I agreed with most of the beginning of the post, but the specifics of where to cut perks seemed highly context-specific and I think readers should beware that.
For example, in the Bay, a lot of community “perks” like the former Lightcone coworking space are much less perky than they may appear because people live in rented rooms in group houses and don’t have stable jobs. They made the community in the Bay much more possible. High salaries are often a must not only because of high cost of living but to compensate for not offering benefits and low job security.
I guess what I’m saying is let’s not stigmatize the appearance of nice things when there are lots of tradeoffs in different org/community circumstances.
I agreed with most of the beginning of the post, but the specifics of where to cut perks seemed highly context-specific and I think readers should beware that.
For example, in the Bay, a lot of community “perks” like the former Lightcone coworking space are much less perky than they may appear because people live in rented rooms in group houses and don’t have stable jobs. They made the community in the Bay much more possible. High salaries are often a must not only because of high cost of living but to compensate for not offering benefits and low job security.
I guess what I’m saying is let’s not stigmatize the appearance of nice things when there are lots of tradeoffs in different org/community circumstances.