3 ms·

I hate that as well, but from the point of view of the employer it makes sense no? They are supposed to pay as little as they can afford, and location impacts t

by baby 4y ago

I hate that as well, but from the point of view of the employer it makes sense no? They are supposed to pay as little as they can afford, and location impacts that.

golergka 4y ago
Location impacts that only if the hiring is constrained by location. If you hire remote worldwide, then by all means, go for the cheapest developers that you can find worldwide, or go for developers who have my skills. Either way, it doesn't matter where we live. Especially if (as myself and many others) we don't live in one place and travel between different countries with drastically different local income levels.
- baby 4y ago
  Not sure I understand. But remote companies are doing exactly that, they're hiring not based on location to get talent from the whole world, and then they pay accordingly to the market of the candidate.
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    > they pay accordingly to the market of the candidate. But what, exactly, is "the market of the candidate"? You seem to be claiming that for these remote employers, "the market" is their whole nation, or even the entire world... So why wouldn't that be "the market" for their remote employees too?
makeitdouble 4y ago
"as little as they can afford" is still completely subjective, as they will pay more for an employee that is better valued on the market for any specific reason, regardless of the actual results once they join Gitlab. If tomorrow they declared they "need" to pay their employees 2x more to hire "A players" and get an edge on their competitors, we probably would have to take their word for it.
- baby 4y ago
  I'm not sure I understand. The way it works is that you look at the market where you're hiring someone, and seeing how people pay in that market (using different apps you can pay for). Then you decide which percentile you want to be part of (average payer, top payer, etc.) Of course I imagine that you can make up a number and say "I'll pay my employees X because I have money right now and this is what they deserve" but it doesn't sound like a good financial decision for a business.
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    You set a range when looking for someone, but you’ll hit people that request more and can anchor their numbers onto something tangible (e.g. their previous pay). You’ll be paying that + alpha if you want them. You can also set a range (let’s say “top payer”), and find no one that matches your criteria in that range. You’ll either choose to settle for lower requirements, or increase the pay to get people who match your requirements. The above all sound logic, but in the end it’s a made up number for subjective requirements, so you might completely be paying any arbitrary number to satisfy your criteria.

by baby 4y ago

I hate that as well, but from the point of view of the employer it makes sense no? They are supposed to pay as little as they can afford, and location impacts that.

golergka 4y ago

Location impacts that only if the hiring is constrained by location. If you hire remote worldwide, then by all means, go for the cheapest developers that you can find worldwide, or go for developers who have my skills. Either way, it doesn't matter where we live. Especially if (as myself and many others) we don't live in one place and travel between different countries with drastically different local income levels.

baby 4y ago
Not sure I understand. But remote companies are doing exactly that, they're hiring not based on location to get talent from the whole world, and then they pay accordingly to the market of the candidate.
- CRConrad 4y ago
  > they pay accordingly to the market of the candidate. But what, exactly, is "the market of the candidate"? You seem to be claiming that for these remote employers, "the market" is their whole nation, or even the entire world... So why wouldn't that be "the market" for their remote employees too?

makeitdouble 4y ago

"as little as they can afford" is still completely subjective, as they will pay more for an employee that is better valued on the market for any specific reason, regardless of the actual results once they join Gitlab. If tomorrow they declared they "need" to pay their employees 2x more to hire "A players" and get an edge on their competitors, we probably would have to take their word for it.

baby 4y ago
I'm not sure I understand. The way it works is that you look at the market where you're hiring someone, and seeing how people pay in that market (using different apps you can pay for). Then you decide which percentile you want to be part of (average payer, top payer, etc.) Of course I imagine that you can make up a number and say "I'll pay my employees X because I have money right now and this is what they deserve" but it doesn't sound like a good financial decision for a business.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  You set a range when looking for someone, but you’ll hit people that request more and can anchor their numbers onto something tangible (e.g. their previous pay). You’ll be paying that + alpha if you want them. You can also set a range (let’s say “top payer”), and find no one that matches your criteria in that range. You’ll either choose to settle for lower requirements, or increase the pay to get people who match your requirements. The above all sound logic, but in the end it’s a made up number for subjective requirements, so you might completely be paying any arbitrary number to satisfy your criteria.