium to work and live in manhattan will become rarer.
you may have to go to client meetings in the NY area, but even those are mostly remote these days with zoom/teams/etc.
1 Like
Salaries we offer to new remote hires are based on residence. Someone in NY will certainly be offered more than someone in Louisville, and quite a bit more at that.
I don’t know what happens if a current associate moves. Presumably they are at least moved into that region’s pay band in the HR system and if they are suddenly in the top quartile, they won’t see raises for quite a while. Or maybe they actually do get a pay cut once they move, I really don’t know.
why? doesn’t that make it in your company’s best interest to hire people from Louisville and save on salaries?
2 Likes
Generally, sure. But actuaries are hired mostly based on talent. If the best candidate lives in NY, we will make them an offer and pay them enough so that our offer is (hopefully) competitive for someone living in NY.
I doubt we do the same thing for IT associates, though. Different demand, different market.
2 candidates close to equal, why wouldn’t they pick the cheaper one?
Maybe they would. It hasn’t come up for the roles I’ve been interviewing for recently. Candidates are often not otherwise equal, though.
also, i hate the term “talent” to mean someone who can crunch a bunch of numbers and pass exams.
if you can sing or play an instrument or draw pretty pictures, you got talent.
I know a lot of very intelligent, very talented actuaries. Many of the brightest actuaries don’t crunch any numbers at all. Our career demands talent, which goes far beyond just intelligence.
talent can be whatever you want it to be. I know people who do drugs every week and never come down from it. That’s talent.
I must not be following you because you seem to be arguing heads and tails on the same coin flip.
The correct answer is that YES, eventually the market will stabilize and companies will have to HAVE TO PAY MORE for people to show up at an office in a HCOL area than people who WFH (no matter whether the home they work from is in Manhatten NY or Manhatten KS)
my point is, offices are a thing of the past, so companies will never have to do that and those who live in new york will eventually be paid less.
1 Like
i don’t like the word being used to describe an ability to do an actuarial job. i don’t think it was always used that way. seems more recent to start using “talent” to describe people who are good at mundane office jobs.