3 ms·

It costs less to live in some places... if someone was willing to pay me SF wages to live in suburban Texas... cool, I'm all for that. But it's stupid on their

It costs less to live in some places... if someone was willing to pay me SF wages to live in suburban Texas... cool, I'm all for that. But it's stupid on their part. Base cost of living on what goes into the employee's pocket. * Austin tech workers saw the biggest jump in salary last year - Recode || https://www.recode.net/2018/2/8/16989150/annual-salaries-rising-faster-tech-workers-outside-bay-area https://www.recode.net/2018/2/8/16989150/annual-salaries-ris... * A ranking of the highest tech salaries in the US, adjusted for cost of living — Quartz || https://qz.com/1195354/tech-salaries-in-austin-texas-are-effectively-66000-higher-than-in-nyc-thanks-to-the-cost-of-living/ https://qz.com/1195354/tech-salaries-in-austin-texas-are-eff... Texas doesn't have an income tax... cool, you don't need to pay as much as SF to get workers who are every bit as happy. Moreover... if I paid my guy in Austin the same as my guys in SF, it'd be like giving him a massive raise and showing a lot more favoritism. If I just have rate X to spend on salaries, then the only people who I get live in cities where rate X is a good deal. I need flexibility to hire from anywhere, attract talent in Seattle, Boston, SF, Chicago, Geneva, Sydney... you get the idea.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> It costs less to live in some places... if someone was willing to pay me SF wages to live in suburban Texas... cool, I'm all for that. But it's stupid on their part. No one is paying you to live in Texas, they are paying you to do some specific work. If you can produce as much value as the guy who lived in SF, and will accept 95% of the salary that applicant would, but the employer passed on you because you won't except 80% of what they’d pay for an SF developer, and they hire the SF developer instead, they’ve lost money. Location pay when the job isn't tied to a location is irrational and involves the employer losing money. Would you subsidize other employee lifestyle costs? Extra pay for a larger home, or more expensive car, or more frequent international travel? If not, why should you pay more for the same job because the employee lived in a more expensive region, when the job is not tied to that region?

dragonwriter 8y ago

> It costs less to live in some places... if someone was willing to pay me SF wages to live in suburban Texas... cool, I'm all for that. But it's stupid on their part. No one is paying you to live in Texas, they are paying you to do some specific work. If you can produce as much value as the guy who lived in SF, and will accept 95% of the salary that applicant would, but the employer passed on you because you won't except 80% of what they’d pay for an SF developer, and they hire the SF developer instead, they’ve lost money. Location pay when the job isn't tied to a location is irrational and involves the employer losing money. Would you subsidize other employee lifestyle costs? Extra pay for a larger home, or more expensive car, or more frequent international travel? If not, why should you pay more for the same job because the employee lived in a more expensive region, when the job is not tied to that region?