3 ms·

What's the alternative if you're going to scale salary based on location while hiring? If you only scale while hiring, you'll encourage people to "move" to Sili

What's the alternative if you're going to scale salary based on location while hiring? If you only scale while hiring, you'll encourage people to "move" to Silicon Valley for a month or two, then "move" back to their original location. There would be an enormous financial incentive for that behavior.

VonGuard 6y ago
This happens where I work now, and only one person I know has done the Jump-ship thing and moved to a rural area. It's easy to say "move to the bay, get a job with Facebook, move out" but getting a job with Facebook isn't easy, and moving is a ton of work. It's kinda like a problem that I really don't think would exist on a large scale. If the employee is worth X in the big city, they're worth X in the small city too, unless they were a shitty employee to begin with. In the end, the right people make the company, and if you're going to quibble over 10k of their salary, they should probably go somewhere else.
godelski 6y ago
Then it seems the factor here is being close to the office. I can get this benefit. So why not base it on distance to the office? Within 2 hours? No pay change. 6-12 hrs and in the same timezone? Small pay decrease. Need a flight to get to work? Bigger decrease. And adjust your decrease on how important it is that you be physically present/in the same timezone. If you never need to be in the office, no change. If once a week, big change. While there's still issues with this, at least it is recognizing the aspect that there is benefit to being in the office (though it is not always needed).
- falafel 6y ago
  So the employer punishes people that cannot afford to live close to the office? And on top of that, if they need to travel to conduct business, their pay is decreased? If I understand this right, it seems like a horrible idea, and I would not want to work at a place like that at all. If the company needs to hire talent that lives far away, why should they be punished?
  - godelski 6y ago
    I don't think you're getting it right. > So the employer punishes people that cannot afford to live close to the office? This already happens. If you aren't local, you can't even get the job. > if they need to travel to conduct business, their pay is decreased? Yes and no. If you're talking "I need you to go to China to meet with investors" no, if you're talking "we're having an all hands meeting on the first Monday of each month" then yes, but the employer is paying for your airfare and lodging as well. > If the company __needs__ to hire talent that lives far away, why should they be punished? Needs? Who said that? They just need employees. I'm talking about how much they need them in the office. If you don't need them in the office at all, then no pay differentials. But if you do need them in the office, well obviously there's different utility for that employee and should pay not reflect utility, as opposed to locality? I mentioned in another thread the following scenario. Office in SF, one remote worker in Phoenix, another in NYC. How does the one in NYC have more utility than the one in AZ? (which is how pay works under current remote schemes) I'd argue it is easier/cheaper to get the AZ employee to the office. The AZ employee also shares the same time zone half the year and is only an hour off the rest of the year. How is that fair? So why not make it a function of distance and how much you are needed in the office rather than where you live?

VonGuard 6y ago

This happens where I work now, and only one person I know has done the Jump-ship thing and moved to a rural area. It's easy to say "move to the bay, get a job with Facebook, move out" but getting a job with Facebook isn't easy, and moving is a ton of work. It's kinda like a problem that I really don't think would exist on a large scale. If the employee is worth X in the big city, they're worth X in the small city too, unless they were a shitty employee to begin with. In the end, the right people make the company, and if you're going to quibble over 10k of their salary, they should probably go somewhere else.

godelski 6y ago

Then it seems the factor here is being close to the office. I can get this benefit. So why not base it on distance to the office? Within 2 hours? No pay change. 6-12 hrs and in the same timezone? Small pay decrease. Need a flight to get to work? Bigger decrease. And adjust your decrease on how important it is that you be physically present/in the same timezone. If you never need to be in the office, no change. If once a week, big change. While there's still issues with this, at least it is recognizing the aspect that there is benefit to being in the office (though it is not always needed).

falafel 6y ago
So the employer punishes people that cannot afford to live close to the office? And on top of that, if they need to travel to conduct business, their pay is decreased? If I understand this right, it seems like a horrible idea, and I would not want to work at a place like that at all. If the company needs to hire talent that lives far away, why should they be punished?
- godelski 6y ago
  I don't think you're getting it right. > So the employer punishes people that cannot afford to live close to the office? This already happens. If you aren't local, you can't even get the job. > if they need to travel to conduct business, their pay is decreased? Yes and no. If you're talking "I need you to go to China to meet with investors" no, if you're talking "we're having an all hands meeting on the first Monday of each month" then yes, but the employer is paying for your airfare and lodging as well. > If the company __needs__ to hire talent that lives far away, why should they be punished? Needs? Who said that? They just need employees. I'm talking about how much they need them in the office. If you don't need them in the office at all, then no pay differentials. But if you do need them in the office, well obviously there's different utility for that employee and should pay not reflect utility, as opposed to locality? I mentioned in another thread the following scenario. Office in SF, one remote worker in Phoenix, another in NYC. How does the one in NYC have more utility than the one in AZ? (which is how pay works under current remote schemes) I'd argue it is easier/cheaper to get the AZ employee to the office. The AZ employee also shares the same time zone half the year and is only an hour off the rest of the year. How is that fair? So why not make it a function of distance and how much you are needed in the office rather than where you live?