15 ms·

Its not about locality, its about paying as little as possible to get the people you want. If you want someone from Podunk Kansas you could easily pay them a th

by zanny 8y ago

Its not about locality, its about paying as little as possible to get the people you want. If you want someone from Podunk Kansas you could easily pay them a third as much as someone living in a major metro but yours will still be the best offer they have. Hopefully this equalizes out over time as more tech companies can properly adopt remote workers and thus even out the employment field away from centralizing in a few specific cities but we are a long way from that.

TulliusCicero 8y ago
> Hopefully this equalizes out over time as more tech companies can properly adopt remote workers and thus even out the employment field away from centralizing in a few specific cities but we are a long way from that. I used to think that way, but in, like, the late 90's/early 00's. "Surely as internet access and software tools continually improve, remote work will become better and more common, democratizing blah blah blah." Instead, while the internet getting better definitely happened, the pay differential and clustering effect in major tech hubs only increased. As for why that would happen, I have a few different thoughts, but I think the gist of it is that the internet getting better spawned huge internet giants like Google and Facebook, and organizationally it's still an advantage to have people colocated so they went with that.
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  It's funny, isn't it, the way that tech hub salaries continue to increase, with many companies willing to hire remotely only if that means low-priced offshore talent, and yet there are plenty of people in the US who offer a middle ground compromise but are generally overlooked. Like yourself, I really thought we'd be farther along in remote work acceptance by this point. While I've been a remote worker since 2005 as a moonlighter, freelancer, employee, and small-business owner (IE: have been through different experiences) it's still very challenging to get companies on board with remote work, despite the cases studies like GitLab.
- echo85 8y ago
  Thank about that. This thread starts by saying it’s unfair to pay based on location and a given person provides the same value from anywhere, yet the worlds most successful companies choose to hire in the most expensive locations. Programmers in SF must be more valuable or companies wouldn’t hire there. In fact wages are high because of demand for that location itself not justness the cluster of talent there. As a remote company owner who hires in both North America and Asia, Timezones matter a lot. We have some incredible devs in Asia who I’d pay twice as much if they moved here. It’s not about living cost, it’s about opportunity cost for both sides. Salaries are a negotiation, and location matters to the extent the parties involved say it does.
  - jen729w 8y ago
    “Programmers in SF must be more valuable or companies wouldn’t hire there.” Or, that’s where companies are and they’ll take what they can get in the area because they like having warm bodies in the office rather than dealing with better qualified remote workers (like practically every company)?
    - mikekchar 8y ago
      I think it's a mix really. I think there are a lot of founders who really believe that SF developers are worth the 2x (or more!) markup. Personally, I don't think it's true at all -- in fact, hot markets tend to attract people who want money, not people who are talented. On the other hand, non-collocated teams are challenging and if you have very little experience running a team (as many young founders do) it might be wise to hire locally -- at least at the beginning. I think a lot of founders also probably underestimate the amount of time they'll need to get off the ground. So if they have $5M, it might seem OK to have a burn rate of $2M per year (I'm using pseudo-random numbers). They'll think, "If we can't get another big round in 2 1/2 years, then we might as well move on to something else". So they are willing to pay the money.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
voidlogic 8y ago
>If you want someone from Podunk Kansas you could easily pay them a third as much as someone living in a major metro but yours will still be the best offer they have. Not anymore, someone will be following the "locality doesn't matter mantra" and will outbid you. What you are saying might be more true for entry level or very generic skill sets. But if you are hiring top talent, you have to offer the same best offer everywhere, because if you won't then someone else will.

by zanny 8y ago

TulliusCicero 8y ago

> Hopefully this equalizes out over time as more tech companies can properly adopt remote workers and thus even out the employment field away from centralizing in a few specific cities but we are a long way from that. I used to think that way, but in, like, the late 90's/early 00's. "Surely as internet access and software tools continually improve, remote work will become better and more common, democratizing blah blah blah." Instead, while the internet getting better definitely happened, the pay differential and clustering effect in major tech hubs only increased. As for why that would happen, I have a few different thoughts, but I think the gist of it is that the internet getting better spawned huge internet giants like Google and Facebook, and organizationally it's still an advantage to have people colocated so they went with that.

poulsbohemian 8y ago
It's funny, isn't it, the way that tech hub salaries continue to increase, with many companies willing to hire remotely only if that means low-priced offshore talent, and yet there are plenty of people in the US who offer a middle ground compromise but are generally overlooked. Like yourself, I really thought we'd be farther along in remote work acceptance by this point. While I've been a remote worker since 2005 as a moonlighter, freelancer, employee, and small-business owner (IE: have been through different experiences) it's still very challenging to get companies on board with remote work, despite the cases studies like GitLab.
echo85 8y ago
Thank about that. This thread starts by saying it’s unfair to pay based on location and a given person provides the same value from anywhere, yet the worlds most successful companies choose to hire in the most expensive locations. Programmers in SF must be more valuable or companies wouldn’t hire there. In fact wages are high because of demand for that location itself not justness the cluster of talent there. As a remote company owner who hires in both North America and Asia, Timezones matter a lot. We have some incredible devs in Asia who I’d pay twice as much if they moved here. It’s not about living cost, it’s about opportunity cost for both sides. Salaries are a negotiation, and location matters to the extent the parties involved say it does.
- jen729w 8y ago
  “Programmers in SF must be more valuable or companies wouldn’t hire there.” Or, that’s where companies are and they’ll take what they can get in the area because they like having warm bodies in the office rather than dealing with better qualified remote workers (like practically every company)?
  - mikekchar 8y ago
    I think it's a mix really. I think there are a lot of founders who really believe that SF developers are worth the 2x (or more!) markup. Personally, I don't think it's true at all -- in fact, hot markets tend to attract people who want money, not people who are talented. On the other hand, non-collocated teams are challenging and if you have very little experience running a team (as many young founders do) it might be wise to hire locally -- at least at the beginning. I think a lot of founders also probably underestimate the amount of time they'll need to get off the ground. So if they have $5M, it might seem OK to have a burn rate of $2M per year (I'm using pseudo-random numbers). They'll think, "If we can't get another big round in 2 1/2 years, then we might as well move on to something else". So they are willing to pay the money.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago

voidlogic 8y ago

>If you want someone from Podunk Kansas you could easily pay them a third as much as someone living in a major metro but yours will still be the best offer they have. Not anymore, someone will be following the "locality doesn't matter mantra" and will outbid you. What you are saying might be more true for entry level or very generic skill sets. But if you are hiring top talent, you have to offer the same best offer everywhere, because if you won't then someone else will.