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.
-
@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.
-
@dashrender said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
I get what Scott and others have said, but in reality location does matter because it directly affects your cost of living.
That it affects YOU has NOTHING to do with your salary. Otherwise the car you buy, or the restaurants that you eat at would also be considered.
"Oh, you spend money on luxury items you don't need? That's an automatic raise!"
-
@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.
Which are not necessarily the same. Often are not, in fact.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@dashrender said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
I get what Scott and others have said, but in reality location does matter because it directly affects your cost of living.
That it affects YOU has NOTHING to do with your salary. Otherwise the car you buy, or the restaurants that you eat at would also be considered.
"Oh, you spend money on luxury items you don't need? That's an automatic raise!"
But you were just told about two places that do pay completely based on where a person lives.
-
@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:
I get what Scott and others have said, but in reality location does matter because it directly affects your cost of living.
That it affects YOU has NOTHING to do with your salary. Otherwise the car you buy, or the restaurants that you eat at would also be considered.
"Oh, you spend money on luxury items you don't need? That's an automatic raise!"
But you were just told about two places that do pay completely based on where a person lives.
No one is arguing that they are emotional, clueless morons. I'm arguing with you that there is some sense behind it. You said "in reality location does matter", but IF you say that, then EVERYTHING that people can waste money on also matters... cars, restaurants, video game systems, brand name clothing... it's all "how people spend their discretionary money."
-
@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.
This is the initial post. Dash stated this and then others had to jump in to argue. He is right, they do it. Whether anyone agrees or not with the idea is immaterial, it happens frequently so Dash was correct.
-
@stacksofplates 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.
This is the initial post. Dash stated this and then others had to jump in to argue. He is right, they do it. Whether anyone agrees or not with the idea is immaterial, it happens frequently so Dash was correct.
Right - I guess what I really wanted to know is what is wrong with this?
Clearly Scott took this to the extreme, you buy an expensive car - you get paid more, but buying an expensive car isn't required, but often moving to a cheaper place to live (i.e. another city/state/country) isn't an option many can or are willing to make.
So putting aside that we don't live in Scott's perfect world where exactly that will happen - again moving to lower expense area - The purpose of my post was discuss options.
