We’re five years past the pandemic, but the remote work debate rages on.
“On average, individuals are willing to forgo approximately 25% of total compensation for a job that is otherwise identical but offers partially or fully remote work instead of being fully in person,” according to researchers Zoë Cullen (Harvard), Bobak Pakzad-Hurson (Brown), and Ricardo Perez-Truglia (UCLA).
To put that into perspective, if a candidate got a $200,000 job offer requiring five days in office and another $150,000 offer that allowed remote work, on average the candidate who wanted to work from home would take the $50,000 pay cut, Perez-Truglia told the Wall Street Journal.
“Our estimate is three to five times that of previous studies, which we partly attribute to methodological differences,” the researchers explained.
“The founder was hesitant at first. She couldn’t wrap her head around it. Why would anyone willingly take less money?” Roman wrote. “But then it clicked. They were offering something just as valuable as a bigger salary (for that candidate): flexibility.”
“Not everyone can afford to trade money for flexibility, but for those who can, it’s becoming a no-brainer,” she added.
“There’s this unspoken exchange rate between flexibility and comp, and for some candidates, it’s worth a significant tradeoff,” she said. This is especially true “for those who value work-life balance or are saving on commute costs.”
Others, however, aren’t as keen on the idea of taking less pay just to work from their couches.
“Absolutely not,” the user wrote.
Would you take a pay cut to work remotely? Send your thoughts to sydney.lake@fortune.com.
