4 ms·

So your position is a company should pay the same $ for the same job, no matter where the person lives? Why would I ever hire someone that lives in SF/Cali/NY?

So your position is a company should pay the same $ for the same job, no matter where the person lives? Why would I ever hire someone that lives in SF/Cali/NY? In fact, why would I hire someone that lives in the US?

notreallyserio 5y ago
Why indeed? Is this supposed to be a dunk? If you're paying based on value derived from their work, what does it matter where they live (assuming remote work is acceptable, of course)?
- brianwawok 5y ago
  The entire argument of "There shouldn't be different pay scales based on where you live" is often given by, say someone who lives in Florida. And a rather big hole in that argument is "If you think Florida should make SF money, why don't we just skip both and get someone out of China/India/Russia"
  - notreallyserio 5y ago
    I'm not sure how that counts as a hole in the argument. Sure, get someone out of any country if they can do the job. That's the promise of the public Internet, connecting folks around the world. Seems like that would be a net benefit.
  - strikelaserclaw 5y ago
    You choose to live in SF, NYC or wherever, you get all the advantages of opportunity and networking with that, what makes someone deserve that?
- jdlshore 5y ago
  > If you're paying based on value derived from their work You're not. You're paying based on how much it would cost to find somebody to do the work. You're paying for time, not value. Profit comes from the difference between the two.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Unless you only ever hire people for extremely short periods of time, this is absurd on its face. The cost of finding somebody to do with work is always going to be tiny compared to the cost of paying someone to do the work. If their work does not have a value at least as high as what it will cost to pay them to do the work, you're not likely to hire them. If their work does have a value equal to or higher than what you will pay them, you have a reason to hire them. The cost of finding an employee can be significant, but pales compares to the actual cost of paying them.
    - jdlshore 5y ago
      I was unclear. I meant the cost to hire somebody to do the work, including their salary.
bavent 5y ago
Yes. Cost of living should have nothing to do with it. Do we pay people with kids more because their CoL is higher? Payment should be based 100% on work.
- brianwawok 5y ago
  Okay. Where do you live, and why do you deserve 10x more than someone who lives in India or eastern Europe?
  - cguess 5y ago
    In this case the people in India and Eastern Europe deserve to be paid more, not the other way around.
  - spaetzleesser 5y ago
    From my experience just being in the same time zone delivers a lot of value. For certain tasks it’s fine to have people in a time zone 10-12 hours off but in many other cases it causes a lot of communication delay and overhead.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    If they live in the continental U.S., one can argue that higher wage is at least based on not having to deal with annoyingly scheduled meetings because of disparate time zones.
  - strikelaserclaw 5y ago
    No one deserves anything, they deserve it if they can convince an employer to pay them that much. Theres no rule stopping SF employers from paying 50k for software engineering positions in the area.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  The market, as experienced by an employer, is “who are the people who are capable of doing this work, how much do they require to work for me, and if I pay them that amount, do I create value on net?” If someone else appears equally capable and willing to work for half or a quarter of what you are, it doesn’t matter much what the work is worth, they’re going to get the job much more often than you will. Employees want to get the most attractive compensation they can from an employer. Employers are not that different in this regard, in the other direction.
spaetzleesser 5y ago
When employers want to justify high pay for executives they always say it’s about the value you bring. If they want to justify low pay they say it’s because you are in a cheaper area.
- skeeter2020 5y ago
  both of these are supply and demand though, either real or perceived.
strikelaserclaw 5y ago
"So your position is a company should pay the same $ for the same job, no matter where the person lives?" Yes, no one should get paid less for the same work just cause they live in a cheaper area. Not to mention living in SF, NYC gives you way more opportunities than living in a low col, people don't seem to ever think of that point.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Generally sympathetic but ... Suppose that company X wants to hire me, and they want me to move to NYC and I say "there's no way I'm living in NYC unless you pay me an extra $30k a year to be based in that hellhole". They really want to hire me because I'm the best candidate, and they believe I'm so good that even with the extra $30k compensation, it is still in their best interests? Should they be allowed to do this? Conversely, company Y wants to hire me but are fine with me continuing to live in rural NM where my cost of living is relatively low. They offer me less than the a Sausalito-based employee doing similar work for them. I dispute this, and they point out that I don't even pay $3k a year in property taxes. I think about it for a while, and realize that my quality of life/disposable income will at least match if not exceed the person in Sausalito. I decide to accept the offer. Should they prevented from doing this?
  - Jiro 5y ago
    The salary that the company is willing to pay you depends on how much you are worth to them. In the scenario where you move to New York because they require your physical presence, your value to them depends on location so they would pay you more for being in New York. In the scenario where you work remotely, your value to them doesn't depend on location.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Far too simplistic. Companies have quite a lot of wiggle room in what they pay people. They might merely "prefer" my physical presence in NYC rather than require it, and prefer it sufficiently to pay me the extra. They might prefer that I was in the SF bay area too, but in that scenario, not so much that it's worth paying me the extra. It's gray zones all the way down, baby!
wayoutthere 5y ago
Many jobs (mine included) frequently involve sensitive information where my clients / regulators have rules that work must be done onshore. And go ahead and hire someone in a high CoL area — if your pay bands are flat across all people working a position and the job is remote, it’s honestly easier. Any variable comp for performance / seniority can be handled with a bonus structure.

notreallyserio 5y ago

Why indeed? Is this supposed to be a dunk? If you're paying based on value derived from their work, what does it matter where they live (assuming remote work is acceptable, of course)?

brianwawok 5y ago
The entire argument of "There shouldn't be different pay scales based on where you live" is often given by, say someone who lives in Florida. And a rather big hole in that argument is "If you think Florida should make SF money, why don't we just skip both and get someone out of China/India/Russia"
- notreallyserio 5y ago
  I'm not sure how that counts as a hole in the argument. Sure, get someone out of any country if they can do the job. That's the promise of the public Internet, connecting folks around the world. Seems like that would be a net benefit.
- strikelaserclaw 5y ago
  You choose to live in SF, NYC or wherever, you get all the advantages of opportunity and networking with that, what makes someone deserve that?
jdlshore 5y ago
> If you're paying based on value derived from their work You're not. You're paying based on how much it would cost to find somebody to do the work. You're paying for time, not value. Profit comes from the difference between the two.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Unless you only ever hire people for extremely short periods of time, this is absurd on its face. The cost of finding somebody to do with work is always going to be tiny compared to the cost of paying someone to do the work. If their work does not have a value at least as high as what it will cost to pay them to do the work, you're not likely to hire them. If their work does have a value equal to or higher than what you will pay them, you have a reason to hire them. The cost of finding an employee can be significant, but pales compares to the actual cost of paying them.
  - jdlshore 5y ago
    I was unclear. I meant the cost to hire somebody to do the work, including their salary.

bavent 5y ago

Yes. Cost of living should have nothing to do with it. Do we pay people with kids more because their CoL is higher? Payment should be based 100% on work.

brianwawok 5y ago
Okay. Where do you live, and why do you deserve 10x more than someone who lives in India or eastern Europe?
- cguess 5y ago
  In this case the people in India and Eastern Europe deserve to be paid more, not the other way around.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  From my experience just being in the same time zone delivers a lot of value. For certain tasks it’s fine to have people in a time zone 10-12 hours off but in many other cases it causes a lot of communication delay and overhead.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  If they live in the continental U.S., one can argue that higher wage is at least based on not having to deal with annoyingly scheduled meetings because of disparate time zones.
- strikelaserclaw 5y ago
  No one deserves anything, they deserve it if they can convince an employer to pay them that much. Theres no rule stopping SF employers from paying 50k for software engineering positions in the area.
sokoloff 5y ago
The market, as experienced by an employer, is “who are the people who are capable of doing this work, how much do they require to work for me, and if I pay them that amount, do I create value on net?” If someone else appears equally capable and willing to work for half or a quarter of what you are, it doesn’t matter much what the work is worth, they’re going to get the job much more often than you will. Employees want to get the most attractive compensation they can from an employer. Employers are not that different in this regard, in the other direction.

spaetzleesser 5y ago

When employers want to justify high pay for executives they always say it’s about the value you bring. If they want to justify low pay they say it’s because you are in a cheaper area.

skeeter2020 5y ago
both of these are supply and demand though, either real or perceived.

strikelaserclaw 5y ago

"So your position is a company should pay the same $ for the same job, no matter where the person lives?" Yes, no one should get paid less for the same work just cause they live in a cheaper area. Not to mention living in SF, NYC gives you way more opportunities than living in a low col, people don't seem to ever think of that point.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Generally sympathetic but ... Suppose that company X wants to hire me, and they want me to move to NYC and I say "there's no way I'm living in NYC unless you pay me an extra $30k a year to be based in that hellhole". They really want to hire me because I'm the best candidate, and they believe I'm so good that even with the extra $30k compensation, it is still in their best interests? Should they be allowed to do this? Conversely, company Y wants to hire me but are fine with me continuing to live in rural NM where my cost of living is relatively low. They offer me less than the a Sausalito-based employee doing similar work for them. I dispute this, and they point out that I don't even pay $3k a year in property taxes. I think about it for a while, and realize that my quality of life/disposable income will at least match if not exceed the person in Sausalito. I decide to accept the offer. Should they prevented from doing this?
- Jiro 5y ago
  The salary that the company is willing to pay you depends on how much you are worth to them. In the scenario where you move to New York because they require your physical presence, your value to them depends on location so they would pay you more for being in New York. In the scenario where you work remotely, your value to them doesn't depend on location.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Far too simplistic. Companies have quite a lot of wiggle room in what they pay people. They might merely "prefer" my physical presence in NYC rather than require it, and prefer it sufficiently to pay me the extra. They might prefer that I was in the SF bay area too, but in that scenario, not so much that it's worth paying me the extra. It's gray zones all the way down, baby!

wayoutthere 5y ago

Many jobs (mine included) frequently involve sensitive information where my clients / regulators have rules that work must be done onshore. And go ahead and hire someone in a high CoL area — if your pay bands are flat across all people working a position and the job is remote, it’s honestly easier. Any variable comp for performance / seniority can be handled with a bonus structure.