5 ms·

Why though?

fardin1368 7y ago
> Why though? Cuz they don't need to!
jkukul 7y ago
Gitlab gives few reasons in their handbook [1]. The obvious one is: "If we start paying everyone the highest wage our compensation costs would increase greatly, we can hire fewer people, and we would get less results." [1] https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-compensation/#why-we-pay-local-rates https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-c...
- bluGill 7y ago
  So why doesn't GitLab fire all their high cost of living employees and replace them with someone cheaper?
  - travisjungroth 7y ago
    They say then they’d only have people who live in low CoL areas and they want diversity. Seems odd to me.
  - junipertea 7y ago
    Because I assume they have a headquarters which would be empty. Firing high-cost of living, high expertise employees to hire new ones (might be senior level, but not well versed in the problem) does not sound wise.
scarface74 7y ago
Why not? As a business owner why would I pay $90K more than I had to? Since my pool of candidates is basically the entire country, that means my pool of potential candidates who would happily take $140K and be able to work remotely has grown.
- scarecrowbob 7y ago
  "As a business owner why would I pay $90K more than I had to?" For the same reason might ask why they would take less than they have to.. although it is true that the candidate pool grows, the pool of jobs we can select from is also worldwide. I mean, I can afford to work cheaper if I want to, but I don't have to because people will pay... the principle works both ways. Why would I take a 140K/year job just because the people around me are living in abject poverty unless I have to work locally?
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Theoretically yes, but most companies don’t allow remote work so it puts the company at an advantage.
  - war1025 7y ago
    Really a bit confused by the "abject poverty" bit you threw in there.
    - scarecrowbob 7y ago
      I'm remote working from a folk festival in rural texas. I have a cousin here who is homeless when she's off the ranch. I don't think it would be good for anyone for me to set my pay based off her pay.
      - war1025 7y ago
        Well yes, I agree. I don't think anyone would argue that though. I believe the argument being made though was that a company didn't need to offer Tech Hub market rate when they could simply offer above-market rate for a remote worker, and then both parties would come out economically ahead. The way your comment was worded, I thought you meant accepting $140k/year was akin to being in abject poverty, which seemed like a very uninformed view of the world. I don't think that's what you meant though.
  - matz1 7y ago
lotsofpulp 7y ago
The same reason no one offers to pay extra at the grocery store.
astura 7y ago
its a well established practice to establish compensation partly based on employee cost of living.
- scarface74 7y ago
  The employer doesn't care about an employee's cost of living. The employer wants to pay as little as possible. The employee wants to make as much as his local market will allow. What the employee will accept is based on his other alternatives which is indirectly based on the cost of living.

Why though?

> Why though? Cuz they don't need to!

Gitlab gives few reasons in their handbook [1]. The obvious one is: "If we start paying everyone the highest wage our compensation costs would increase greatly, we can hire fewer people, and we would get less results." [1] https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-compensation/#why-we-pay-local-rates https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-c...

bluGill 7y ago
So why doesn't GitLab fire all their high cost of living employees and replace them with someone cheaper?
- travisjungroth 7y ago
  They say then they’d only have people who live in low CoL areas and they want diversity. Seems odd to me.
- junipertea 7y ago
  Because I assume they have a headquarters which would be empty. Firing high-cost of living, high expertise employees to hire new ones (might be senior level, but not well versed in the problem) does not sound wise.

scarface74 7y ago

Why not? As a business owner why would I pay $90K more than I had to? Since my pool of candidates is basically the entire country, that means my pool of potential candidates who would happily take $140K and be able to work remotely has grown.

scarecrowbob 7y ago
"As a business owner why would I pay $90K more than I had to?" For the same reason might ask why they would take less than they have to.. although it is true that the candidate pool grows, the pool of jobs we can select from is also worldwide. I mean, I can afford to work cheaper if I want to, but I don't have to because people will pay... the principle works both ways. Why would I take a 140K/year job just because the people around me are living in abject poverty unless I have to work locally?
- scarface74 7y ago
  Theoretically yes, but most companies don’t allow remote work so it puts the company at an advantage.
- war1025 7y ago
  Really a bit confused by the "abject poverty" bit you threw in there.
  - scarecrowbob 7y ago
    I'm remote working from a folk festival in rural texas. I have a cousin here who is homeless when she's off the ranch. I don't think it would be good for anyone for me to set my pay based off her pay.
    - war1025 7y ago
      Well yes, I agree. I don't think anyone would argue that though. I believe the argument being made though was that a company didn't need to offer Tech Hub market rate when they could simply offer above-market rate for a remote worker, and then both parties would come out economically ahead. The way your comment was worded, I thought you meant accepting $140k/year was akin to being in abject poverty, which seemed like a very uninformed view of the world. I don't think that's what you meant though.
- matz1 7y ago

lotsofpulp 7y ago

The same reason no one offers to pay extra at the grocery store.

astura 7y ago

its a well established practice to establish compensation partly based on employee cost of living.

scarface74 7y ago
The employer doesn't care about an employee's cost of living. The employer wants to pay as little as possible. The employee wants to make as much as his local market will allow. What the employee will accept is based on his other alternatives which is indirectly based on the cost of living.