5 ms·

This could create a "golden chains" situation for employees, whereby they don't leave their job only because of the money, despite not being happy or as product

This could create a "golden chains" situation for employees, whereby they don't leave their job only because of the money, despite not being happy or as productive as they could be.

dannyr 6y ago
Doesn't that already exist working remote or not?
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  The effect is much more muted living somewhere like SF or NYC, because there's a bunch of companies around those areas that pay similarly that you could switch to. If other high-paying companies started also paying major tech hub wages to anywhere in the US for remote work, then this problem would be similarly alleviated.
kungito 6y ago
Since I've been feeling like this for most of my working life, I don't see why this would be a new thing.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ivanche 6y ago
It could also be a fast track to the financial freedom. Work for 10 years receiving an SF salary living in a low COL area, save agressively and invest in low-cost broad-market ETFs. One should be pretty well financially doing this.
- nly 6y ago
  w.r.t investing: If you're on a good income you are actually incentivized to do so in some countries. In the UK every pound you earn between $140K and $170K USD is effectively taxed at 65%. Investing via contributions in to a pension is tax free. 100% gross salary. Even if the market goes nowhere for 30 years that's 3.5% annualized return. You pay tax when you take your pension of course, but by that point its on your terms.
arkitaip 6y ago
That's an amazing problem to have for most people.
dan1234 6y ago
Even in that situation, you could save enough of your cash to eventually leave and strike out on your own / take a lower paying job with better satisfaction.
JackPoach 6y ago
It's a classic #firstworldproblem that many wish they had. I certainly wouldn't blame the employer for that.
- FartyMcFarter 6y ago
  It could be a problem for the employer as well, if it results in having a bunch of employees doing minimum effort.
  - brailsafe 6y ago
    My experience has told me that as an employee with no direct stake in the company, you should do little more than the minimum it takes to do what you're hired to do, and put all extra energy into literally anything else, like reducing your responsibility per dollar earned and total allotment of work hours. Anything else is a bad deal for you, but a great deal for real stakeholders. I say this, because most of the time your employer wouldn't give two shits about you, beyond what they're required to, and your widgets being produced is the only thing they really care about. There are exceptions of course, like companies that obviously will give you that raise as you work to improve your skills etc.. which you should be doing. But usually it's just a Jason Bateman movie waiting to happen.
    - goldcd 6y ago
      Way I see it, is that 'just doing the minimum' is utterly soul-destroying. And if you're doing that, then just you need to focus on everything else to stay sane. Work is never going to feel better. However, if you can find at least a bit of interest in something that you do, then it's rewarding to focus on it. You take pride in that 5%, you polish it, read up on it, stay a bit late to add that shiny new feature, you tell others about it etc. If others agree with you, it grows and then becomes 10, 20% etc of your time. Basically you're still stuck at work, when you'd rather be asleep under a duvet - but you've made that time more tolerable.
      - brailsafe 6y ago
Smaug123 6y ago
Isn't this an age-old story? Choosing whether or not to take a pay cut to get work you prefer? My initial reaction to "oh woe, my employer pays me so much that I don't want to leave!" is "… and this is a problem?"
- sokoloff 6y ago
  If you find the work tedious or unethical and have arranged your finances such that you’re trapped into the bi-weekly drip of cash, I’d find that to be a problem.
  - Smaug123 6y ago
    I can't help thinking that in that case this really is your fault. Remember, we're talking about SF tech salaries being given to employees who aren't in SF here; many people get by comfortably on far less. (Obviously there are orders of magnitude more people who get paid much less than the sums we're talking about, and don't have enough to get by comfortably. But the question is specifically about people who have been golden-chained to a job in the top 5%-ish of income.)
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      There is a type of chain that is "I'm seeking to FIRE in 10 years and if I quit this job, I can't do that." It doesn't have to be yachts, jets, or nose candy causing the pressure. [0] - FIRE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_movement
      - Smaug123 6y ago
        I still don't see how your position is any worse when Spotify is paying you more.
        sokoloff 6y ago
        In one case, Spotify is paying me a locally-relevant market wage and I quit Spotify when I find working there mentally exhausting, easily matching my income from my choice of other local employers. Because that market wage is lower than SF, I experience lesser lifestyle inflation and still FIRE in 10 years or I choose to have a more luxe retirement and retire in 16 years. In the other case, Spotify is dumping cash on me by the bucketload, we drive new cars, live in an amazing house, I regularly take amazing vacations with my family, kids go to private schools, and I still plan to FIRE in 10 years and be able to maintain that lifestyle. 3 years in, I realize that I'm miserable and the thought of grinding out 7 more years of this is difficult to bear, but I can't bear asking my family to curtail their standard of living to accommodate my unwillingness to keep bearing the burden of the daily grind. Am I as a person happier in scenario 1 or scenario 2? There's no question that you're richer in scenario 2, but life isn't all about money.
senko 6y ago
You've just described how employment feels for most people. Y'think people who work two jobs do it so they can maximize their hapiness and productivity?
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Or to rephrase, the employer gets long term commitment and loyalty from their employees because they get the best reward. The alternative is job hoppers, and I don't think you can create a business out of people who skip town whenever they get a better offer. Mind you, the insane wage difference in SF is partly caused by job hoppers and scalping between the big and highly funded companies.
- levosmetalo 6y ago
  You speak here as if it's somehow not fair for the companies that employers get paid more? As if the competition only works in one direction, to reduce the salaries, because employees are interchangeable. Instead, let's enjoy the interchangeability of employers for a while and use the competition of companies for the best talent in our advantage. At least while it lasts.
- EvilEy3 6y ago
  > Mind you, the insane wage difference in SF is partly caused by companies that value their employees and are willing to pay proper salary Fixed for you.

This could create a "golden chains" situation for employees, whereby they don't leave their job only because of the money, despite not being happy or as productive as they could be.

dannyr 6y ago

Doesn't that already exist working remote or not?

TulliusCicero 6y ago
The effect is much more muted living somewhere like SF or NYC, because there's a bunch of companies around those areas that pay similarly that you could switch to. If other high-paying companies started also paying major tech hub wages to anywhere in the US for remote work, then this problem would be similarly alleviated.

kungito 6y ago

Since I've been feeling like this for most of my working life, I don't see why this would be a new thing.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ivanche 6y ago

It could also be a fast track to the financial freedom. Work for 10 years receiving an SF salary living in a low COL area, save agressively and invest in low-cost broad-market ETFs. One should be pretty well financially doing this.

nly 6y ago
w.r.t investing: If you're on a good income you are actually incentivized to do so in some countries. In the UK every pound you earn between $140K and $170K USD is effectively taxed at 65%. Investing via contributions in to a pension is tax free. 100% gross salary. Even if the market goes nowhere for 30 years that's 3.5% annualized return. You pay tax when you take your pension of course, but by that point its on your terms.

arkitaip 6y ago

That's an amazing problem to have for most people.

dan1234 6y ago

Even in that situation, you could save enough of your cash to eventually leave and strike out on your own / take a lower paying job with better satisfaction.

JackPoach 6y ago

It's a classic #firstworldproblem that many wish they had. I certainly wouldn't blame the employer for that.

FartyMcFarter 6y ago
It could be a problem for the employer as well, if it results in having a bunch of employees doing minimum effort.
- brailsafe 6y ago
  My experience has told me that as an employee with no direct stake in the company, you should do little more than the minimum it takes to do what you're hired to do, and put all extra energy into literally anything else, like reducing your responsibility per dollar earned and total allotment of work hours. Anything else is a bad deal for you, but a great deal for real stakeholders. I say this, because most of the time your employer wouldn't give two shits about you, beyond what they're required to, and your widgets being produced is the only thing they really care about. There are exceptions of course, like companies that obviously will give you that raise as you work to improve your skills etc.. which you should be doing. But usually it's just a Jason Bateman movie waiting to happen.
  - goldcd 6y ago
    Way I see it, is that 'just doing the minimum' is utterly soul-destroying. And if you're doing that, then just you need to focus on everything else to stay sane. Work is never going to feel better. However, if you can find at least a bit of interest in something that you do, then it's rewarding to focus on it. You take pride in that 5%, you polish it, read up on it, stay a bit late to add that shiny new feature, you tell others about it etc. If others agree with you, it grows and then becomes 10, 20% etc of your time. Basically you're still stuck at work, when you'd rather be asleep under a duvet - but you've made that time more tolerable.
    - brailsafe 6y ago

Smaug123 6y ago

Isn't this an age-old story? Choosing whether or not to take a pay cut to get work you prefer? My initial reaction to "oh woe, my employer pays me so much that I don't want to leave!" is "… and this is a problem?"

sokoloff 6y ago
If you find the work tedious or unethical and have arranged your finances such that you’re trapped into the bi-weekly drip of cash, I’d find that to be a problem.
- Smaug123 6y ago
  I can't help thinking that in that case this really is your fault. Remember, we're talking about SF tech salaries being given to employees who aren't in SF here; many people get by comfortably on far less. (Obviously there are orders of magnitude more people who get paid much less than the sums we're talking about, and don't have enough to get by comfortably. But the question is specifically about people who have been golden-chained to a job in the top 5%-ish of income.)
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    There is a type of chain that is "I'm seeking to FIRE in 10 years and if I quit this job, I can't do that." It doesn't have to be yachts, jets, or nose candy causing the pressure. [0] - FIRE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_movement
    - Smaug123 6y ago
      I still don't see how your position is any worse when Spotify is paying you more.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        In one case, Spotify is paying me a locally-relevant market wage and I quit Spotify when I find working there mentally exhausting, easily matching my income from my choice of other local employers. Because that market wage is lower than SF, I experience lesser lifestyle inflation and still FIRE in 10 years or I choose to have a more luxe retirement and retire in 16 years. In the other case, Spotify is dumping cash on me by the bucketload, we drive new cars, live in an amazing house, I regularly take amazing vacations with my family, kids go to private schools, and I still plan to FIRE in 10 years and be able to maintain that lifestyle. 3 years in, I realize that I'm miserable and the thought of grinding out 7 more years of this is difficult to bear, but I can't bear asking my family to curtail their standard of living to accommodate my unwillingness to keep bearing the burden of the daily grind. Am I as a person happier in scenario 1 or scenario 2? There's no question that you're richer in scenario 2, but life isn't all about money.

senko 6y ago

You've just described how employment feels for most people. Y'think people who work two jobs do it so they can maximize their hapiness and productivity?

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

Or to rephrase, the employer gets long term commitment and loyalty from their employees because they get the best reward. The alternative is job hoppers, and I don't think you can create a business out of people who skip town whenever they get a better offer. Mind you, the insane wage difference in SF is partly caused by job hoppers and scalping between the big and highly funded companies.

levosmetalo 6y ago
You speak here as if it's somehow not fair for the companies that employers get paid more? As if the competition only works in one direction, to reduce the salaries, because employees are interchangeable. Instead, let's enjoy the interchangeability of employers for a while and use the competition of companies for the best talent in our advantage. At least while it lasts.
EvilEy3 6y ago
> Mind you, the insane wage difference in SF is partly caused by companies that value their employees and are willing to pay proper salary Fixed for you.