Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Almighty Buck IT

Many Workers Willing To Take a Pay Cut To Work Remotely, Survey Finds (cbsnews.com) 224

Posted by BeauHD from the you-don't-say dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBS News: Americans have grown so fond of working from home that many are are willing to sacrifice pay for the privilege of skipping the office. So found a recent survey by recruiting firm Robert Half, which polled thousands of U.S. employees and hiring managers about their attitudes toward remote work. Some workers said they're willing to take a pay cut -- with an average reduction of 18% -- to remain fully remote, Paul McDonald, a Robert Half senior executive director, told CBS News. Overall, roughly one in three workers who go into the office at least one day a week said they were willing to earn less for the opportunity to work remotely.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Many Workers Willing To Take a Pay Cut To Work Remotely, Survey Finds More

Many Workers Willing To Take a Pay Cut To Work Remotely, Survey Finds

Comments Filter:

  • My travel time to office is 40 minutes... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lavandera ( 7308312 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @05:04AM (#63429652)

    So remote work - 8h spent, 8h paid
    office work - 9,5h spent, 8h paid

    • Re:My travel time to office is 40 minutes... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by greytree ( 7124971 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @05:30AM (#63429686)
      I have an hour each-way commute.

      In other words I spend over a day's work per week commuting, just so my boss can see my pretty face - what a waste of my time.

    • Re:My travel time to office is 40 minutes... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by quall ( 1441799 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @06:54AM (#63429790)

      Don't forget fuel if you don't take public transportation. My commute was 50 minutes and I get only 17-18mpg in my pickup. That's if traffic is normal without any highway accidents.

      I also save $2.5k/year on fuel, and that's after all taxes. So a $3-3.5k cut in salary to work remote would roughly break even to what my normal net income would be. Then it's almost 2 hours of my life given back to me each day. I was remote before the pandemic, but other people need to factor in all costs.

      • Food would be cheaper as it would come from your fridge with no planning

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jeremyp ( 130771 )

      Plus commuting costs and more expensive food and coffee.

    • Exactly this...
      I took a pay cut a few years back to avoid having to go to the office, the end result was cost savings that significantly exceeded the reduction in pay, plus several hours of time back every week.

  • Of course! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vyvepe ( 809573 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @05:04AM (#63429654)
    One saves about an hour or two a day by working from home. Time is money.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by godrik ( 1287354 )

      But I think that is a big part of the divide on the issue of work from home. People experience with commuting are different.
      I live about 12 minutes away from my office. So commuting is really not a big part of my day. And for some of the things I need to do. I actually do need to be at work.
      So I could organize my week to work from home some time. But really the benefits would be really small and cause a need for a lot more organization in my unit.

      Now, if I had to travel 2 hours per day to go to work, I'd ha

    • Forget time. It's gotten very, very expensive to commute. Not just Gas, but more mileage means more maintenance and cars have gotten expensive.

      Eating out isn't cheap anymore. No more 99 cent hamburgers and fries, no more massive $1.99 pizza slices. This means you need that extra time in your day to shop/cook.

      We had a bunch of things that worked to make commuting cheaper that just don't exist anymore. The problem was so many people were forced to commute prices could be raised. Plus there's been massi

    • Right...but there are plenty of WFH people insisting they should be paid the same, or balking at employers paying less.

      The workers willing to take a pay cut...are the ones that are actually being reasonable about WFH.

      • The workers willing to take a pay cut...are the ones that are actually being reasonable about WFH.

        I'd say that's a terrible over-simplification. It depends tremendously on what they're doing and the circumstances around it.

        Ultimately wages are negotiated. There are lower limits set by law, but overall it is based on supply and demand. If a worker can find more money or otherwise better rewards at another company, it is in their interest to request as much from their boss if they want to stay at a company, and to change companies if the deal is better elsewhere.

        If I learned someone who reports to me h

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ranton ( 36917 )

        Right...but there are plenty of WFH people insisting they should be paid the same, or balking at employers paying less. The workers willing to take a pay cut...are the ones that are actually being reasonable about WFH.

        It is very reasonable for everyone involved to extract the most value they can (legally) from an employment contract. If employees feel their value in the marketplace hasn't dropped, it would be quite unreasonable for them to accept a pay cut to work remote. If they are wrong about their value in the marketplace, companies are free to fire them and find other employees at reduced rates.

        Workers fighting to create a new normal in the workplace is not unreasonable. It is progress.

        • it would be quite unreasonable for them to accept a pay cut to work remote

          Except that people are continually bringing up the time and cost of commuting. Whether they like to admit it, or not...EVERYONE that commutes, runs the calculation in their head, that the compensation they receive from their employer is worth (compensates for) the commute. Maybe that isn't officially on some scrap of paper that you signed with your employer...but that is the reality of the situation. You made the decision yourself.

          If there is no commute...there is no need for that additional compensation

  • Let's eat some perspective.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by franzrogar ( 3986783 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @05:38AM (#63429694)

    In the 50s, one people working was enough to pay for housing, food, family (with children), car, etc.

    Nowadays, two people working is not enough to pay for housing, food, family (without children), car, etc. ...and they say people is OK with lowering their salary?

    So, the golden question: where THE HELL the money is?

    Answer, you know where.

    Solution? War.

    • Re:Let's eat some perspective.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @05:48AM (#63429708)

      Working at an office costs you money that you don't need to pay if you work from home. Travel cost, opportunity cost, food cost... That's the money people are willing to part with, because if they have to go to the office, they wouldn't have it anyway.

      • A hilarious argument given your account name... :-)

        The problem with the "opportunity cost" argument is that very rarely can someone actually find a way to make money during the time not spent at some other, trivial task such as commuting or filling out their TPS report. Yay, I work from home now! Instead of spending that 30-60 minutes commuting, I can use that time to make more money! Erm... how will I do that? I still need to be at work at 9. And I'm paid a salary, so I won't get extra money if I put in a

    • Hell yeah no war but class war!

      Err anyway.

      You'd almost certainly come out ahead but taking a bit less money for WFH.. why take a pay cut? The company isn't paying your expenses, it's a fixed salary. If I perform the same work, I expect to be paid the same. In fact the employer also saves on office costs, so we can split some of those savings too.

    • Re:Let's eat some perspective.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sid crimson ( 46823 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @08:36AM (#63430052)

      In the 50s, one people working was enough to pay for housing, food, family (with children), car, etc.

      Nowadays, two people working is not enough to pay for housing, food, family (without children), car, etc. ...and they say people is OK with lowering their salary?

      So, the golden question: where THE HELL the money is?

      Answer, you know where.

      Solution? War.

      To be fair...
      In the 50s, the standard of living was much lower. The amount of work needed to be done around the house necessitated someone doing it full time. Kids were typically picked up by bus for school or rode their bikes or walked, so no need for two cars. If there was TV in the home, there was only one. Kids played outdoors and/or with fewer toys, so no need for the latest gaming systems or computers. Most food was created from scratch ingredients instead of purchased premade. Life was cheaper back then too.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Merk42 ( 1906718 )
        Exactly, standards have gone up faster than wages.

      • Re:Let's eat some perspective.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @10:03AM (#63430292) Journal

        In the 50s, one people working was enough to pay for housing, food, family (with children), car, etc.

        To be fair...
        In the 50s, the standard of living was much lower. .

        In the 50's, the median house was much smaller than today's houses, with fewer rooms and bathrooms. The median car was smaller, of simple operation and maintenance, and typical households had only one of them. Fuel was plentiful and cheap.

        Compare them to what we have today. Some of our complexity and expense isn't our fault (all of the crap Congress mandates automakers to put in their vehicles, for instance), but much of it is Americans raising their expectations through the roof. Every house has to be a McMansion now. Cars have so much bling you have people paying 8 year notes on used vehicles. Not only do we expect the wife to have her own car, the teenagers have to have their own too.

        Look at the original suburbs, the Levittown houses. They'd be considered unfit for Section 8 housing today. Too small, too cramped, not enough features.

        WE are responsible for some of our outlandish expenses.

        • Compare them to what we have today.

          A large portion of the western world lives in houses that were built before the 50s. So when I compare what people in the 50s lived in to what we have now I can tell you the square meterage is 100% identical since my house was built in the early 50s.

          One thing has changed though, the relationship between this house's value in relation to median income has shot right off the chart and left a hole in the ceiling.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ranton ( 36917 )

            my house was built in the early 50s. One thing has changed though, the relationship between this house's value in relation to median income has shot right off the chart and left a hole in the ceiling.

            Most houses built in the 50's are worth much less today than they were in the 50's, unless they have had significant renovations to keep up with modern standards. The exceptions are houses built on land which has significantly went up in value because the local area provides more value to its residents. That value is usually in the form of higher wages in that local area and more local amenities like top schools. Most of that can be considered increased living standards than in the 50's, although some of it

  • This is exactly what he's been looking for: destruction of salaries. The lower he can drive them down the better for inflation because as everyone knows, soaring prices are only the result of people wanting to be paid a decent salary and not corporate profits at their highest in 70 years [yahoo.com].

    • Re:Jerome Powell is ecstatic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @05:54AM (#63429722)

      These record profits are not sustainable if income does not keep pace with prices. Because what generates profit? Producing? Nope. Producing generates cost. Selling does. Only when you manage to sell your product, you have a chance to generate profit. Producing makes you poor, only selling makes you rich.

      Selling depends crucially on one thing: A demand. Demand depends on two things: The want to have something and the means to get it. Only if both come together, only if I want to have a product and I also have the financial means to afford it, only then demand is generated. If I want it and can't afford it, there is no demand. No matter how much I want a Ferrari, unless I have the money to buy one, I will not buy one. On the other hand, if I have the means but not the want, no demand is generated either. If I already have a Ferrari, doesn't matter if I could afford another one. I already have one, what'd I do with another one? No demand either.

      The problem our economy is heading for is that we create two distinct groups, one with the means and one with the want. We're having an ever growing group of people who would want to demand but cannot afford it. And we have another group that could easily afford anything but has no desire to generate demand for the sake of it (and frankly, why would they, if I already have everything, why bother buying more?).

      And without demand, our economy is doomed to collapse.

      • Apple does it. They focus on the upper class and upper middle class selling for super high profit margins and ignoring the mass market. They're one of the most profitable companies in human history.

        You can make a lot of money ignoring the bottom 90%. And when you do go after that bottom 90% the real money is in taking advantage of them, not meeting their needs.

        We broke capitalism. We stopped doing the basic maintenance to keep it functional and are slipping more and more into Neo-Feudalism.
    • Many seems like an over-representation of the actual statistics. In this article, it never reached more than 47%, and you had to slice the data carefully to get this result.

  • It's not just travel time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @05:44AM (#63429704)

    When you start calculating the cost of "going to work", you'll find that getting less money for WFH may even mean more money.

    First, no travel cost. Obviously. Whether you save money for the train ticket or the car use, gas, parking and toll fees and all that other crap that piles on, that's direct money in your pocket. And all of that with the risk of an accident or due to proximity with other people catching some disease, which may, depending on where you are, either directly cost you more money to get healthy again or at least means lost time you could have spent productive.

    But what a lot of people overlook is the cost for the stuff you do through the day. Not least of which the cost for food and drinks. The coffee on the way to work, the price for lunch and maybe an evening snack... All these things cost money. I guess it's not far fetched to say that 100 bucks a week is probably not enough for most.

    During pandemic, people have noticed that, hey, wow, there's suddenly money left over at the end of the month. Because I had my coffee at home. Because I made my own lunch. Because there was no after-work gathering. Suddenly people noticed the hundreds of dollars they wasted on going to work.

    And they are willing to use that as a bargaining chip to work from home. Because, well, if they get gang-pressed back into the office, they don't have that money either.

    • Re:It's not just travel time (Score:4, Insightful)

      by The-Ixian ( 168184 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @08:20AM (#63430010)

      It is actually costing me more in this new era of WFH because I was forced to buy a car. I now have a car payment and have to pay for gas, parking (I work downtown, so that's a huge cost), tabs and maintenance. All of which I didn't have to pay before (my work paid for my bus pass).

      The reason? Bus routes have all gone away because nobody is riding the bus anymore. Not only that, but there are driver shortages which means that remaining routes are unreliable as hell.

      I held out as long as I could, but having to catch two busses each way (and having them able to connect at the appropriate times was impossible as they are always late) as opposed to the single express bus that used to run within 1/4 mile of my home, meant that I was spending at least an hour more than I used to every day on transportation. Not to mention the layovers at unsheltered stops in freezing weather.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Zumbs ( 1241138 )

      There is also another potential saving: If you work from home, you don't have to live within commuting distance of your workplace. In some places, just moving 50 km further away can give you a (possibly better) home at significantly lower cost.

      On the other hand, depending on your deal with your employer, you may have to pay to outfit your office, electricity, coffee, lunch, internet and whatever else you need. And you need space in your home for your work from home office.

      • This depends where you live. Let's take San Diego for a nice example. If you live in the city of San Diego (as opposed to the county) the only "affordable" housing is in the proverbial ghetto with the highest crime rates. Going 30 minutes east makes things better, but the cost of rentals is really only about $200-$400 less. Going further east another 30 minutes, you start pushing back into nice homes that cost more then the stuff in East County, because those places come with more land. North county is also

  • And if you live where shopping is within walking distance then you can sell your car and cut all the expenses associated with owning a car, gas, tires & maintenance and automobile insurance

    • I've considered this but it's still a huge jump to not own a car, even if you can manage to live/work in an area that fills 90% of your needs. Sure, you could rent a car here and there for day trips and come out ahead but by and large, you still very much need a car in USA.

      • If you've built a lifestyle around having a car your assertion seems correct. However, it's more than possible to live in the US and not drive. I don't -- although I've made choices that support that decision: living in a city primarily but also not having kids, working remotely, and accepting that there are places I can't go without some planning. Those cascading choices have left me in a position where if I were to buy a car (and presumably learn how to drive again, it's been 25 years or so) I'd have n

  • Why not a raise? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thesjaakspoiler ( 4782965 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @06:41AM (#63429778)

    With all the expenses for expensive offices, interiors and fridges full of kombucha gone, those savings could be paid to the employees as well.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. Also note that the usual effect is a productivity increase on top of that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 )
      Why not indeed? We successfully moved to remote working with the Covid lockdowns, then went back to a more hybrid approach once those ended that allowed employees and their line managers to agree on a office/remote balance that worked for the individual and the larger team, with most staff now just using the office when needed for specific team/client meetings and our periodic all-hands face-to-face team meetings. We also have some staff that are essentially fully remote (myself included) or fully office-

  • Providing my overlords are willing to forfeit an 18% productivity decline.

  • For whose benefit? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SouthSeb ( 8814349 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @07:08AM (#63429812)

    See, if companies are already paying X dollars for their workers and profiting Y dollars from this, why the hell should the employees accept being paid less in any case? In whose pockets will this money go? Do anyone really think companies will lower their prices or hire more people?

    Also, in a sane and fair corporate world, one would guess it's actually good for businesses and economy if people have more money left to actually buy things.

    But no! In our current world, if employees end the month with more time and money in their hands, executives immediately proceed to think they have to somehow cut it. After all, things can't be good for everyone, right?

  • Seems ass-backwards (Score:3)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @07:20AM (#63429840)

    People working remotely are cheaper workers, as there does not need top be an office for them which is a major cost factor. Hence remote workers should be paid more.

    • It saves everyone money, there's no reason why it should cost anyone more. If it costs less to go to work then I don't require as much compensation. The flip side is, if it costs me more, then I want more. And I do, so that's a consistent rule.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Ah, but I am selling my skills. So what I demand depends on what my employer gets in performance. It is not "compensation" it is payment. "Compensation" measured to allow you to live would be the socialist/communist model. While I do not like capitalism, I am not ready to move over to that model.

        • "Compensation" measured to allow you to live would be the socialist/communist model.

          No one is talking about that. What we're talking about is the capitalist model of supply and demand. Someone else willing to undercut you will simply do so, and they will make no less than you're making now.

    • You don't even need a car for work anymore. Or bus money. If you can walk to work good on you. But for everyone else it costs LESS to work from home. You also don't have to commute which saves an hour of time going to and from work - your work day is less hours over all. Once your home office is set up - which is really a table, chair, computer, internet, phone, and maybe a fax/printer - your excess expenses are done. Done. You don't even have to pay someone for day care if you have a child.

      Being able to

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Sooo? Since when did we start to dimension wages not on performance but on need? Sure, we could do that, but it is a very socialist/communist idea and has nothing to do with capitalism. When the enterprise is a capitalist one, then wages need to be allocated according to capitalist principles as well.

  • it might be a pay cut on paper but even more money in real life. Even if it's just about the money for the car/train ticket, not counting the unpaid time.

  • Pertinent quote (Score:3)

    by Wolfrider ( 856 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {nortuengnik}> on Thursday April 06, 2023 @09:08AM (#63430146) Homepage Journal

    From Goodfellas:
    https://youtu.be/3XGAmPRxV48?t... [youtu.be]

    Fark you, pay me.

    Company hired me because I have skills, and those skills cost money to acquire and maintain. I'm not asking farking ChatGPT to do all my work for me.
    I'm worth what they pay me, so I ain't taking no pay cut to work from home. Try that and we'll find jobs elsewhere.

  • The same people running the big companies with big brick and mortar offices are the same people who have lots of skin in the game on real estate investments. They're losing tons of money on those investments, so it's "butts back in seats" no matter how silly and pointless it is for us to be there. Hundreds of employees from the company I work for have told leadership we get less work done in the office and we hate it there, but (not surprisingly) they don't care. As long as they keep getting richer, we can
  • Managers that do nit trust their staff, thay cannot afapt to remote management, that lack the proper tools to mamage remotely (software, corporate guidance, mental or other kinds of "tools") etc are finding every reason imagineable why workin in the office necessary and superior.
    They forogot to mention all those greedy banks and all those realestate "good mines" have bought everything they can, sometimes at leverage or have loaned everythingbthey can to home owners and guess what? Working from home is kil

  • Remote workers will get their pay cut.

    Maybe not immediately, but over time when their in-office colleagues get promoted over them because they were able to showboat to the management and imply they're outperforming peers that are not there in person to represent themselves in the "corridor" meetings.

    • I consider it a bonus that I don't have to deal with office politics when working remotely. There are plenty of other companies competing for my skills. I suppose others may not be as fortunate.

  • Maybe the current economic climate is driving this, but hells bells, I'd be expecting a pay rise for working from home.

    It means the company doesn't need to spend on office space and utility bills, insurance and everything associated with running and maintaining a physical space people have to commute to.

    Maybe I'm just lucky or maybe remote working in the US is under threat, but accepting a pay cut to WFH? Screw that.

  • I carve out a portion of my home for your office space and your equipment cluttering my home. If anything, you should be giving me more money because I now cost less to manage since performing my work no longer requires dedicated real estate.

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close