3 ms·

> We have offices in both SF and Toronto I have also read that US companies (especially the big-name ones likes FAMG) who open Canadian offices pay more than p

by mmt 8y ago

> We have offices in both SF and Toronto I have also read that US companies (especially the big-name ones likes FAMG) who open Canadian offices pay more than purely local ones, so I wonder if merely having offices in both places helps increase the otherwise lackluster compensation. > looking to sacrifice standard of living in exchange for "being part of the scene," which is perfectly rational. I'd say it's only rational if that scene inclusion imparts a real benefit, rather than a perceived one. It's at least arguable that it does, other than providing greater opportunities for different, more highly-paid jobs. > The standard of living in Toronto is reportedly quite higher for people with kids, but that certainly doesn't apply to everyone. Is that across the industry or just for your company? Is there a difference between homeowners (who would have a high degree of immunity from rapidly rising home prices) and renters? > Come work with us and you can conduct your own experiment: Work a year here, a year there, for as long as you need to gather data. If only it were that easy (even if you'd hire me). I can't imagine that a year in each place, especially with only one employer, would be nearly enough data, and that's assuming two years at that particular employer would be suitable/acceptable enough not to be the biggest factor in quality-of-life. The other big confounding factor is that you can't really compare SF-to-Toronto, if only because of weather/climate (though I'm sure there are other aspects, not the least of which is whatever lifestyle details someone has become accustomed to already). You'd probably need to do Vancouver-to-SF and Toronto-to-NYC (or maybe Boston). It's probably a reasonable option (if it's actually on offer) for a non-homeowner, without children, just starting a career, but, otherwise, it's not a realistic ask. I'm still not convinced there's any effort being made by Canadian companies or government to recruit employees from the US.

braythwayt 8y ago
I have not done a rigorous investigation, so YMMV, but what I would say is that Sturgeon's Revelation is at work here. 90% of tech companies are crud. They're froth, undercapitalized, built to flip but doomed. Which is fine, but if we try to measure the mean or median wages while including all of them, we'll get numbers that are ridiculous in any location. I believe that if we filter down to "good" companies, by some hand-wavey definition of good—Pedigree of founders, pedigree of VCs, existence of a working revenue model, whatever—we'll get the US companies that open Canadian offices plus a bunch of decent Canadian companies. Same in SF, we'll get the obvious big companies plus lots of properly good companies. It could well be that good SF companies out-pay good Toronto companies, it would be wrong to compare my employer to a startup operating on angel fumes in either location. We compete with companies like Amazon, Google, and Shopify for talent. But it could also be that we do pretty well against such companies. We work hard to make sure that our pay is competitive, and we are trying our damndest to grow our Toronto office even more.
- mmt 8y ago
  That pretty much addresses my first question, but only that, from what I can tell. > it would be wrong to compare my employer to a startup operating on angel fumes Only if you pre-suppose your hand-wavey definition of good, which I noticed had very little in the way of qualities that affect actual working environment. > we are trying our damndest to grow our Toronto office even more. Including "welcoming" US workers? That's what I have yet to see any evidence of.

by mmt 8y ago

braythwayt 8y ago

I have not done a rigorous investigation, so YMMV, but what I would say is that Sturgeon's Revelation is at work here. 90% of tech companies are crud. They're froth, undercapitalized, built to flip but doomed. Which is fine, but if we try to measure the mean or median wages while including all of them, we'll get numbers that are ridiculous in any location. I believe that if we filter down to "good" companies, by some hand-wavey definition of good—Pedigree of founders, pedigree of VCs, existence of a working revenue model, whatever—we'll get the US companies that open Canadian offices plus a bunch of decent Canadian companies. Same in SF, we'll get the obvious big companies plus lots of properly good companies. It could well be that good SF companies out-pay good Toronto companies, it would be wrong to compare my employer to a startup operating on angel fumes in either location. We compete with companies like Amazon, Google, and Shopify for talent. But it could also be that we do pretty well against such companies. We work hard to make sure that our pay is competitive, and we are trying our damndest to grow our Toronto office even more.

mmt 8y ago
That pretty much addresses my first question, but only that, from what I can tell. > it would be wrong to compare my employer to a startup operating on angel fumes Only if you pre-suppose your hand-wavey definition of good, which I noticed had very little in the way of qualities that affect actual working environment. > we are trying our damndest to grow our Toronto office even more. Including "welcoming" US workers? That's what I have yet to see any evidence of.