4 ms·

I strongly disagree with cost-of-living-adjustments when employees have the choice of where to live. People shouldn’t be punished for living in less expensive p

by wyager 9y ago

I strongly disagree with cost-of-living-adjustments when employees have the choice of where to live. People shouldn’t be punished for living in less expensive places. If your company is willing to pay you more for living somewhere else even if they don’t gain anything from it, it means they’re underpaying you right now.

duncan-donuts 9y ago
That's not really realistic though. How could I convince someone to pay me $250k in Minneapolis when the market is supporting 115-150k?
- hajile 9y ago
  In a world where remote is an option, there really shouldn't be large differences in salary. In negotiations, the party who can most afford to walk away has the advantage. If there were a real dev shortage, devs would be in that position, but they aren't. SV (and other markets) basically refuse to hire remote (and often refuse to relocate employees). This splits the market up into mini-markets where the slight oversaturation of devs allows the local market to dictate prices (under-saturation would boost salaries even in a small market). This is born out with the fact that those who do work remotely seem to have higher salaries for a given experience level (their market is much bigger and more diverse). The obvious answer is unions. Joint negotiations would yield immediate effects. No large company could survive even a day or two of IT strikes without extreme losses. Unlike other jobs, you can't simply replace your staff because most of a company's software IP is held in the heads of its employees and is far too complex to decypher before the losses occur.
- deong 9y ago
  Well, that sounds more like different employers than a "cost-of-living adjustment". Sure, you probably can't get a local employer to pay what a Bay Area employer pays, but if your employer is a Bay Area employer and they'd be willing to pay you 40% more if you worked remote from NYC than if you worked remote from Minneapolis, then yes, you should have more leverage there. Probably not enough to actually get the raise, but enough to make the conversation more interesting at least.
falsedan 9y ago
Salaries don't reflect the worth you're providing to the company (unless you're part of a worker-owned collective that disperses annual profit). Salaries are the lowest amount the company thinks it can pay you. If they had a higher budget and you failed to negotiate effectively for a higher salary, then I feel it is not the company's fault if you think they should have offered more. Vote with your feet. If you think you would be paid more in SF, what is stopping you from packing up and moving? That's what's lowering your salary.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Yes, but COL is not a great measure of it. My experience is that people us COL as a way to prevent envy and disgruntling. I say let people be envious.
kayoone 9y ago
You pay salary in regards to the market the employee is in, not where the company is located. Google/Facebook have a lot of offices in the EU and pay competitive salaries, but they are still a lot lower than in SF obviously.

by wyager 9y ago

duncan-donuts 9y ago

That's not really realistic though. How could I convince someone to pay me $250k in Minneapolis when the market is supporting 115-150k?

hajile 9y ago
In a world where remote is an option, there really shouldn't be large differences in salary. In negotiations, the party who can most afford to walk away has the advantage. If there were a real dev shortage, devs would be in that position, but they aren't. SV (and other markets) basically refuse to hire remote (and often refuse to relocate employees). This splits the market up into mini-markets where the slight oversaturation of devs allows the local market to dictate prices (under-saturation would boost salaries even in a small market). This is born out with the fact that those who do work remotely seem to have higher salaries for a given experience level (their market is much bigger and more diverse). The obvious answer is unions. Joint negotiations would yield immediate effects. No large company could survive even a day or two of IT strikes without extreme losses. Unlike other jobs, you can't simply replace your staff because most of a company's software IP is held in the heads of its employees and is far too complex to decypher before the losses occur.
deong 9y ago
Well, that sounds more like different employers than a "cost-of-living adjustment". Sure, you probably can't get a local employer to pay what a Bay Area employer pays, but if your employer is a Bay Area employer and they'd be willing to pay you 40% more if you worked remote from NYC than if you worked remote from Minneapolis, then yes, you should have more leverage there. Probably not enough to actually get the raise, but enough to make the conversation more interesting at least.

falsedan 9y ago

Salaries don't reflect the worth you're providing to the company (unless you're part of a worker-owned collective that disperses annual profit). Salaries are the lowest amount the company thinks it can pay you. If they had a higher budget and you failed to negotiate effectively for a higher salary, then I feel it is not the company's fault if you think they should have offered more. Vote with your feet. If you think you would be paid more in SF, what is stopping you from packing up and moving? That's what's lowering your salary.

conanbatt 9y ago
Yes, but COL is not a great measure of it. My experience is that people us COL as a way to prevent envy and disgruntling. I say let people be envious.

kayoone 9y ago

You pay salary in regards to the market the employee is in, not where the company is located. Google/Facebook have a lot of offices in the EU and pay competitive salaries, but they are still a lot lower than in SF obviously.