4 ms·

I feel that I'm in the minority here, but this appears to be a somewhat understandable move. To be able to live in the location you most desire is, frankly, sti

I feel that I'm in the minority here, but this appears to be a somewhat understandable move. To be able to live in the location you most desire is, frankly, still a luxury for the time being and while I hope that's not the status quo forever it's definitely the case now. And, to attempt to refute the points made that the worker a value adds to a company doesn't depend on location, I completely agree with the basic premise - but I feel that salary should be adjusted so that all employees can share a similar quality-of-life across the board wherever they're geographically based. Maybe I am a little bit biased because I'm currently on the other side of this coin. I work at a company based in the US South, and managed to get into their more cutting-edge and innovative NYC office. Plus, I'm from NYC and love the city, it's my ideal location to live and work. Yet, while their NYC office is "cost-of-living adjusted" for salary, I am certainly worse off than the employees based out of the HQ. The difference in pay to provide the same quality-of-life between a huge global city and a mid-sized regional city can be staggering. And obviously, I know I could live way out in an outer borough or in Long Island / Westchester / NJ and have the same overall costs associated with someone in the HQ, but then I'm 60+ minutes from the office and my ideal life/work location anyway.

ghaff 6y ago
The Bay Area salaries paid by the big tech employers are not really representative of the "CoL allowances" historically paid for working in places like Manhattan and SV. With some exceptions, like successful Wall Street traders, Big Law, etc., additional comp earned in those places was still not usually enough to make up for higher living costs. Today that's probably not the case at at least a handful of big companies.
- carterklein13 6y ago
  I'm a bit confused by your wording of your first sentence, honestly. Also, what's probably not the case? I feel that working at a big tech firm is akin to working in IB/consulting/law at this point in terms of pay/bonus (bonus at big tech being the RSUs as opposed to cash, but a "bonus" nonetheless). I'd just like to best understand your point, as this is going to be an interesting topic we're going to see more and more in the coming months/years I think.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    As many frequently argue here, dev comp at the big tech employers does generally compensate and more for the high CoL in the Bay Area. Historically, I don't think that was generally the case in places like the Bay Area and Manhattan. I know when I looked at some Bay Area opportunities way back when, people were quite candid that the salaries on offer couldn't really compensate for housing prices. That said, there were probably some exceptions, especially in NYC, similar to how tech is today.

ghaff 6y ago

The Bay Area salaries paid by the big tech employers are not really representative of the "CoL allowances" historically paid for working in places like Manhattan and SV. With some exceptions, like successful Wall Street traders, Big Law, etc., additional comp earned in those places was still not usually enough to make up for higher living costs. Today that's probably not the case at at least a handful of big companies.

carterklein13 6y ago
I'm a bit confused by your wording of your first sentence, honestly. Also, what's probably not the case? I feel that working at a big tech firm is akin to working in IB/consulting/law at this point in terms of pay/bonus (bonus at big tech being the RSUs as opposed to cash, but a "bonus" nonetheless). I'd just like to best understand your point, as this is going to be an interesting topic we're going to see more and more in the coming months/years I think.
- ghaff 6y ago
  As many frequently argue here, dev comp at the big tech employers does generally compensate and more for the high CoL in the Bay Area. Historically, I don't think that was generally the case in places like the Bay Area and Manhattan. I know when I looked at some Bay Area opportunities way back when, people were quite candid that the salaries on offer couldn't really compensate for housing prices. That said, there were probably some exceptions, especially in NYC, similar to how tech is today.