5 ms·

> the work you're doing is exactly the same regardless of where you do it from But the "bay pay" isn't for your work. It's so you can work - i.e. cover your ex

• Fredej 9y ago
  They are willing to pay up to what the work is worth for them. The work is not worth more just because you happen to live in the bay area.
  • rplnt 9y ago
    No, you actually pay as little as possible to keep the employee happy and working for you. The living expenses move with this lower bound. More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16051409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16051409
    • pc86 9y ago
      In my experience employers often pay less than it takes to keep the employee happy and working. Most of the full-time jobs I've quit have been for pay and little else.
      • nwatson 9y ago
        Interesting ... I've usually quit when I've been reasonably OK with the pay but the work no longer is interesting, the company culture changes, or I'm disturbed by the company's direction and don't think it will last. The switch has always translated to higher compensation as well.
• watwut 9y ago
  Janitors, receptionists nor cooks get such high salaries, altrough the place is the same.
  • rplnt 9y ago
    If I were to look up salaries for those positions in bay area, they would be equal to those in rural Montana? If that's the argument you are making, I have no data to disprove it, so I would have to believe you, but it doesn't seem very likely.
    • watwut 9y ago
      That is not argument I am making. The difference in salary is in negotiation power, not in need, as shown by people who earn less while living at same location. Need is the same for janitor and programmers, however programmer have other employment opportunities and is more scarce resource.
• jasonkester 9y ago
  Just up the beach from my $6/night bungalow in Thailand there was a resort that costs $1,500/night. The work I'd do from there would be functionally equivalent from my employers' perspective. So as long as we're covering expenses, I'd prefer they cover mine at that second place. The fact that I might actually be living cheaper is none of their concern.
  • rplnt 9y ago
    If there's an equally qualified dev willing to take $1494/day less, employer would take that one. But if the only available people live in resorts, then the employer has no choice.
    • jasonkester 9y ago
      Indeed. The key is to never be that developer who leaves all that money on the table. The company you're negotiating against will be happy to take it.
      • rplnt 9y ago
        The thing is, willing to live in a bungalow might be a competitive advantage, all other things being equal (and maybe even if they are not, sadly).
        • saalweachter 9y ago
          Lower living expenses is a stupid reason to charge lower rates. I am not a contractor, but I can only imagine lowering my rates (if I were) if I was consistently underbid and not getting enough work or if I were doing charity work for a nonprofit doing important work. If my living expenses were far below my rate, I'd save my money happily against the possibility my living expenses would go up or my income would go down in the future, and would not lower my rates. If I occasionally lost a bid but still got enough work, I would not lower my rates. As a worker, lowering your rates unnecessarily screws other workers, and future-you is another worker getting screwed.
    • 9y ago
• pjc50 9y ago
  No, it's a market-clearing rate like everything else. It is for the work and only for the work. Otherwise you get the bad old days where unmarried employees were paid less than married ones, and so on.
  • gambiting 9y ago
    But a married programmer might only be willing to work for a higher salary, so you need to pay them more to hire them.
    • conanbatt 9y ago
      So you dont hire married programmers, and marry single ones. Specially if they look like they will not marry!
  • cityhall 9y ago
    They still are when you factor in benefits. Family health insurance costs more than single.
• welly 9y ago
  Isn't it? Given a situation with two developers working remotely with exactly the same skills, experience and knowledge on the same project, but one works in India, the other one works in the Bay area. Can you give me one valid reason why the developer in India should get a penny less than the developer in the Bay area? And that the cost of living is less in India than in SF is not, in my opinion, a valid reason. You pay your developers, or any staff come to that, what they're worth to you.
  • rplnt 9y ago
    > You pay your developers, or any staff come to that, what they're worth to you. It's not that easy. What they are worth to you is your upper limit. What they are willing to work for is the lower bound. It's composed of many things, mostly supply and demand, but not an insignificant portion is living expenses. Most employers would gravitate towards the lower bound. And for a dev in India, it might be reasonable to pay them less. If there's another company willing to pay Bay rate, that's great for the dev, but the expectation that everyone (let's stay in remote developers category) around the globe should be paid the same is not based in reality.
    • welly 9y ago
      I certainly realise that developers (or other employees) aren't, and likely will never be, paid the same despite where they live. I accept that is the reality, however is it reasonable? I don't believe it is at all reasonable to pay developers in India less, if they're able to perform their duties in the same manner as a developer in a western nation. Developers in India are generally paid less because employers can, which is clearly why companies look to employ staff in India. As a developer living in the UK, while I don't work remotely (often), if I was in a position to do so and decided I was going to move to India, I certainly wouldn't expect my employer to cut my salary as a result. If they did, I'd be out of the door and looking for a new employer promptly.
      • sokoloff 9y ago
        I have dev teams in several locations in Europe, one in India, and one in the US. Speaking specifically of the India developers, they are fully qualified and, given equal conditions, I believe they could perform in the same manner as a western developer. From the company's perspective, the conditions are not equal, try as we might (and do) to make them so. They are working on the other side of the clock from much of their peers and technical leadership. They are 18 hours of flight away when it comes time to visit on-site. They spend more time, on average, commuting to/from work. They face weather conditions that preclude reliable commuting several weeks per year. They face disadvantages inherent to their location and related to the fact that their location isn't the HQ. It's not their fault, but to make the economics make sense for the company, they are paid well for the local market, but less than the Bay area market. If wages in India were Bay area wages, we wouldn't have started new dev teams in India. The condition of one experienced dev moving away to a different location (I don't care whether higher or lower cost) is different from trying to build a de novo team in a different location. You take with you the experience and relationships you developed and that makes you different from your hypothetical identical twin who is applying to work remotely from wherever you are contemplating moving.