5 ms·

Commenter on the story has an excellent point: "An even more absurd, but equally "market rate" scenario would be to pay Ann more because she wants to and has ch

by jrs235 11y ago

Commenter on the story has an excellent point: "An even more absurd, but equally "market rate" scenario would be to pay Ann more because she wants to and has chosen to drive a luxury car, but to pay Sofia less because she chooses to take public transportation." - Philip Hallstrom

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
klochner 11y ago
That scenario would only be "market rate" if the market put a higher price (market price) on luxury-car-driving engineers. In that case it would likely not seem absurd because presumably there would be some extra inherent value in luxury car drivers (e.g., uber drivers).
- jlarocco 11y ago
  > That scenario would only be "market rate" if the market put a higher price (market price) on luxury-car-driving engineers. That's the point actually. Driving a luxury car is equally as irrelevant as location. There really isn't a good reason for a company to reward employees for how those employees spend money outside of work.
  - jrs235 11y ago
    And, this article/essay is more specifically talking about distributed/remote teams where "the market" is global. Making the rate based on employee spending desires, their cost of housing being influenced by were they (choose) to live, absurd.
  - hueving 11y ago
    But the location isn't irrelevant and that's the entire point that this article blindly misses. The company may not care that their developer is living in Silicon Valley, but there are a lot of companies that do care and will pay high salaries for him/her. Either the company competes and offers a high salary as well, or it just doesn't get to hire developers from Silicon Valley. It's basic supply and demand. If you're buying a car and it comes with a high power engine that you don't care about, you still have to pay the premium for the engine. You can't pay less because you tell the seller that you won't utilize the extra power. The car has a higher market price because there are people that will pay extra for the high power engine.
    - rspeer 11y ago
      > Either the company competes and offers a high salary as well, or it just doesn't get to hire developers from Silicon Valley. It's basic supply and demand. This statement is still correct and less loaded if you remove the words "get to". I have no idea why a fully-remote company would want their developers to live in Silicon Valley so much that they would pay a premium for it. Why even bother being fully-remote then?
      - paulddraper 11y ago
        Yep. It's like wanting developers to drive a luxury car so much they would pay a premium for luxury car owners.
        hueving 11y ago
        What aren't you getting? There are tons of companies in Silicon Valley that only hire local developers because they don't believe remote working is as effective. If you want to hire a local developer, those are the companies you compete with. You try to make it sound ridiculous by changing location with the car they drive, but that is intellectually dishonest because it's not clear remote work is as efficient. There is a reason Google doesn't allow it.
        paulddraper 11y ago
        Sure, the location has value to some companies. And they'll fight each other tooth and nail. But to a remote company, it's just as irrelevant as a luxury car. It's an artificial segment of the market to them. They don't need to enter the frenzy. There is a equilibrium of global supply and demand that is lower than SV equlibrium. Replace your SV hires with the others at that price, and save money. Capitalize on your remote work, instead of tossing it aside.
      - hueving 11y ago
        The company doesn't want the developer to live in Silicon Valley. The developer already does and that means any company that hires him/her will have to pay that premium because his/her market value is higher.

by jrs235 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

klochner 11y ago

That scenario would only be "market rate" if the market put a higher price (market price) on luxury-car-driving engineers. In that case it would likely not seem absurd because presumably there would be some extra inherent value in luxury car drivers (e.g., uber drivers).

jlarocco 11y ago
> That scenario would only be "market rate" if the market put a higher price (market price) on luxury-car-driving engineers. That's the point actually. Driving a luxury car is equally as irrelevant as location. There really isn't a good reason for a company to reward employees for how those employees spend money outside of work.
- jrs235 11y ago
  And, this article/essay is more specifically talking about distributed/remote teams where "the market" is global. Making the rate based on employee spending desires, their cost of housing being influenced by were they (choose) to live, absurd.
- hueving 11y ago
  But the location isn't irrelevant and that's the entire point that this article blindly misses. The company may not care that their developer is living in Silicon Valley, but there are a lot of companies that do care and will pay high salaries for him/her. Either the company competes and offers a high salary as well, or it just doesn't get to hire developers from Silicon Valley. It's basic supply and demand. If you're buying a car and it comes with a high power engine that you don't care about, you still have to pay the premium for the engine. You can't pay less because you tell the seller that you won't utilize the extra power. The car has a higher market price because there are people that will pay extra for the high power engine.
  - rspeer 11y ago
    > Either the company competes and offers a high salary as well, or it just doesn't get to hire developers from Silicon Valley. It's basic supply and demand. This statement is still correct and less loaded if you remove the words "get to". I have no idea why a fully-remote company would want their developers to live in Silicon Valley so much that they would pay a premium for it. Why even bother being fully-remote then?
    - paulddraper 11y ago
      Yep. It's like wanting developers to drive a luxury car so much they would pay a premium for luxury car owners.
      - hueving 11y ago
        What aren't you getting? There are tons of companies in Silicon Valley that only hire local developers because they don't believe remote working is as effective. If you want to hire a local developer, those are the companies you compete with. You try to make it sound ridiculous by changing location with the car they drive, but that is intellectually dishonest because it's not clear remote work is as efficient. There is a reason Google doesn't allow it.
        paulddraper 11y ago
        Sure, the location has value to some companies. And they'll fight each other tooth and nail. But to a remote company, it's just as irrelevant as a luxury car. It's an artificial segment of the market to them. They don't need to enter the frenzy. There is a equilibrium of global supply and demand that is lower than SV equlibrium. Replace your SV hires with the others at that price, and save money. Capitalize on your remote work, instead of tossing it aside.
    - hueving 11y ago
      The company doesn't want the developer to live in Silicon Valley. The developer already does and that means any company that hires him/her will have to pay that premium because his/her market value is higher.