3 ms·

I understood category 1, but that's where the author lost me. 1: "Companies only benchmarking against their local competition". So indeed a local dev shop will

by Aachen 4y ago

I understood category 1, but that's where the author lost me. 1: "Companies only benchmarking against their local competition". So indeed a local dev shop will compete against other local dev shops. Or a supermarket against other supermarkets nearby, this makes sense. 2: "Companies benchmarking against all local companies, even if they are not direct competitors". I understand the meaning of these words, but the examples don't compete with all local companies. Disney Streaming is globally competing against other streaming services, not competing against a local supermarket. And then category 3 is somehow competing regionally or globally (against all companies) instead of locally, but again I don't see the example GitLab doing anything different from Disney Streaming: both compete globally in their tech niche. If an architect job next door pays double, what do category 2|3 companies care?

Aachen 4y ago
While re-reading and revising the question, maybe I found the answer myself: the author doesn't mean all companies in the region when they say "all companies" (emphasis theirs), they mean that for job X (like developer), a supermarket is not trying to hire developers from other countries or continents. It's about the size of the pool of people that can do this job, not whom a company competes against with their product or service. Supposedly Disney doesn't hire globally just like the local supermarket whereas GitLab does. Why one would and the other wouldn't for the same type of job sounds like just a measure of wealth (a local supermarket wouldn't be able to pay for someone's relocation and competitive salary with other places in the world they could have gone to, and according to the author, Disney doesn't either), making this whole classification seem to get causality backwards. It's not that you earn more there because they're hiring in a broader pool in their greater desperation to attract more talent, it's that one simply pays more because they have more money in the bank to pay out, and that allows them to hire from a broader pool. In a good case, that then also attracts the better talent to keep up that greater money inflow.

by Aachen 4y ago

Aachen 4y ago

While re-reading and revising the question, maybe I found the answer myself: the author doesn't mean all companies in the region when they say "all companies" (emphasis theirs), they mean that for job X (like developer), a supermarket is not trying to hire developers from other countries or continents. It's about the size of the pool of people that can do this job, not whom a company competes against with their product or service. Supposedly Disney doesn't hire globally just like the local supermarket whereas GitLab does. Why one would and the other wouldn't for the same type of job sounds like just a measure of wealth (a local supermarket wouldn't be able to pay for someone's relocation and competitive salary with other places in the world they could have gone to, and according to the author, Disney doesn't either), making this whole classification seem to get causality backwards. It's not that you earn more there because they're hiring in a broader pool in their greater desperation to attract more talent, it's that one simply pays more because they have more money in the bank to pay out, and that allows them to hire from a broader pool. In a good case, that then also attracts the better talent to keep up that greater money inflow.