3 ms·
That's true in theory, but rarely in practice. Committing to enabling remote work is nontrivial and doesn't suite every team nor every employee. And that still
by lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
That's true in theory, but rarely in practice. Committing to enabling remote work is nontrivial and doesn't suite every team nor every employee.
And that still doesn't solve the talent issues; highly skilled professionals congregate in areas with amenities (culture, like minded people, access to top notch medical care, access to schools, access to public transportation, etc) so even if you're remote you're still competing for the high CoL people at high CoL prices.
- hajile 9y agoThat may be true to some degree, but if a dev makes 150K in Tennessee, they'd have to make 450K+ in SF to keep the same standard of living. Are SF medicine or schools 3x better? Is public transportation 3x better? Is the culture 3x better? I think not. You can get comparable things in cities with a fraction of the living cost which self-evidently shows that people are paying too much for what they are getting. Finally, if I'd rather live somewhere without any of those perks and pocket the money instead, should I be told that I can't? Should my decision be held against me?
- sidlls 9y ago> 3x better? Yes, and more, with the possible exception of schools (it's hit and miss here, same as anywhere).
- lordCarbonFiber 9y agoHaving grew up in the south, I'd say 3x is a drastic under sell of how much better going west or to the north east. Unfortunately for people in your position, companies know that your options are limited. Large supply of people that want to live away from jobs and pocket the difference compared to the number of jobs available => lower prices.