Staying at your shitty employer is your fault
-
@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. -
@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.
Thanks for the reminder - been so many added points that I had forgetten this aspect. And right now - I'm trying to remember if I remember that part to begin with..
-
@dashrender said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@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.I know this is happening more and more often. Just doesn't make any sense at all!
How does my value to the company change because of where I happen to live? (it doesn't). So why should my pay vary based on where I live, since my value to the company doesn't change?
-
@travisdh1 said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@dashrender said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@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.I know this is happening more and more often. Just doesn't make any sense at all!
How does my value to the company change because of where I happen to live? (it doesn't). So why should my pay vary based on where I live, since my value to the company doesn't change?
I do understand the point you and Scott are both making.
But we both know the value to the company for someone employed in WI is less than that of someone in SF - because SF costs more to live there. period. that's it.
I guess it's less about the actual value to the company - but the company understanding that if they want to hire this "awesome person" who lives in SF - they WILL have to pay them more than they would pay that same equally awesome person in WI - why you ask - because that person living in SF needs more money for the basics.
A reasonable house in SF costs $600K or more (hell, probably a lot more right now) - Gas is 2x the price in SF than WI (OK maybe not right but it definitely was last year when gas in NE was $2/gal and in SF it was $4/gal)
and that house - in WI you can have a fraking mansion for $600K, or a reasonable house is likely more like 2-300K.So I suppose you as the company could say - well awesome guy who lives in SF - we love you, but we demand you move to WI where shit is cheaper so we can pay you less - and he'll just flip you the bird and look for the next job.
And if you found awesome WI guy, and offered him $40k less than the SF person - they would probably be pretty damned happy (again assuming my base of 80K for the job from above).
I've read for decades about people moving from SF/LA/NYC to places in the midwest, taking a 50% paycut and still having a WAY higher life style than they had in those places because cost of living is so much lower...
In typing this all up - Why do companies do this? Because they know if they want the talent that lives in those high cost areas - they have to pay more... and if they get lucky and find the talent in low cost areas, they can pay just their base.
As to the question - if I move - will I get that increase automatically? probably not - you'd need to be approved for it, because they originally hired you with the current location as the understanding...
But if you're as awesome as Scott or @Obsolesce , then they will probably want to keep you - and they weight that against needing to replace you, and the likeliness of finding another you in the cheaper part of the US... and they decide.
-
@travisdh1 said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
How does my value to the company change because of where I happen to live?
https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation/#paying-local-rates
-
@stacksofplates said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@travisdh1 said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
How does my value to the company change because of where I happen to live?
https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation/#paying-local-rates
Hire the best candidate
We hire the best candidate for each role regardless of location, cost, or other factors. During the sourcing we do optimize what potential candidates we approach in order to bring more diversity (both geographically and people from underrepresented backgrounds) to our team
I wonder if this is really true? They really toss location, and cost out the window? Location - perhaps they do, but they already said about that they want a geographically diverse workforce, so this seems unlikely.
And cost is always a factor in highering, I don't understand how it couldn't be. -
@dashrender it's all about the pipeline. It's recruitment that sources people, and they are not candidates until they are in the pipeline. They can advertise for jobs in certain areas but still say they hire the best candidate because they were only trying to source people in certain areas. Not that I know GitLab does that, but that's the strategy for increasing diversity without discrimination. Once they're in the pipeline, probably the people making the hiring call aren't involved in cost decisions. Though they're likely be able to figure out the salary based on location + role + level.
If you want information specifically about GitLab's process, let me know and I can find out.
-
GitLab used to have a calculator public to see how much you would get paid, but they had to take it down due to external pressures.
-
@flaxking said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
GitLab used to have a calculator public to see how much you would get paid, but they had to take it down due to external pressures.
One of the issues with posting something like that, is that everyone in that specific role is basically making the same - there's on incentive to do better in that job. At least that's the excuse I hear...
