9 ms·

That's not quite how the economics works here. A fully rational company should be thinking "what do I have to pay to get the work I need doing done?" If that w

That's not quite how the economics works here. A fully rational company should be thinking "what do I have to pay to get the work I need doing done?" If that work can be done remotely then that optimisation works out as: - Who can I hire in low cost locations and pay less for, without sacrificing quality (which I'm using VERY broadly to represent ANY differences in the work, team interactions, etc.). - If I can't hire enough of those, fast enough, how much am I willing to pay in high-cost locations. In the short term, when the company is trying to hire fast, talent is scare globally, and the company isn't connected to all global talent pools (so struggle to hire there) a sensible optimisation is salaries adjusted by location. In the long term, as the company has time to build its remote brand and (if) its hiring requirements stabilise, a sensible optimisation will be work leaving high-cost centres like SF. Don't feel too sorry for people in low-cost centres who work gets redistributed to at a lower cost - in the long term work from the high-cost centres is shifting to them, unless there are quality reasons for it to stay in the high-cost areas.

StavrosK 9y ago
You're overcomplicating this. At any given point, a rational company hiring remote is thinking: "Who is the cheapest person I can hire that passes a quality bar?" Why should they care about location at all? They just want the job done. > Don't feel too sorry for people in low-cost centres who work gets redistributed to at a lower cost - in the long term work from the high-cost centres is shifting to them, unless there are quality reasons for it to stay in the high-cost areas. I don't feel sorry for them (us), I just dislike it because I see job postings from companies I'd like to work at that say "Come work for us! Oh, you live in <place>? We can only make you an offer that's a fourth of what you're currently making at <other company>, sorry. Feel free to move to SF and our offer will go up fivefold, though!". In the end, it's a free market and everyone does what they want, but these companies end up missing out on good people because they artificially restrict their search to high-cost areas (because people in low-cost areas won't work for these companies when they can get higher-paying work elsewhere). It just irks me to see that a company I like is engaging in misguided, indirect area targeting when they purport to do remote.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

StavrosK 9y ago

You're overcomplicating this. At any given point, a rational company hiring remote is thinking: "Who is the cheapest person I can hire that passes a quality bar?" Why should they care about location at all? They just want the job done. > Don't feel too sorry for people in low-cost centres who work gets redistributed to at a lower cost - in the long term work from the high-cost centres is shifting to them, unless there are quality reasons for it to stay in the high-cost areas. I don't feel sorry for them (us), I just dislike it because I see job postings from companies I'd like to work at that say "Come work for us! Oh, you live in <place>? We can only make you an offer that's a fourth of what you're currently making at <other company>, sorry. Feel free to move to SF and our offer will go up fivefold, though!". In the end, it's a free market and everyone does what they want, but these companies end up missing out on good people because they artificially restrict their search to high-cost areas (because people in low-cost areas won't work for these companies when they can get higher-paying work elsewhere). It just irks me to see that a company I like is engaging in misguided, indirect area targeting when they purport to do remote.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]