This Business and Moment...

[Martynt74]

We’re not talking about moving from a local office to remote office in another country, which is historically what outsourcing meant. We’re talking about having literally no tangible difference between the same (or directly equivalent) worker living in a HCOL or LCOL area. This is what will very clearly and predictably lead to the erosion of salaries.

But then what's the issue with that? There's no real reason that a job should be deemed worth more/less in different areas. If someone decided to live in Kensington and someone else in Bexley (googled cheapest place in London to live), there's no reason they should be paid differently.

Presumably it would then lead to a balancing of property costs around the UK (if taking the UK as an example), as there would be less of a premium attached to London based areas as the salaries would be equal no matter where you lived. You'd effectively be balancing what a job was "worth" rather than inflating/decreasing it by non job related factors. The same as a loaf of bread costs the same in a Tesco in London as it does in a Tesco in the poorest areas.

 

[Kreeeee]

.

 

[Martynt74]

But that's the thing. If you don't need people in the office, then your £75k suddenly gets you a higher calibre of person who can work remotely from a LCOL area which is vastly better for the business. There's then a lack of demand for particular areas due to work constraints and those places now become more affordable and in line with other areas.

I think the last 18 months have proven that companies are happy with remote workers. They're not punting everything overseas for cost savings because that would be stupid, but they're now realising they can get the best people for the job and are no longer restricted by geography.
You seem to be arguing that the best talent are all located in specific areas which is madness. There are likely equally brilliant employees based in somewhere like Newcastle who compromise on their job because they prioritise work life balance more than salary. Those massive companies in London have now unlocked a wider talent pool and would be all the better for it.

 

[Kreeeee]

.

 

[Martynt74]

You seem to be arguing with me when we are in agreement.

Sorry, i thought you were taking issue with remote working based on a previous post.

Have just seen an edit to your last post so i agree, we're in agreement

 

[Kreeeee]

.

 

[HangTime]

About 18 months ago I wrote a thread regarding impact of remote working on property: https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/impact-of-wfh-trends-on-housing-market.18889738/

I think salaries are being 'propped up' a bit at the moment in some sectors by a general shortage of talent i.e. workers are able to command high salaries because we've not yet reached the scenario where employers can pick and choose from a big talent pool spread across the nation, there are lots of vacancies so the equilibrium level remains high. The market should be more efficient in the longer term however i.e. downwards pressure on wages should come sooner because they can cast the net a lot wider when we do start to see the number of vacancies dwindle.

 

[Freefaller]

I've just accepted a new role, which is no longer a WFH contract, I know a lot of people will think I'm mad, but it's a career progression for me, and 30% pay increase which frankly is too much to ignore. The role is also very interesting and I just fancy a change but also I'm getting itchy feet. That said I do change roles every 2-3 years unless I'm making some marked progress or feel valued. 2022 is going to be all change and hopefully won't be a big mistake!

 

[malachi]

I've just accepted a new role, which is no longer a WFH contract, I know a lot of people will think I'm mad, but it's a career progression for me, and 30% pay increase which frankly is too much to ignore. The role is also very interesting and I just fancy a change but also I'm getting itchy feet. That said I do change roles every 2-3 years unless I'm making some marked progress or feel valued. 2022 is going to be all change and hopefully won't be a big mistake!

People wont think you are mad.

I know someone who is on 38K in his currently role which has WFH. Started looking for a new job in October as he became a dad. Got an offer for a new role, 45K with WFH. Then he got another offer for 48K but with no WFH, he was ready to take the WFH job with less money. After a few counter offers, the none WFH role offered him 59K and he took it.

At the end of the day, money talks.

 

[Freefaller]

It's not just the money the job and the environment is appealing. I don't mind a little bit of working from home but I thrive in an office with people and visiting stakeholders etc.

I think even if it was an equivalent salary (and it's not just salary it's the package as a whole) I'd be tempted to move. As I said I like change and it feels like it's time for one.

 

[ChrisD.]

100% remote where the only commuting is onto client site and is 100%(or thereabouts) reimbursable

This is my situation however I’m mainly focussed on cloud so it’s from home. It’s bliss. Otherwise I wouldn’t own an M3.

 

[HangTime]

People wont think you are mad.

I know someone who is on 38K in his currently role which has WFH. Started looking for a new job in October as he became a dad. Got an offer for a new role, 45K with WFH. Then he got another offer for 48K but with no WFH, he was ready to take the WFH job with less money. After a few counter offers, the none WFH role offered him 59K and he took it.

At the end of the day, money talks.

Interesting that he ended up with an offer 23% higher than the original offer. Goes to show how much room for negotiation there is in the current job market.

Could be decision time for me in the new year. I thought my contract was coming to an end, so I applied for quite a few perm roles (processes have stalled a bit due to Xmas but most of them still in the running). I then got a last minute contract extension to work elsewhere in the business (not 100% sure it is what I want to be doing but it will put food on the table in the absence of anything else). However I feel like I want to see through at least some the more interesting of the perm opportunities - ironically, I wouldn't have been discussing most of them if I hadn't been given notice, but now they are in play, it's piqued my interest a bit. These would all mean a significant pay cut (as you'd expect going contract>perm) and perhaps the most interesting of all is the one with the least salary (luckily for them it's the one I might consider a big regression in salary for). It might come down to location I guess; if a perm role isn't flexible enough I'll probably just turn it down as the combination of big pay cut plus commuting is maybe a bridge too far.

 

[dowie]

I know someone who is on 38K in his currently role which has WFH. Started looking for a new job in October as he became a dad. Got an offer for a new role, 45K with WFH. Then he got another offer for 48K but with no WFH, he was ready to take the WFH job with less money. After a few counter offers, the none WFH role offered him 59K and he took it.

Plenty of employers are more than happy to basically offer just a modest raise to current salary and essentially lowball candidates when they could afford to pay much more for the role, good that he's had two potential offers simultaneously so didn't get trapped by this.

I'm almost tempted to say that, for people already in employment, when looking around and some recruiter has got you to either revealing your current salary (just don't) or has gotten an expected salary out of you and you end up with an offer that (surprise surprise) is a modest raise to your current/matches your expected then it could be worth just pulling a fake counter offer out of the bag.

Recruiters will always claim that getting you a bigger salary is in their interests but in reality, closing the deal is in their interests - they would rather you say yes right away than have them waste another week of back and forth negotiations where there is a risk that it doesn't close and only marginal additional benefit/commission for them if you were to get a slightly higher salary. If you've been nailed to a figure or expected range early in the process (always sub-optimal, first to name a figure in negotiations is at a disadvantage) then you can't reasonably complain much when offered it... but a (fake) counter offer gives you the excuse you need to ask for more and you should always ask for more as most of the time more is indeed available.

 

[HangTime]

I think there are multiple excuses you can use to push for more money, such as conditions and benefits not being to your liking. So if they have offered a base salary in your target range you can then express disappointment at the rest of the package and use that to justify wanting more.
The above is kind of an example of this actually, £48k offer was turned down/increased because it didn't offer WFH.

 

[ChrisD.]

Could be decision time for me in the new year. I thought my contract was coming to an end, so I applied for quite a few perm roles (processes have stalled a bit due to Xmas but most of them still in the running). I then got a last minute contract extension to work elsewhere in the business (not 100% sure it is what I want to be doing but it will put food on the table in the absence of anything else). However I feel like I want to see through at least some the more interesting of the perm opportunities - ironically, I wouldn't have been discussing most of them if I hadn't been given notice, but now they are in play, it's piqued my interest a bit. These would all mean a significant pay cut (as you'd expect going contract>perm) and perhaps the most interesting of all is the one with the least salary (luckily for them it's the one I might consider a big regression in salary for). It might come down to location I guess; if a perm role isn't flexible enough I'll probably just turn it down as the combination of big pay cut plus commuting is maybe a bridge too far.

I went from contract to perm just over two years ago. I was on £650 a day and although my take home is now less, I’m actually better off when you factor everything else (stability, pension, bonus, perks etc). I’d not take another contract now unless the day rate is well into 4 figures.

 

[Kreeeee]

.

 

[Trifid]

People wont think you are mad.

I know someone who is on 38K in his currently role which has WFH. Started looking for a new job in October as he became a dad. Got an offer for a new role, 45K with WFH. Then he got another offer for 48K but with no WFH, he was ready to take the WFH job with less money. After a few counter offers, the none WFH role offered him 59K and he took it.

At the end of the day, money talks.

The WFH culture is going to make a interesting recruitment dynamic over the next few years. Employers wanting to pay less for WFH, good employees only being interested in WFH and employees demanding steep pay rises for having to jump to in office based jobs and employers demanding employees return to the office for no pay rises in a time of high inflation.

My employer doesn't like WFH but the employees seem to hold the balance of power with so many having been employed on WFH contracts and others having escaped to the country with the regular faces liking a predominantly WFH work life balance.

 

[malachi]

The WFH culture is going to make a interesting recruitment dynamic over the next few years. Employers wanting to pay less for WFH, good employees only being interested in WFH and employees demanding steep pay rises for having to jump to in office based jobs and employers demanding employees return to the office for no pay rises in a time of high inflation.

My employer doesn't like WFH but the employees seem to hold the balance of power with so many having been employed on WFH contracts and others having escaped to the country with the regular faces liking a predominantly WFH work life balance.

Yes, very interesting times are coming but I am glad this is happening. I have been saying for years WFH should be an option (if possible) Not just employers who want to see bums on seats in a building.

Times are changing and I am 100% happy for it.

 

[ChrisD.]

My employer doesn't like WFH

Why is that? Is it the typical must be seen to be working ethic?

 

[Trifid]

Why is that? Is it the typical must be seen to be working ethic?

It's not something many of us can do, so we look like the odd ones out, but many of the other business functions I believe were all forced to come back to be seen. Definitely an interesting power dynamic.