The Viral Economy

[Zenn7]

I thought I read somewhere that some companies lowered people's pay when they moved to lower cost of living areas.

If those companies are now demanding you be in office, are they planning to adjust your pay back to what it was when you have to move back to the higher cost of living area to get to the office?

[Smoove_B]

It's been a slow swing for a lot of places. As you know, the pandemic has been over for quite some time now ( ), and most places as they've started going back started with a hybrid model. Now they're pushing to a full return model, but even that "full" return is saying minimum 3 days per week. Pre-pandemic, that would have been considered a hybrid model. Maybe they'll continue pushing for a full 5 day in-office workweek eventually, but it's been relatively gradual thus far.

My anecdotal impressions (again, mostly from what I read online) and to a limited degree what I'm seeing with my wife's employer - there seems to be a broad recognition that (1) the genie is out of the bottle and (2) the genie must go back in the bottle. In some ways I feel like employers are doing everything they can to make sure the next generation of workers doesn't come to expect remote work. Again, it feels like they know they've lost the battle with a large number of the current generation of workers, so they're scrambling to return to a world where that wasn't possible - effectively trying to "erase" that it ever existed so the next generation doesn't have the same expectations. The longer remote / flex work exists, the harder that becomes.

[GreenGoo]

I've mentioned media reports and opinion pieces a few times. Forbes and the like. Most have been talking about how forced back to the office hasn't been the best idea (after months of pushing for it as the only possible option) but the Financial Times are going hard at the idea that wfh just doesn't work and therefore everyone must get back in the office asap.

I am *shocked* to find no consensus and random opinions being put forth as fact in these corporate rags by various mouthpieces.

How's that data collection and studies coming along, mouthpieces?

[Carpet_pissr]

I thought I read somewhere that some companies lowered people's pay when they moved to lower cost of living areas.

If those companies are now demanding you be in office, are they planning to adjust your pay back to what it was when you have to move back to the higher cost of living area to get to the office?

Welcome, "quiet cutting" to The Viral Economy thread, you're late to the party.

"Quiet cutting" taps into workers' fears of layoffs at their company, amid a weakening job market. While reassigned workers remain employed, the reassignments often land them in roles with titles that are less prestigious, come with lower pay, and are more demanding."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/companies- ... demanding.

I will restate that I PERSONALLY prefer a "mostly" office environment (and am currently in a WFH one day a week situation, which I guess is hybrid, still):
1. because I think in-person, human interaction is important (not just for work, for most things), and stronger than virtual meetings. Lots of arguments to be made about culture, "break room talk" and other micro-interactions with colleagues that I am sure have already been discussed here.
2. because selfishly, I simply work better and more efficiently when I am in that kind of environment.

I think a big part of the disconnect here between workers and "management", is that individual workers (especially those who can thrive and be productive in a WFH situation) view the issue through their personal lens of course. Sure, THEY know they are working well at home, maybe even working longer/harder, or getting more done. What they maybe don't see are those who completely take advantage of the opportunity to WFH, and just....don't. Or they work 2 hours...or insert anything else here that would be at the least frowned upon if done at the office.

I can hear the answer now: "OK, so THOSE people, just fire them! If they don't perform, cut their asses and find someone else." Ask someone that manages a team how much they like having to constantly replace people, and how easy or hard that is? And how much of a time sink, etc etc.

So many corporate cultures have hard-ons about "training" maybe it's time to include a session or two about WFH effectively? Tips, tricks, etc. to be as productive as possible while your kid is running around, or your pets, or the neighbor knocks on the door, or you hear the toilet running, or DAMN those leaves REALLY need to be raked outside....

[malchior]

I can hear the answer now: "OK, so THOSE people, just fire them! If they don't perform, cut their asses and find someone else." Ask someone that manages a team how much they like having to constantly replace people, and how easy or hard that is? And how much of a time sink, etc etc.

This implies that bringing to the office fixes those issues. Sometimes that might work but it often doesn't. For most information worker jobs, if you need to see what they are doing then you aren't managing the work correctly in the first place. Even then it's tough. When I develop people models for organizations I have a toolbox to build that model. It is based on company size, industry, revenue/IT spend, and such. And that model is built against a functional model for the organization that needs proper governance to make sure it is operating correctly. Most places don't measure shit and then expect to understand what is happening. They often compensate with 70s dinosaur management styles like "managing by walking around" and such. There are other ways that work but many managers are not well-trained themselves.

Just as an anecdote, my wife works in a manufacturing environment where 90% of the workforce has to be there. Yet they had a ton of people not doing meaningful work. The people looked busy. They looked like they were mixing shampoo and filling bottles and such but when you compared different lines of the same product it became clear who was jerking around and who wasn't. Those fools didn't know they needed to coordinate across the lines how slowly they were going to work.

[Jaymon]

I'm a full time remote. I did this to myself pre-pandemic. And then, 9 months later, everybody was suddenly full time remote. So i was ahead of the curve, and much better equipped. Many many folks on zoom calls had "white board envy" when they saw my home office set up, while they are sitting at their kitchen table wrestling for bandwidth with their kids.

But mine was done with the understanding that every couple of months I would take a trip to the office for some face time with my team mates. And during the lockdown, It really hit home. Even though we all chatted constantly over chat, and had all our meetings over zoom or whatever, I still need the occasional face to face. I NEED to get into the office and hang with my team sometimes, otherwise the isolation hits me, and my productivity drops.


But thats my experience, your mileage may vary.


My company has gone hybrid. Each team decides their own policy, depending on the needs of the team. Some teams have more needs for in office than others. But, once a quarter there is a week when all teams are encouraged to be in office, and the week is stacked with events and all hands meetings and such. The weeks were announced well in advance, so even the full time remote folks have the ability to schedule an attendance using company paid travel.

[Isgrimnur]

Here’s how much money a family of 4 needs to get by in every U.S. state

1. Hawaii: $182,900
...
50. Mississippi: $73,381

So if, as a matter of policy, you want a single FT employee to earn enough to support a family of four would require a wage of $35.28/hour. But then you'd have to live in Mississippi.

Median states of Wisconsin and North Carolina would be $84,557, or $40.65.

[Kraken]

Here’s how much money a family of 4 needs to get by in every U.S. state

1. Hawaii: $182,900
...
50. Mississippi: $73,381

So if, as a matter of policy, you want a single FT employee to earn enough to support a family of four would require a wage of $35.28/hour. But then you'd have to live in Mississippi.

Median states of Wisconsin and North Carolina would be $84,557, or $40.65.

We're #2! Suck it, California.

"Get by" is doing some heavy lifting there; I'd say a family that can save 20% of its income is prospering. Indeed, the median household income in Miss. was $49,111 last year, so a family making $73,381 is more than getting by.

[Blackhawk]

Seriously. That isn't "getting by." Having 30% to blow while making investments is doing really, really well. It's another example of people with money having no clue what not having money is like.

Indiana is $80,144.

When there were four of us (two parents, two kids), we brought in around $30,000, and we 'got by' just fine, including having enough for non-necessities, like eating out once a month, taking day trips, and buying luxuries like board and video games. . Now that we've got three people and barely over $20,000, things are pretty tight. We don't have discretionary money, and don't have the resources to handle emergencies, but we're getting by.

[LawBeefaroni]

They're using "living wage" which is not the same as "getting by." Another misleading headline.

[malchior]

I mean if we can't trust the judgement of GoBankingRates.com I don't know who to trust! I do like that the article calls it a "study". It's a goddamn blog post!? There is no framework or analysis. This was at max 2 hours of work. This is what I'm often talking about when I say we're just overloaded with information - most of it is completely useless. It's just about throwing chum out for clicks. CNBC either farmed this garbage or just grazed for it. In any case, it's just mindless fare.

[gilraen]

I mean if we can't trust the judgement of GoBankingRates.com I don't know who to trust! I do like that the article calls it a "study". It's a goddamn blog post!?

The actual headling on gobankingrates.com specifies that they are talking about a living wage. It's CNBC that decided to go for the click-bait value (or their "editor" doesn't understand the difference).

[Blackhawk]

The funny thing is, even "living wage" isn't accurate to what they're describing.

MIT

The living wage is the minimum income standard that, if met, draws a very fine line between the financial independence of the working poor and the need to seek out public assistance or suffer consistent and severe housing and food insecurity.

Investopedia:

The term living wage refers to a theoretical income level that allows individuals or families to afford adequate shelter, food, and other necessities. The goal of a living wage is to allow employees to earn enough income for a satisfactory standard of living and prevent them from falling into poverty.

What they're describing is a thriving wage.

[GreenGoo]

And as Malchior asks, where's the data?

[stessier]

The funny thing is, even "living wage" isn't accurate to what they're describing.

MIT

The living wage is the minimum income standard that, if met, draws a very fine line between the financial independence of the working poor and the need to seek out public assistance or suffer consistent and severe housing and food insecurity.

Investopedia:

The term living wage refers to a theoretical income level that allows individuals or families to afford adequate shelter, food, and other necessities. The goal of a living wage is to allow employees to earn enough income for a satisfactory standard of living and prevent them from falling into poverty.

What they're describing is a thriving wage.

I submit that the wages they describe - including saving 20% for retirement - should be considered the bare minimum today to prevent falling into poverty.

[GreenGoo]

And yet half your politicians want to cut social security.

You need to work on your submission skills.

[stessier]

And yet half your politicians want to cut social security.

You need to work on your submission skills.

I'm not sure how it matters what they think on the reality of what is required. If half the politicians think people from Mars live in the White House, it doesn't effect the reality of who is actually there.

[GreenGoo]

It matters because the definition is subjective and you're proposing a new definition that no one prior has used.

If you want your proposal to be adopted, you need to convince people. Particularly people who have the power to effect change but disagree.

Or not, but then why bother submitting it?

In any case, my comment was a typical forum throw away comment. Ignore it if it displeases you.

[stessier]

It matters because the definition is subjective and you're proposing a new definition that no one prior has used.

I mean at least one article used the definition, so it's not out of nowhere.

[GreenGoo]

I mean at least one article used the definition, so it's not out of nowhere.

Ok, great. My bad.

[Smoove_B]

No one wants to work - the UK edition:

More than 2.6 million people now do not have jobs because of their health, according to latest employment data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

The all-time high comes after an additional 491,433 adults were added to the official total in the three months from May to July, figures released on Tuesday revealed.

...

People aged between 16 and 64 who are not in employment due to long-term sickness are officially classed as "economically inactive", rather than unemployed, because they are either not looking for a job or are unable to work.

Overall economic inactivity - including students in the age range and those not seeking employment for other reasons - rose by 0.1 percentage points during the period to 21.1%, according to the official figures.

The ONS said that while the rate had generally been falling in recent decades, it increased during COVID and is currently still above pre-pandemic levels.

Also, they're just like us now:

The IPPR pointed the finger at what it said was a decline in the quality of healthcare - and said the UK was increasingly "spending more to get less".

[Zenn7]

My company said there was not going to be a requirement to go back to the office, it was optional.

Apparently only 10-15% opted to. Now it's not optional.

Fortunately, as they're pushing for 2-3 days/week (depending on which division you are in), we're somehow getting by with just 2 days/month for the foreseeable future.

What's really annoying is we have several people who are remote and can't come to an office. It's just those of us who are near an office. Shoulda moved a year or two ago.

And yes, I'm going to the office with my manager. My teammates are 1 remote, 1 near another office in another state and 1 in India. And my manager is not in the least bit concerned about seeing me in person.

I could rant more about what the company is saying about the need and how that totally fails compared to the reality (particularly for me), but it won't change anything so...

[Kraken]

In the olden days I had a friend who negotiated a WFH agreement with his software employer. I'd never heard of such a thing, so when he started bitching because the employer wanted him in the office a few days a week, I was like, "O poor you, your boss wants you to go to work?" It was a brutal commute, but he made a lot more money than either of us.

Now that I've been WFH for 19 years I have a different context. Wife's employer asked her to please come into the office twice a week; she goes in about once every other week, and they don't say anything because they get more hours from her when she doesn't have to spend them driving.

But I do think young workers should just do as they're told, because you gotta serve your time.

[LordMortis]

But I do think young workers should just do as they're told, because you gotta serve your time.

I think young workers might be better off if they understood the world doesn't revolve around them, but if the world does revolve around them and they can flex and get their way, more power to them. Workers have an edge right now, and I'm OK with them exploring a sort of group think unionization but if it results in mass firings and employers rethinking the reliability of their workforce, well, that's that. Out of sight, do I really need you? After years and years of jobs where I my job was largely to not be noticed, I learned to make sure my boss knew everything I was doing at all times.

I'm also OK with employers flexing the need to be in office, though if it is justify the expense of having an office, that's just dumb, as is the need to support landlords of office space.

[malchior]

But I do think young workers should just do as they're told, because you gotta serve your time.

I go back and forth on this. In most cases, as long as people get their work done I don't care how they do it. Still you need to develop the right environment and structure for that work to get done.

I also believe it doesn't have to be some rite of passage because I think it's semi-bullshit to think it's doing anything useful other than wasting someone else's time. For years I had a horrible commute so I'll admit that when people complain about something that is 50% of that I kind of shake my head at how soft the kids are. But it isn't my job to fix that mentality so it comes down to individual development. Some people develop faster when they are put under some pressure including establishing a routine that involves getting somewhere on time. Some don't need that.

[Blackhawk]

I'm also OK with employers flexing the need to be in office

I'd be more OK with it if 'need' was actually the right word more often.

[Smoove_B]

It should be interesting to see how this evolves:

In a groundbreaking development, Arizonans can now apply for worker's compensation if they contract COVID-19 while on the job. This landmark decision stems from a widow's determined fight to secure worker's compensation following her husband's tragic demise due to COVID-19.

Court documents unequivocally state that if someone contracts COVID-19 at their workplace, they are entitled to file for worker's compensation. An essential detail to note is that if a worker succumbs to the virus, their next of kin will receive financial support.

[malchior]

And with sheer contrarian willpower, did Malchior of the OO beat back a looming recession that most of the world feared was nigh upon them.

Lol. Still we've been hearing talk of recession for 2.5 years now. It's bound to happen sometime anyhow. We're definitely trending negatively in certain areas/indicators. But in others we aren't. It's mixed. That's all I've been saying. It isn't some certainty and I think we're about to get news that'll tell us we weren't anywhere near a recession in Q4. But we'll see what the data holds.

I have to pat myself on the back here. The disconnect between the economic reads and the media is stark. It's pretty clear that the national media does not seek to inform anymore. It is to attract eyeballs and they often do it by SELLING FEAR. Not a new complaint or concept but I think they've essentially gone all-in on it. We're now 3+ years into recession is nigh talk. I'm beginning to become really disillusioned in 1) the major media especially on economic reporting and 2) people's ability to see through the obvious patterns. It's bizarre how clearly the media is dragging the public around on this.

[Isgrimnur]

The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

[LordMortis]

I wouldn't be so confident (on no recession or economic shitter hitting). Our ability to service debt is going down while both our debt and interest rates are going up and there is still a big if on Federal shut down while strikes are happening everywhere for wages that will cause need for major rethinking on how business is done all after inflation has been largely tamed and is still on a taming trajectory.

I'm not saying things are dire but the dying breed of true but reasonable fiscal conservatives have a great big line up of "I told you so" getting longer and longer.

I think that people refusing to work so sustenance wages/leveraging salaries for waaaay more than they are worth in skilled positions has been no small contributor in keeping us out of the shitter in the short term.

[Isgrimnur]

leveraging salaries for waaaay more than they are worth in skilled positions

US Corporate Profits Soar With Margins at Widest Since 1950

A federal judge has approved a $415 million settlement that ends a lengthy legal saga revolving around allegations that Apple, Google and several other Silicon Valley companies illegally conspired to prevent their workers from getting better job offers.

Growing inequalities, reflecting growing employer power, have generated a productivity–pay gap since 1979

[malchior]

I wouldn't be so confident (on no recession or economic shitter hitting).

Good thing I never suggested that. Though I'd say signs are still relatively mildly positive at the moment. Strong jobs demand. Relatively strong GDP growth. Corporate profits are decent. Yes cost of money is higher than it has been in decades but we're looking at relative strength instead of relative weakness.

Our ability to service debt is going down while both our debt and interest rates are going up and there is still a big if on Federal shut down while strikes are happening everywhere for wages that will cause need for major rethinking on how business is done all after inflation has been largely tamed and is still on a taming trajectory.

The part about the debt? It's mostly bullshit. If we didn't have oligarchic tax policy and could commit to some around the edges trimming we'd be ok. Probably. Our ability to service debt isn't at risk as long as bomb throwers aren't intentionally doing so. There is no *economic* reason to be worried about debt service or debt levels at this point. Classically I look at Japan. 300% debt to GDP. No debt bomb. No hyperinflation. In fact, the opposite. I'm not saying we aim for that level of debt, to repeat a trim would be good, but we're seeing robust long-term growth trends in general despite all the headwinds. It should be a good story but again...the media is *misinforming* us.

I'm not saying things are dire but the dying breed of true but reasonable fiscal conservatives have a great big line up of "I told you so" getting longer and longer.

I'll "gently" say that the "true but reasonable fiscal conservatives'? They're full of shit. The eventual 'I told you so"? Mostly because repeating recession for 3 years usually ends up in you getting it right eventually. Their reliability? Almost zilch.

To reference my post earlier, all I was saying back in January and now is that the *data* and the story they telling us are two very different things if you are trained in mainstream economics. I suspect they know this too but there are a lot less clicks available to people who are accurate nowadays. In any case, my point is that if you are reading the WSJ or watching CNBC all day and don't have the training to differentiate the data from the story then you are unfortunately subject to being wildly misinformed by them.

I think that people refusing to work so sustenance wages/leveraging salaries for waaaay more than they are worth in skilled positions has been no small contributor in keeping us out of the shitter in the short term.

We're about 40+ years into this divergence between productivity and wages. FWIW I think it might be time to realize that despite some recent improvements that it probably won't get much better for the average uneducated worker. And either way it has little to do with the current state of the business cycle.

[LordMortis]

Bloomberg is paywalled. FAANG is an outlier. (As is Tesla and Microsoft as part of the "magnificent 7" is not and they are grossly underpaid, which helps proves your point, but they are all at a different place than most of the other 493 in the S&P)

Also, I don't in any way think that the top of the ladder is under compensated or fairly compensated compared to their labor. That's a different conversation, as is the giveaways to investors happening since 2010. Though all of these conversations will tie in to the problem with 15 years of free money with a growing debt with no return on that debt in a rising interest rate environment.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-sta ... ebt-to-gdp

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/current ... ue-3305762

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/america ... -spending/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... ted_States

Edit: To Mal's always being Mal, I absolutely concur more taxes need to happen and need to happen up top in a big way are needed to get us moving in a reasonable direction. I have a hard time seeing any other way except letting inflation hit so hard as to cause the same practical reset as a collapse.

[malchior]

I have a hard time seeing any other way except letting inflation hit so hard as to cause the same practical reset as a collapse.

This could happen in the sense that anything could happen but I'm 6-sigmas confident it won't. Show me a model where that is possible and I'll even give a hint of a thought. To again point at it I have already put forward a real-world model -- Japan -- which completely and absolutely contradicts this idea. But then again you probably can't see it because it appears you're drinking from the polluted fountain I'm warning against.

[LawBeefaroni]

Does anyone believe the BLS anymore?

U.S. employers added 336,000 jobs in September, according to the Labor Department. That's about twice as many as forecasters were expecting.

[malchior]

Good grief. Yes! Most of the banks do! However there are well-known caveats. The fall months tend to be "noisy" months. That number will be revised. It usually is because a lot of turnover happens at the end of the summer and then continues through with the holidays. It's normal. But the idea the BLS is not a good source of data? This is the economics version of anti-vax. I'm happy to be educated why we shouldn't believe the official data but at the very least that'd need at a minimum a respected reliable set of counter data. Otherwise might as well join the people on Twitter talking about how we're in a depression.

Edit: I didn't leave room for the idea that comment about BLS might be sarcastic...I can't understand why it would be...but maybe?

[Octavious]

I am depressed by the news daily. So there is that. I think I need to take a break for a few weeks. It's not like I can magically do anything about all this nonsense.

[Isgrimnur]

I am depressed by the news daily. So there is that. I think I need to take a break for a few weeks. It's not like I can magically do anything about all this nonsense.

[malchior]

Exhibit $!?@!:

[LawBeefaroni]

Good grief. Yes! Most of the banks do! However there are well-known caveats. The fall months tend to be "noisy" months. That number will be revised. It usually is because a lot of turnover happens at the end of the summer and then continues through with the holidays. It's normal.

The number is always revised. Net for 3rd revisions for 2023:
Jan: -45K (8%)
Feb: -63K (19%)
Mar: -19K (8%)
April: -36K (15%)
May: -58K (17%)
June: -104K (50%)
July: +49K (20%)

Yet everyone falls all over themselves when the first number is released. BLS jobs report should be an input taken with a huge grain of salt, not a conclusion.

ADP had 89K for September. BLS had 336K. It's bound to be closer to somewhere in the middle.