4 ms·
I think the standard argument is not that they're paying according to need, they're paying according to market norms. Thing is, in high cost of living areas th
by davnicwil 7y ago
I think the standard argument is not that they're paying according to need, they're paying according to market norms.
Thing is, in high cost of living areas the living cost is extremely pegged to job opportunities, it's almost tautological. Where there are more job opportunities, you have to pay people more to stop them working for competitors. A confounding factor is a hypothesised (not sure if backed by data) trend of talent concentration - that is, areas with lots of job opportunities attract most of the most talented people, driving salaries up further.
All that's to say, if Gitlab want to hire someone living in such an area, the market dictates they must pay more in order to attract that person over a local competitor (for jobs). It's not due to the person needing the money more for a higher cost of living, at all.
- imsofuture 7y agoGitlab's idea of market norms is "market where you live + us, literally the only company that hires remote in the world". Spoiler: that only works hiring those who are ignorant of the remote employment market.
- alexhutcheson 7y agoAssuming I'm currently ignorant of the remote employment market, where would I go to find data or job listings that would give me a sense of what competitive rates are for remote engineers?
- imsofuture 7y agoI'm not sure there's a great canonical and generalized source of this information. Anecdotally, 7 years ago, remote, at a bootstrapped 15 person company, I made ~10% more than the absolute max Gitlab would pay me right now. The difference is wildly worse now.
- stubish 7y agoWhat is never factored in is the feeling of resentment people get for doing the same or better work for less pay. While companies can rationalize these pay scales and maybe even require them to be sustainable, loyalty and engagement suffers noticeably.