5 ms·

> Comp isn't a reward for good behaviour unless you are a prisoner begging guards for privileges or an animal doing tricks for treats - it's earned from value.

> Comp isn't a reward for good behaviour unless you are a prisoner begging guards for privileges or an animal doing tricks for treats - it's earned from value. Comp is a retention mechanism that’s determined by supply and demand. Not a single reasonable company will be willing to pay you more that’s bare minimum to keep you to stay. Hiring isn’t about rewarding workers based on the value they provide, it’s about optimizing costs so you can maximize profits. While location based term is a BS term, it is very real market mechanism. In your local market there’s less non remote companies than in high cost of living areas, that are willing to compete for you, so your price point is lower.

Tempest1981 6y ago
Yes, an easy way to understand this is to imagine yourself living where costs are low, and pay is adequate. Now you interview for a job that requires you to relocate to London or San Francisco. You wouldn't accept the offer unless the pay was much higher. Feels like this reasoning changes for those starting in San Francisco or London, looking to relocate?
- tharkun__ 6y ago
  Companies probably like people moving from the middle of nowhere to SF or London better though. Especially young kids will probably undervalue themselves. They may know or figure out that you gotta ask for more salary in those areas but they might not know how much exactly they need to ask for and/or go down too much when HR starts their spiel. Hopefully they've learned enough about how much the company values them and how much it cares about them, that they don't just accept a relocation and whatever salary their company gives them. I'm not too hopeful though, given what working conditions they already accept while living in SF (or wherever).
wpietri 6y ago
> Not a single reasonable company will be willing to pay you more that’s bare minimum to keep you to stay. That's definitely not true. Indeed, I think that's a pretty bad way to think about comp, leading to an adversarial employer/employee relationship. As examples, consider Netflix, which is widely known for paying above market, or Gravity Payments, which changed their minimum pay to $70k/year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Payments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Payments I'm just about to post 3 new positions, and I have no interest in squeezing people on cash comp. I want people who are happy, relaxed, and feel like they're being treated well. And I also want a fair salary structure. Could I pressure bad negotiators and naive people and pay less? Absolutely. Will I? Fuck no. Maximizing shareholder value has been called "the world's dumbest idea". I wouldn't go that far, but it's certainly up there.
- justapassenger 6y ago
  Netflix is skewing hiring heavily towards very senior people, and is paying all cash, no stock. For the level of skills, total compensation you get from them is pretty much in line with peer big tech in Bay Area market. You can call maximizing profits maximizing shareholder value, and often they’re aligned. But it’s how businesses were always designed to work, long before stock markets. Is it fair? Most likely not, but it’s business 101, same as me writing reliable production code is engineering 101.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    Businesses are not necessarily designed to maximize profits. In theory they’re designed to provide a comfortable lifestyle for the owner and keep them busy. If that involves maximizing profits, then great, but if the owner enjoys doing work with happy, un-stressed people more than he does a few humdred extra dollars in his pocket, it’s clearly not (only) about optimizing profits.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    > But it’s how businesses were always designed to work [citation needed] As far as I can tell, that's a modern, MBA-ish fantasy about the nature of business. I have small business owners in my family going back generations. Maximizing profit was not the goal. It was making a living and being part of a community. This is definitely not uncommon. See, for example, the writings of the late economist Alison Snow Jones: https://www.interfluidity.com/v2/1095.html https://www.interfluidity.com/v2/1095.html
  - jhardy54 6y ago
    > But it’s how businesses were always designed to work Who taught you this? If there's a specific historian pushing this narrative I'd love to know who it is, because on the surface this claim sounds absolutely outlandish.
- jiveturkey 6y ago
  gravity also famously walked that back. netflix may be famous for paying above market but actually they pay market.

Tempest1981 6y ago

Yes, an easy way to understand this is to imagine yourself living where costs are low, and pay is adequate. Now you interview for a job that requires you to relocate to London or San Francisco. You wouldn't accept the offer unless the pay was much higher. Feels like this reasoning changes for those starting in San Francisco or London, looking to relocate?

tharkun__ 6y ago
Companies probably like people moving from the middle of nowhere to SF or London better though. Especially young kids will probably undervalue themselves. They may know or figure out that you gotta ask for more salary in those areas but they might not know how much exactly they need to ask for and/or go down too much when HR starts their spiel. Hopefully they've learned enough about how much the company values them and how much it cares about them, that they don't just accept a relocation and whatever salary their company gives them. I'm not too hopeful though, given what working conditions they already accept while living in SF (or wherever).

wpietri 6y ago

> Not a single reasonable company will be willing to pay you more that’s bare minimum to keep you to stay. That's definitely not true. Indeed, I think that's a pretty bad way to think about comp, leading to an adversarial employer/employee relationship. As examples, consider Netflix, which is widely known for paying above market, or Gravity Payments, which changed their minimum pay to $70k/year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Payments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Payments I'm just about to post 3 new positions, and I have no interest in squeezing people on cash comp. I want people who are happy, relaxed, and feel like they're being treated well. And I also want a fair salary structure. Could I pressure bad negotiators and naive people and pay less? Absolutely. Will I? Fuck no. Maximizing shareholder value has been called "the world's dumbest idea". I wouldn't go that far, but it's certainly up there.

justapassenger 6y ago
Netflix is skewing hiring heavily towards very senior people, and is paying all cash, no stock. For the level of skills, total compensation you get from them is pretty much in line with peer big tech in Bay Area market. You can call maximizing profits maximizing shareholder value, and often they’re aligned. But it’s how businesses were always designed to work, long before stock markets. Is it fair? Most likely not, but it’s business 101, same as me writing reliable production code is engineering 101.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  Businesses are not necessarily designed to maximize profits. In theory they’re designed to provide a comfortable lifestyle for the owner and keep them busy. If that involves maximizing profits, then great, but if the owner enjoys doing work with happy, un-stressed people more than he does a few humdred extra dollars in his pocket, it’s clearly not (only) about optimizing profits.
- wpietri 6y ago
  > But it’s how businesses were always designed to work [citation needed] As far as I can tell, that's a modern, MBA-ish fantasy about the nature of business. I have small business owners in my family going back generations. Maximizing profit was not the goal. It was making a living and being part of a community. This is definitely not uncommon. See, for example, the writings of the late economist Alison Snow Jones: https://www.interfluidity.com/v2/1095.html https://www.interfluidity.com/v2/1095.html
- jhardy54 6y ago
  > But it’s how businesses were always designed to work Who taught you this? If there's a specific historian pushing this narrative I'd love to know who it is, because on the surface this claim sounds absolutely outlandish.
jiveturkey 6y ago
gravity also famously walked that back. netflix may be famous for paying above market but actually they pay market.