4 ms·

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,

by 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.
- wagecuck 9y ago
  >but to make the economics make sense for the company To increase profits for owners, actually.
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    Well, you're right that it does that. We, like most for-profit companies, generally try to do things that increase profits.
    - wagecuck 9y ago
      Increasing profits is fine. Having workers that are not owners is despicable.
      - sokoloff 9y ago
        As a public company, many of our employees are shareholders (literally: owners), some via share-based comp, some via secondary purchases. We don't enforce that, as a condition of employment, you must accept share-based compensation. Employees are mostly [1] paid in cash and we let employees decide how much of that cash they want to invest in the company. [1]-some executives are "forced" to accept share-based compensation as part of their comp.

by welly 9y ago

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.

wagecuck 9y ago
>but to make the economics make sense for the company To increase profits for owners, actually.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  Well, you're right that it does that. We, like most for-profit companies, generally try to do things that increase profits.
  - wagecuck 9y ago
    Increasing profits is fine. Having workers that are not owners is despicable.
    - sokoloff 9y ago
      As a public company, many of our employees are shareholders (literally: owners), some via share-based comp, some via secondary purchases. We don't enforce that, as a condition of employment, you must accept share-based compensation. Employees are mostly [1] paid in cash and we let employees decide how much of that cash they want to invest in the company. [1]-some executives are "forced" to accept share-based compensation as part of their comp.