• Spacehooks@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    Depends where you are. Imagine losing 2 hours a day in traffic + buying lunches cause never room in fridge. I knew multiple coworkers that got hotels to stay in and took train back home for weekends because it was cheaper than living close to work or didn’t want to uproot family.
    Savings in those cases well outweighs 20%.

    • bean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      But the inconvenience of all that shit sounds horrible and unnecessary and expensive too. Fuck commuting in traffic spewing CO2 to line some asshole’s pocket who doesn’t want me to have a normal standard of living.

        • bean@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          No, that’s the stupidest shit. Why should you take a cut in pay?? What warped mind fuck world are you living where you think you have to give up a fifth of your wages for this right??

          • Sconrad122@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 days ago

            Sure, sure, so just rephrase the statement. Many workers believe working in the office justifies 25% additional compensation (80 to 100% of what they are paid today). That doesn’t mean workers shouldn’t be paid more, it’s just capturing the delta in compensation required to justify in person work

          • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            I’m paying a fifth of my wage commuting and eating lunches alone. Taking the cut is a net positive. Like the other commenters said it’s totally bs that it has to be considered at all. No pay cut since is Needed since productivity doesn’t go down.