3 ms·

Show HN: Our fair salary calculator for remote teams (+ template)

6 points by clmntrg 5y ago

quickthrower2 5y ago
And surprise surprise, no location-based pricing on their money site: https://slite.com/pricing https://slite.com/pricing. So employees must reduce their salary if they live in a cheap cost of living, but companies based on that same cheap cost of living (i.e. low income) area don't get a discount for their services. In a post-Panama-Papers world, I don't blame individuals for optimizing like companies do. So good talent will live in Argentina and find a way to get a $200k+ salary, if that is what they are worth to someone. And why not, software is eating the world, afterall.
- clmntrg 5y ago
  That's a good point, I'm glad you're raising it. Indeed, we have a fair salary model but not a fair pricing (by country). But we have a fair billing policy (https://help.slite.com/en/articles/2008029-what-is-slite-s-fair-billing-policy https://help.slite.com/en/articles/2008029-what-is-slite-s-f...) and most of our customers are global actors that earn money from high cost of living countries.
- masterof0 5y ago
  Yeah, OP is not paying Argentineans 200k tho, you don't want their 5 engineers over there making Buenos Aires the next San Fran. lol
throwawaynay 5y ago
"Each employee in our team, no matter where they live, enjoy the same purchasing power (for the same role and level). But not the same pay." I think that's wrong, and just a way for the company to save as much money as possible. A fair salary should be a % of the $ value you create minus local taxes and expenses needed for your position(equipment, software, training...). Otherwise this isn't fair, this is just the bare minimum to retain employees in my opinion. For example personally I don't plan in staying long in my current city/country. But if I accepted local salaries I would never be able to save enough to move comfortably. Whereas someone with a salary calculated using your formula, but in a more expensive city, could move wherever he want easily, his savings would take him much further. So I only accept to work remotely for companies in richer locations who are able to pay more. Also local purchasing power usually doesn't apply to objects(electronics, cars...)
- masterof0 5y ago
  I agree, I feel is unfair to pay me (hypothetically) less just because I live in a poorer country. I think the Basecamp way[1] is a better approach. 1- https://m.signalvnoise.com/how-we-pay-people-at-basecamp/ https://m.signalvnoise.com/how-we-pay-people-at-basecamp/
  - clmntrg 5y ago
    It's not about leveraging the lower cost of poorer countries that we do that, as we actually have most of our team living in high cost of life ones. Part of the explanation why we do it this way can be found here, https://slite.com/blog/lets-pay-our-remote-employees-fairly-not-equally https://slite.com/blog/lets-pay-our-remote-employees-fairly-..., happy to continue the discussion if you want to!
    - masterof0 5y ago
      I read the article your justification to pay people leaving in poorer countries less if because it raises costs? > I'm personally afraid we're going to replicate the San Francisco phenomenon over and over, to cities elsewhere in the world. What do you mean by this? Your company paying 10 guys US market rates won't raise any city's rent prices. Rent prices are impacted by supply and demand. So you are afraid if you pay your employees San Francisco rates, their city will become San Fransisco? I don't understand the fear of some engineer in Argentina making 200k USD, wouldn't that make your company very desirable to work for over there? All the reasons you give in the article seems like excuses to no pay people certain rate. And about paying everyone SF rates, it does raises costs, duh, but it also raises the amount and quality of talent you can reach internationally. It feels you are seeking validation on a compensation scheme that's at least equal that most corporations and bring nothing new to plate, nor is any more fair than what everyone else is doing. That's why anyone can see why Basecamp holds the moral high ground on this topic.
      - jimkri 5y ago
        >It feels you are seeking validation on a compensation scheme that's at least equal that most corporations and bring nothing new to plate, nor is any more fair than what everyone else is doing. I think this is a great point, because exec's are not included in this pricing calculator. I think they totally should be. From the article and some other links I think the company is doing a great marketing campaign during a time where salaries and pay is a hot topic. I do not think salaries should be paid based on location, especially if the team is remote. Everyone is in the room (zoom room) and they should be paid on their skillset and value they bring to the team. Using location allows the company to focus on cost. This points to the fact they will be located in LOW cost of living locations, using fair calculator is the justification for lower salaries. Which links back to > If we start giving crazy high US salaries by default in remote, I'm personally afraid we're going to replicate the San Francisco phenomenon over and over, to cities elsewhere in the world. We should be giving employees higher salary based on the value they bring to the company. If the engineer from Argentina is more productive and bringing more value to the team but they are paid much lower than a team member in the US, this will cause internal conflict but the only person gaining is the company from the margin they will make from that employees contribution to their overall cost.

6 points by clmntrg 5y ago

And surprise surprise, no location-based pricing on their money site: https://slite.com/pricing https://slite.com/pricing. So employees must reduce their salary if they live in a cheap cost of living, but companies based on that same cheap cost of living (i.e. low income) area don't get a discount for their services. In a post-Panama-Papers world, I don't blame individuals for optimizing like companies do. So good talent will live in Argentina and find a way to get a $200k+ salary, if that is what they are worth to someone. And why not, software is eating the world, afterall.

clmntrg 5y ago
That's a good point, I'm glad you're raising it. Indeed, we have a fair salary model but not a fair pricing (by country). But we have a fair billing policy (https://help.slite.com/en/articles/2008029-what-is-slite-s-fair-billing-policy https://help.slite.com/en/articles/2008029-what-is-slite-s-f...) and most of our customers are global actors that earn money from high cost of living countries.
masterof0 5y ago
Yeah, OP is not paying Argentineans 200k tho, you don't want their 5 engineers over there making Buenos Aires the next San Fran. lol

throwawaynay 5y ago

"Each employee in our team, no matter where they live, enjoy the same purchasing power (for the same role and level). But not the same pay." I think that's wrong, and just a way for the company to save as much money as possible. A fair salary should be a % of the $ value you create minus local taxes and expenses needed for your position(equipment, software, training...). Otherwise this isn't fair, this is just the bare minimum to retain employees in my opinion. For example personally I don't plan in staying long in my current city/country. But if I accepted local salaries I would never be able to save enough to move comfortably. Whereas someone with a salary calculated using your formula, but in a more expensive city, could move wherever he want easily, his savings would take him much further. So I only accept to work remotely for companies in richer locations who are able to pay more. Also local purchasing power usually doesn't apply to objects(electronics, cars...)

masterof0 5y ago
I agree, I feel is unfair to pay me (hypothetically) less just because I live in a poorer country. I think the Basecamp way[1] is a better approach. 1- https://m.signalvnoise.com/how-we-pay-people-at-basecamp/ https://m.signalvnoise.com/how-we-pay-people-at-basecamp/
- clmntrg 5y ago
  It's not about leveraging the lower cost of poorer countries that we do that, as we actually have most of our team living in high cost of life ones. Part of the explanation why we do it this way can be found here, https://slite.com/blog/lets-pay-our-remote-employees-fairly-not-equally https://slite.com/blog/lets-pay-our-remote-employees-fairly-..., happy to continue the discussion if you want to!
  - masterof0 5y ago
    I read the article your justification to pay people leaving in poorer countries less if because it raises costs? > I'm personally afraid we're going to replicate the San Francisco phenomenon over and over, to cities elsewhere in the world. What do you mean by this? Your company paying 10 guys US market rates won't raise any city's rent prices. Rent prices are impacted by supply and demand. So you are afraid if you pay your employees San Francisco rates, their city will become San Fransisco? I don't understand the fear of some engineer in Argentina making 200k USD, wouldn't that make your company very desirable to work for over there? All the reasons you give in the article seems like excuses to no pay people certain rate. And about paying everyone SF rates, it does raises costs, duh, but it also raises the amount and quality of talent you can reach internationally. It feels you are seeking validation on a compensation scheme that's at least equal that most corporations and bring nothing new to plate, nor is any more fair than what everyone else is doing. That's why anyone can see why Basecamp holds the moral high ground on this topic.
    - jimkri 5y ago
      >It feels you are seeking validation on a compensation scheme that's at least equal that most corporations and bring nothing new to plate, nor is any more fair than what everyone else is doing. I think this is a great point, because exec's are not included in this pricing calculator. I think they totally should be. From the article and some other links I think the company is doing a great marketing campaign during a time where salaries and pay is a hot topic. I do not think salaries should be paid based on location, especially if the team is remote. Everyone is in the room (zoom room) and they should be paid on their skillset and value they bring to the team. Using location allows the company to focus on cost. This points to the fact they will be located in LOW cost of living locations, using fair calculator is the justification for lower salaries. Which links back to > If we start giving crazy high US salaries by default in remote, I'm personally afraid we're going to replicate the San Francisco phenomenon over and over, to cities elsewhere in the world. We should be giving employees higher salary based on the value they bring to the company. If the engineer from Argentina is more productive and bringing more value to the team but they are paid much lower than a team member in the US, this will cause internal conflict but the only person gaining is the company from the margin they will make from that employees contribution to their overall cost.