4 ms·

I would like to ask why you feel a job should be rewarded differently based on location when the deliverables and other gains from the employee are the same? E

by ljm 7y ago

I would like to ask why you feel a job should be rewarded differently based on location when the deliverables and other gains from the employee are the same? E.g I don’t see why I should take a pay cut moving from the US to the EU. Looking at Basecamp, they give everyone the US salary and they arrange their culture around remote work that way. Note how it doesn’t even work this way between countries, through the ‘most favoured nation’ laws.

bmarnane 7y ago
We talk about our reasoning for paying local rates at https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-group/global-compensation/#paying-local-rates https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-group/global-compen...
- itake 7y ago
  Your wages aren't even competitive for SF.
  - bmarnane 7y ago
    We're always adjusting our calculations based on market research. Are you including the value of stock options as well?
    - itake 7y ago
      Options aren't worth much and may even end up being a liability. Current advice says to value options at $0. At least grant double binding RSUs.
austhrow743 7y ago
It allows them to capture extra value from employing people in areas with less competition from employers. They're not going to say that because a lot of people have odd ideas about compensation that they're very emotionally attached to. There are people that would take a job with them for $X when told its about cost of living fairness that would not take the job for $X if they were told it's about capturing surplus value. This is the same reason it's dangerous to share your compensation with coworkers as an employee. They don't just all say thank you for telling me and negotiate for a higher salary while acting discreetly with regard to your conversation, or start job searching; some will get real mad and irrational and there's a very good chance you'll be caught up in the fallout.
- onionisafruit 7y ago
  Piling on here...”pay me more because I live in San Francisco” carries about as much weight as “pay me more because I’ve got twelve kids have to pay alimony to two ex wives.”. It’s one thing when there is an office in San Francisco where you need to show up most days. When you are working from a spare bedroom, it really doesn’t matter where that bedroom is.
  - bad_user 7y ago
    It does matter, because payment isn't necessarily a reflection of delivered value, payment follows a supply and demand curve. If you don't pay SF rates to somebody living in a SF bedroom, then you can't hire that person, unless they accept leaving money on the table and nobody wants that, especially because wages usually reflect the cost of living in the area. So if you want to pay everyone the same wage, you either stop hiring from SF altogether or you give everyone SF salaries. The later option isn't feasible because if you pay everyone SF wages, then you might as well open an SF office and hire only from SF. Is SF overcrowded by companies? Plenty of tech hubs to choose from, you only need a decent university nearby and developers don't need to be in the same location as the sales team. As a matter of fact one reason companies hire outside of big tech hubs like SF is cost efficiency. Because remote work has disadvantages, like poor communications and the need for employees that can self manage well. You take cost savings off the table and remote work is much less appealing. Doesn't matter where they bedroom is? That's a socialist concept. Not in the world we live in.
    - JimDabell 7y ago
      > So if you want to pay everyone the same wage, you either stop hiring from SF altogether or you give everyone SF salaries. The first option is a perfectly reasonable position to take. There's less than a million people in SF. There's over seven billion people everywhere else. The people in SF aren't magical; people outside of SF can do the job just as well. > if you pay everyone SF wages, then you might as well open an SF office and hire only from SF. This statement only makes sense if the only thing you are considering is cost. Even if the cost is identical, it's still advantageous to hire remotely. It's easier to hire, there's a much larger pool of candidates, it lets you hire people who would otherwise be inaccessible to you for other reasons, it increases loyalty, there's no commute draining people's energy, etc. > Because remote work has disadvantages, like poor communications In my experience, fully remote teams are much better at communicating than mixed or onsite-only teams. Why do you think remote work brings poor communications?

by ljm 7y ago

bmarnane 7y ago

We talk about our reasoning for paying local rates at https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-group/global-compensation/#paying-local-rates https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-group/global-compen...

itake 7y ago
Your wages aren't even competitive for SF.
- bmarnane 7y ago
  We're always adjusting our calculations based on market research. Are you including the value of stock options as well?
  - itake 7y ago
    Options aren't worth much and may even end up being a liability. Current advice says to value options at $0. At least grant double binding RSUs.

austhrow743 7y ago

It allows them to capture extra value from employing people in areas with less competition from employers. They're not going to say that because a lot of people have odd ideas about compensation that they're very emotionally attached to. There are people that would take a job with them for $X when told its about cost of living fairness that would not take the job for $X if they were told it's about capturing surplus value. This is the same reason it's dangerous to share your compensation with coworkers as an employee. They don't just all say thank you for telling me and negotiate for a higher salary while acting discreetly with regard to your conversation, or start job searching; some will get real mad and irrational and there's a very good chance you'll be caught up in the fallout.

onionisafruit 7y ago
Piling on here...”pay me more because I live in San Francisco” carries about as much weight as “pay me more because I’ve got twelve kids have to pay alimony to two ex wives.”. It’s one thing when there is an office in San Francisco where you need to show up most days. When you are working from a spare bedroom, it really doesn’t matter where that bedroom is.
- bad_user 7y ago
  It does matter, because payment isn't necessarily a reflection of delivered value, payment follows a supply and demand curve. If you don't pay SF rates to somebody living in a SF bedroom, then you can't hire that person, unless they accept leaving money on the table and nobody wants that, especially because wages usually reflect the cost of living in the area. So if you want to pay everyone the same wage, you either stop hiring from SF altogether or you give everyone SF salaries. The later option isn't feasible because if you pay everyone SF wages, then you might as well open an SF office and hire only from SF. Is SF overcrowded by companies? Plenty of tech hubs to choose from, you only need a decent university nearby and developers don't need to be in the same location as the sales team. As a matter of fact one reason companies hire outside of big tech hubs like SF is cost efficiency. Because remote work has disadvantages, like poor communications and the need for employees that can self manage well. You take cost savings off the table and remote work is much less appealing. Doesn't matter where they bedroom is? That's a socialist concept. Not in the world we live in.
  - JimDabell 7y ago
    > So if you want to pay everyone the same wage, you either stop hiring from SF altogether or you give everyone SF salaries. The first option is a perfectly reasonable position to take. There's less than a million people in SF. There's over seven billion people everywhere else. The people in SF aren't magical; people outside of SF can do the job just as well. > if you pay everyone SF wages, then you might as well open an SF office and hire only from SF. This statement only makes sense if the only thing you are considering is cost. Even if the cost is identical, it's still advantageous to hire remotely. It's easier to hire, there's a much larger pool of candidates, it lets you hire people who would otherwise be inaccessible to you for other reasons, it increases loyalty, there's no commute draining people's energy, etc. > Because remote work has disadvantages, like poor communications In my experience, fully remote teams are much better at communicating than mixed or onsite-only teams. Why do you think remote work brings poor communications?