Staying at your shitty employer is your fault
-
@dave247 said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@irj said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@gjacobse said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@irj said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
He's referring to total comp in which you get a base of $150-200k
Lol - Guess I'm in the wrong LinkedIn circle as I don't get anything in that base range... And I'm okay with that (twitch).
It's generally based on skillset and experience. 2-3 years cloud experience is super valuable right now. I posted about this in 2019 here.
https://mangolassi.it/topic/19837/you-need-to-get-cloud-certified
I'm 6 years into IT (network admin, sysadmin, security (generalist)) and have my Security+ and am making $70,000 in Wisconsin right now. Is that low/normal/high?
Very hard to say. We don't know your job role, responsibility, etc. If you did any of those roles specifically, then it is low after four years. But if you are in a generalist role, there's no gauge based on the description. The Sec+ is great to have, but has no direct correlation to salary, not at $70 or higher. Your way past the salary mark where a CompTIA cert is going to really affect salary. Nice to have, feather in the ol' cap. I have it too. But it isn't making me money.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@dashrender said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
I've read that west coast companies are now starting to have a new baseline salary for a position, then up it based on where you actually live. So the base might be $80K, but if you live in SF, you get $40K/y more, but live in Wisconsin - you just get 80K.
That'll never work. There are ways to live in NYC for super cheap. There are ways to "live" one place but be based in another. Everyone will "move" to expensive locations when deals happen to screw the system. Letting the employees dictate their salaries based on a fungible concept is insane. Makes no sense to the employees, makes even less sense to an employer. If my employees make bad life decisions, why should I provide them a bonus for that?
This happens with most tech companies. Any I've looked at have paid differently based on where you live. And when covid hit there were reports those that weren't remote already were taking suit and when employees moves their pay changed based on location.
-
@dashrender said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@gjacobse said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@irj said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
I'm 6 years into IT (network admin, sysadmin, security (generalist)) and have my Security+ and am making $70,000
You are doing better than a fellow I worked at the state - who was two years from retirement (28 years of service)... By almost $20k... At $70k I think is is more an exception than the rule... Location is a big key here.... Yes - State Employees generally make less...
This is my general belief as well - location is king!
Now - today after Covid, location is a bit less, but I wouldn't say significantly less important, assuming the company moved a position to fully remote.
Living in SF, LA, NYC all cost 2-4 times what it does in Wisconsin.
I've read that west coast companies are now starting to have a new baseline salary for a position, then up it based on where you actually live. So the base might be $80K, but if you live in SF, you get $40K/y more, but live in Wisconsin - you just get 80K.
I have no personal experience in that happening - so no idea if it's true.
And those that are seeing high prices around here on ML - I think most of you live in or near those expensive cities - correct me if I'm wrong.
Even for remote workers sometimes there are differences depending on location, but some don't discriminate at all on location. Even the ones that does its not 100% more pay for California like in your example.
The best thing to do is confirm salary expectations and your location up front. Then this is never an issue. If you agree to the salary, then what's the problem?
-
@irj said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
Even for remote workers sometimes there are differences depending on location
Lots of variation, but the variation is at the employee's discretion. It's not the employer's job to compensate unless the location is of benefit to the employer.
It would be no different than paying employee's more based on the car that they choose to drive. Buy a Mercedes, we give you a raise. Buy a Toyota, your pay stays normal. Be responsible and take public transportation and get a pay cut to add to your woes.
Basically, employer's rewarding unnecessary spending is an insane business tactic. It's not just bad financially, but generally punishes good decision making. An employee living in low cost cities or even villages are likely dealing with fewer business-interrupting problems than employees in big, expensive downtowns.
-
@irj said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
The best thing to do is confirm salary expectations and your location up front. Then this is never an issue. If you agree to the salary, then what's the problem?
Salary up front, never worry about location. Either you need them in the office, or you don't. Getting bogged down in location past that point is crazy and not a business process. Any compensation based on location, or even caring about location, is emotional and not business. It's anti-business. It's easy to manipulate and counter productive and all time spent on it is negative to the business.
Obviously if you want to worry about climate, unstable governments, latency for calls... there are general location factors that do affect business. Yet I've seen no business that pays based on location ever consider which locations are good or bad for them.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@irj said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
The best thing to do is confirm salary expectations and your location up front. Then this is never an issue. If you agree to the salary, then what's the problem?
Salary up front, never worry about location. Either you need them in the office, or you don't. Getting bogged down in location past that point is crazy and not a business process. Any compensation based on location, or even caring about location, is emotional and not business. It's anti-business. It's easy to manipulate and counter productive and all time spent on it is negative to the business.
Obviously if you want to worry about climate, unstable governments, latency for calls... there are general location factors that do affect business. Yet I've seen no business that pays based on location ever consider which locations are good or bad for them.
Interesting - I wonder if a lot of tech firms will follow your lead there and lower salaries to drive their talent out of the high cost living areas - cause, you know it's all about the Benjamins.
I completely understand what you're saying... but someone who lives in SF will likely demand a higher salary than someone living in Kansas City, simply because cost of living is higher... - and well, the tech companies need the talent - or at least people keep saying around here.
-
@dashrender said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
Interesting - I wonder if a lot of tech firms will follow your lead there and lower salaries to drive their talent out of the high cost living areas - cause, you know it's all about the Benjamins.
People say that, but even big companies tend to care WAY more about the visibility and control of resources than they do about profits, sadly.
-
@dashrender said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
I completely understand what you're saying... but someone who lives in SF will likely demand a higher salary than someone living in Kansas City, simply because cost of living is higher... - and well, the tech companies need the talent - or at least people keep saying around here.
Sure, but someone in SF willing to move can easily move and keep a similar salary, but lower, with a WAY higher purchasing parity. PP is all that matters and the same resources in "bad Internet" SF could be $100K/year less in a better location with better weather and better Internet and still bring home more after paying rent. And then that "more" might have lower taxes and better local cost of living beyond that.
The amount a top end resource can swing their hard cost to employers is huge.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@dashrender said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
Interesting - I wonder if a lot of tech firms will follow your lead there and lower salaries to drive their talent out of the high cost living areas - cause, you know it's all about the Benjamins.
People say that, but even big companies tend to care WAY more about the visibility and control of resources than they do about profits, sadly.
Agreed - they do. And many companies will want their employees closer to the company versus true work from home - even if they are work from home.
-
@dashrender said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@scottalanmiller said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@dashrender said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
Interesting - I wonder if a lot of tech firms will follow your lead there and lower salaries to drive their talent out of the high cost living areas - cause, you know it's all about the Benjamins.
People say that, but even big companies tend to care WAY more about the visibility and control of resources than they do about profits, sadly.
Agreed - they do. And many companies will want their employees closer to the company versus true work from home - even if they are work from home.
Yes, and if you are keeping people to a requirement of "must commute to office when requested", that's fine and you pay EVERYONE the same based on that. That's the same as requiring them to be "in the office", just "not very often."
If you start paying out of office workers different based on where they live, those that come into the office will start demanding the same treatment. Living in better neighbourhoods that cost more versus living in the slums... why isn't the rich employee getting even more pay because they were willing to live better? Same logic should apply as for the locations. Pay the rich more and the poor less.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@irj said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
Even for remote workers sometimes there are differences depending on location
Lots of variation, but the variation is at the employee's discretion. It's not the employer's job to compensate unless the location is of benefit to the employer.
It would be no different than paying employee's more based on the car that they choose to drive. Buy a Mercedes, we give you a raise. Buy a Toyota, your pay stays normal. Be responsible and take public transportation and get a pay cut to add to your woes.
Basically, employer's rewarding unnecessary spending is an insane business tactic. It's not just bad financially, but generally punishes good decision making. An employee living in low cost cities or even villages are likely dealing with fewer business-interrupting problems than employees in big, expensive downtowns.
What I've been told is that it goes by local market... based on the cost of labor in a given location, remote or not.
-
@obsolesce said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
What I've been told is that it goes by local market... based on the cost of labor in a given location, remote or not.
Whose local market, though?
-
And what's the market size? If you work remotely, the market is global. If you don't work remotely, the market is as big as you feel like claiming a commute would be. Everyone has different ideas of what a market is.
To some people 40 miles is a reasonable commute and the market is a metro or more. To others, a market is a country. To others, a market is only a neighbourhood in which you can get easy public transportation.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
And what's the market size? If you work remotely, the market is global. If you don't work remotely, the market is as big as you feel like claiming a commute would be. Everyone has different ideas of what a market is.
To some people 40 miles is a reasonable commute and the market is a metro or more. To others, a market is a country. To others, a market is only a neighbourhood in which you can get easy public transportation.
Or just a similar time zone, like a couple of hours difference either way.
-
@pete-s said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@scottalanmiller said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
And what's the market size? If you work remotely, the market is global. If you don't work remotely, the market is as big as you feel like claiming a commute would be. Everyone has different ideas of what a market is.
To some people 40 miles is a reasonable commute and the market is a metro or more. To others, a market is a country. To others, a market is only a neighbourhood in which you can get easy public transportation.
Or just a similar time zone, like a couple of hours difference either way.
Right, everyone sees market as something unique.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@obsolesce said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
What I've been told is that it goes by local market... based on the cost of labor in a given location, remote or not.
Whose local market, though?
The local market of the potential hire, for the job their being hired for.
-
@obsolesce said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@scottalanmiller said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@obsolesce said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
What I've been told is that it goes by local market... based on the cost of labor in a given location, remote or not.
Whose local market, though?
The local market of the potential hire, for the job their being hired for.
Yeah this is common. Not sure what the argument is here. Most tech companies pay based on where the employee is living. GitLab is very public about this, they even have a whole page on their site dedicated to it. Their calculator used to be public but now is just for applicants.
GitHub does the same, same with all FAANG. I've also interviewed at other tech companies that did the same. It's very common to pay the employee based on their primary location.
-
@stacksofplates said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
GitHub does the same, same with all FAANG. I've also interviewed at other tech companies that did the same. It's very common to pay the employee based on their primary location.
So after you're hired you'll get a raise if you move to a more expensive location?
-
@pete-s said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@stacksofplates said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
GitHub does the same, same with all FAANG. I've also interviewed at other tech companies that did the same. It's very common to pay the employee based on their primary location.
So after you're hired you'll get a raise if you move to a more expensive location?
And there in lies the rub.
I get what Scott and others have said, but in reality location does matter because it directly affects your cost of living.
I have a though - though not fully matured - regarding expected ability to resell a service and the max expense/value of a employee helping the company deliver that service.
-
@pete-s said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@stacksofplates said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
GitHub does the same, same with all FAANG. I've also interviewed at other tech companies that did the same. It's very common to pay the employee based on their primary location.
So after you're hired you'll get a raise if you move to a more expensive location?
According to that yes. It also goes the other way, if you move to a lower cost area it goes down.
