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?
-
@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...
-
@dashrender said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@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...
But there are incentives to move to locations that don't cost you so much, but cost the employer more. Lots of "gaming" of that system to be done.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@dashrender said in Staying at your shitty employer is your fault:
@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...
But there are incentives to move to locations that don't cost you so much, but cost the employer more. Lots of "gaming" of that system to be done.
This assumes either - you have to move before getting the job or that the company will change your pay after you move there.
As mentioned by @flaxking, where ever you want to live might not be a geographic area the company wants people.
-
@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:
@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...
But there are incentives to move to locations that don't cost you so much, but cost the employer more. Lots of "gaming" of that system to be done.
This assumes either - you have to move before getting the job or that the company will change your pay after you move there.
As mentioned by @flaxking, where ever you want to live might not be a geographic area the company wants people.
Still gamable no matter which method they go with. None of it supports business processes.
-
@dashrender they reason they had to take it down was because they were basically freely giving out information that they and other companies have to pay for.
