4 ms·

I may have a very controversial take on this but I would share it regardless. The moment you compete with remote developers all around the world, you have to be

I may have a very controversial take on this but I would share it regardless. The moment you compete with remote developers all around the world, you have to be really really good to command great salaries. The reason is that the employers have a very wide pool to select from instead of location specific. So as an employer, I don't have an incentive to just pay "SF Salary" unless I find that really exceptional candidate. So focus on becoming that really really good candidate who can command SF level salary while living in say Thailand or whatever your choice of stay is. Otherwise, you are competing with hundreds and thousands of people and if you are just about as good as them, someone is willing to work for less than SF salary. Supply/demand ? Also, a company may be ok with a good enough dev. who costs much less than a great dev. who costs a lot more.

one2know 6y ago
Salary has very little with how "good" you are, and determining "good" is the essence of this scam industry. Hypothetically, lets say there are devs being paid $1MM per year who are kicking back $250-500k to their managers who got them the jobs. They do the same work as everyone else. Are they good?
- stephenr 6y ago
  In most industries, more experience = more pay. Not all, not always fairly, but generally. In tech, more experience in a niche field generally = even more money. It’s not that different than paying for regular items. There is supply and demand at play (hence niche roles will often pay higher) and the basic concept of “you get what you pay for”. Generally a more experienced developer will be more productive. Generally that means they’ll be compensated more. SF salaries are pushing the supply and demand part heavily: without sufficient salary the candidates can’t afford to live where the job is because it’s so over populated.
- asdkhadsj 6y ago
  Oh it entirely does. But I think you're confusing the source for "good". As the GP said, supply and demand, you're competing with a lot more developers when you work remote. I think we'd all agree there, right? So now the company hiring has a large pool they need to sort through. How do you choose? Well they _could_ just choose the "best", but they get to define best, or good, right? Some companies may literally want to choose the best client they can, but many will want to balance all variables. They want a skilled candidate, who fits their culture, for a price that leaves them with a good feeling. A candidate willing to accept less pay is a value in itself. If the candidate meets or exceeds the minimum skill that the company is desiring, the cheap price tag is often great. Now I know this is a complex topic, but as a remote worker and someone who has hired many remote workers for a company with real, limited non-VC income, salary matters. Even in just the candidates I've interviewed, if they were all the same price tag I would have different coworkers today. Which isn't to say that my coworkers are bad or that we hired poorly, we hired based on variables at the time, and we made the right decision. Price has nothing to do with candidate skill, but is still often top tier variable in choosing a candidate. It is not a scam. It is reality.
  - codegeek 6y ago
    Very well said.
  - one2know 6y ago
    The labor market is not as efficient as your one data point makes you think. At big corporations hundreds of millions are thrown around like paper. All you need is a large corporation, some intense groupthink, and some kickbacks and the company is going to be paying $1MM for a remote worker barely better than a recent graduate. With monetary persuasion people are able to make management buy into calling someone who is nothing a purple squirrel critical to the company.
    - asdkhadsj 6y ago
      What does that matter to the conversation, though? My point was merely that compensation is merely a variable. As with any variables different companies will value different things. In your example the company has almost no concern for compensation amounts. My reply was to the idea that cost is irrelevant and merely a tool to scam employees out of money. That is ridiculous. As I mentioned, I personally have valued the compensation variable heavily. And I (or rather the group of people I work with) are certainly not some evil masterminds trying to scam employees out of potential earnings.
- neonate 6y ago
  If you have to invoke a fabricated scenario to make your point, it suggests that your argument is weak.
maest 6y ago
I'm having a hard time understanding why this is controversial. Can someone with a dissenting opinion chime in? I'm curious what the other side of the argument sounds like.
- lgl 6y ago
  It's not really controversial, but just a kind of sad state-of-the-world type thing imho. While there are undoubtedly a lot of talented developers in SF, "SF salary" doesn't really equate with talent and it's mostly there due to the uber expensive nature of the place and US economy expectations afaik. For example, I'm pretty sure there are a ton of developers all around the world that are much more talented and hard working that a lot of people getting paid "SF salaries" in SF and that are paid but a small percentage of even an average "SF salary" OP is right because the differences can be so abysmal that even just 1 month of "SF Salary" can be much greater that 1+ years of salary in other countries for basically the same job. So it would be an obvious choice that if companies can get a remote developer that's just as productive for 20k/year it would make no sense to pay >120k..150k/year (which seems to be the average for a software engineer according to payscale).
- codegeek 6y ago
  The other side usually is "Why should we restrict salaries based on location. Where a developer lives should NOT matter for a job and why should they get paid less than someone in SF ?" But my point is that it DOES matter as there are other factors involved and not just location. Lets say that I find a great developer who wants SF salary vs a good enough developer who wants 1/5th of the SF salary, I may not need that great dev. at that cost. The "good enough" developer will be, well good enough and worth it. A lot of developers (and don't get me wrong, I am one too) tend to overestimate their abilities and expect high salaries just because devs get paid high salaries in general.

one2know 6y ago

Salary has very little with how "good" you are, and determining "good" is the essence of this scam industry. Hypothetically, lets say there are devs being paid $1MM per year who are kicking back $250-500k to their managers who got them the jobs. They do the same work as everyone else. Are they good?

stephenr 6y ago
In most industries, more experience = more pay. Not all, not always fairly, but generally. In tech, more experience in a niche field generally = even more money. It’s not that different than paying for regular items. There is supply and demand at play (hence niche roles will often pay higher) and the basic concept of “you get what you pay for”. Generally a more experienced developer will be more productive. Generally that means they’ll be compensated more. SF salaries are pushing the supply and demand part heavily: without sufficient salary the candidates can’t afford to live where the job is because it’s so over populated.
asdkhadsj 6y ago
Oh it entirely does. But I think you're confusing the source for "good". As the GP said, supply and demand, you're competing with a lot more developers when you work remote. I think we'd all agree there, right? So now the company hiring has a large pool they need to sort through. How do you choose? Well they _could_ just choose the "best", but they get to define best, or good, right? Some companies may literally want to choose the best client they can, but many will want to balance all variables. They want a skilled candidate, who fits their culture, for a price that leaves them with a good feeling. A candidate willing to accept less pay is a value in itself. If the candidate meets or exceeds the minimum skill that the company is desiring, the cheap price tag is often great. Now I know this is a complex topic, but as a remote worker and someone who has hired many remote workers for a company with real, limited non-VC income, salary matters. Even in just the candidates I've interviewed, if they were all the same price tag I would have different coworkers today. Which isn't to say that my coworkers are bad or that we hired poorly, we hired based on variables at the time, and we made the right decision. Price has nothing to do with candidate skill, but is still often top tier variable in choosing a candidate. It is not a scam. It is reality.
- codegeek 6y ago
  Very well said.
- one2know 6y ago
  The labor market is not as efficient as your one data point makes you think. At big corporations hundreds of millions are thrown around like paper. All you need is a large corporation, some intense groupthink, and some kickbacks and the company is going to be paying $1MM for a remote worker barely better than a recent graduate. With monetary persuasion people are able to make management buy into calling someone who is nothing a purple squirrel critical to the company.
  - asdkhadsj 6y ago
    What does that matter to the conversation, though? My point was merely that compensation is merely a variable. As with any variables different companies will value different things. In your example the company has almost no concern for compensation amounts. My reply was to the idea that cost is irrelevant and merely a tool to scam employees out of money. That is ridiculous. As I mentioned, I personally have valued the compensation variable heavily. And I (or rather the group of people I work with) are certainly not some evil masterminds trying to scam employees out of potential earnings.
neonate 6y ago
If you have to invoke a fabricated scenario to make your point, it suggests that your argument is weak.

maest 6y ago

I'm having a hard time understanding why this is controversial. Can someone with a dissenting opinion chime in? I'm curious what the other side of the argument sounds like.

lgl 6y ago
It's not really controversial, but just a kind of sad state-of-the-world type thing imho. While there are undoubtedly a lot of talented developers in SF, "SF salary" doesn't really equate with talent and it's mostly there due to the uber expensive nature of the place and US economy expectations afaik. For example, I'm pretty sure there are a ton of developers all around the world that are much more talented and hard working that a lot of people getting paid "SF salaries" in SF and that are paid but a small percentage of even an average "SF salary" OP is right because the differences can be so abysmal that even just 1 month of "SF Salary" can be much greater that 1+ years of salary in other countries for basically the same job. So it would be an obvious choice that if companies can get a remote developer that's just as productive for 20k/year it would make no sense to pay >120k..150k/year (which seems to be the average for a software engineer according to payscale).
codegeek 6y ago
The other side usually is "Why should we restrict salaries based on location. Where a developer lives should NOT matter for a job and why should they get paid less than someone in SF ?" But my point is that it DOES matter as there are other factors involved and not just location. Lets say that I find a great developer who wants SF salary vs a good enough developer who wants 1/5th of the SF salary, I may not need that great dev. at that cost. The "good enough" developer will be, well good enough and worth it. A lot of developers (and don't get me wrong, I am one too) tend to overestimate their abilities and expect high salaries just because devs get paid high salaries in general.