6 ms·

If I am hiring outside the US, I'm doing it to save money. I'm willing to accept the downsides -- schedule differences, language barriers, etc, in order to sav

If I am hiring outside the US, I'm doing it to save money. I'm willing to accept the downsides -- schedule differences, language barriers, etc, in order to save money. Otherwise I would just hire someone in the US. So if a foreign dev were to tell me I had to pay the US rates, I'd pass. I think you should negotiate for as much as you can, but it is unrealistic to benchmark yourself against US employees of a US company based strictly on your skillset without any appreciation for other perfectly valid factors.

mutt2016 4y ago
Same, and I hold certain cultural biases too. Which is horrible, but also learned experience. Certain countries have stronger low level programmers, some cultures make for poor leadership traits, while others seem to create amazing UI/UX skills. Understanding there are no absolutes, and people are people, I just continue to observe some countries produce interesting niche skills. Like in my home town, C# is king.
- version_five 4y ago
  I've said this before: it's not really that there is some inherent thing about being from a country that makes people better or worse. But it certainly correlates, because of education, etc. I (and most remote north America workers) could go live in India and get the same money I do now. Nobody cares about location, but they do care about the labor market based on skills and education, and that's what they are hiring from and that's why people get paid less.
- uxcolumbo 4y ago
  Which country or countries do you see that have great UX folks?
withinboredom 4y ago
And what are you going to do if that dev moves to the US while working for you (such as on a partner visa)? Are you going to pay them more or fire them? I don’t work for less as an American Expat, I work for how much I’m worth (which is a lot more than local wages) and I live where I live because the money let’s my wife stay at home, in a nice house in a nice neighborhood instead of us both working our asses off just to have a decent house in a shitty neighborhood. If you want to pay local wages, go be a local and hire locals.
- frostwarrior 4y ago
  I had an interview a few days ago and I asked something similar. I asked about the possibility to travel to the US to greet my coworkers and work alongside them. They said they won't raise my salary and they expect me to stay in my region (Latin America). They also said that if I go to the US or Europe, it would be though to live there with my remote salary. It felt somewhat insulting tbh. As if they said "we want you as disposable cheap labor, not to become a part of the company" directly upfront.
  - mattdeboard 4y ago
    Exactly. Alienation from the fruits of your labor. It's disgusting we expect people to tolerate it, and act like it's not a totally optional choice by management to exploit labor resources to get a better return on investment for the already wealthy. A modern take on colonization.
    - Friday0722 4y ago
      On the other hand, the only reason the company hired someone overseas was to save money. They would not have even considered these candidates if they weren't hugely cheaper. Instead, the company would have hired from the local labor market instead. What the submitter should be asking themselves, is whether they can pull a higher wage working from their current location with any other company. If they can do that, they should. If they can't, and it's likely that they cannot because most companies are operating similarly, then they're getting a fair market rate for their situation. That's the free market.
      - mattdeboard 4y ago
        Well, we agree that "cheaper labor" is desirable because it's more profitable to the company right? So let's apply transitivity to your first paragraph: "The only reason the company hired someone overseas was to make more money. They would not have even considered these candidates if they weren't hugely more profitable. Instead, the company would have hired from the local labor market instead." Yeah, what you are describing is practically the definition of exploitation of labor by capital, and alienation of the worker from the value they create.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
slyall 4y ago
As a non-US worker I definitely agree. My big advantage over US-based employees is that I'll work for less. Why would I insist on getting paid exactly the same as a Bay-area employee when I could ask for significantly less and be well ahead of what I could make locally?
- oaiey 4y ago
  Even goes that far that companies fire first in the US and then in other locations (assuming same performance).
- herbst 4y ago
  I was going to ask exactly that. Don't people in tech in the bay area work on average something like 60 hours a week? Barely anyone in Europe is working more than 40 (or 42) hours.
  - gcommer 4y ago
    This is a common thought but it certainly hasnt been the case at any of the bay area startups or faangs I have worked at or interviewed for. Always 40 hrs. Are there super heavy hustle places? Probably, but most places realize more time is not linearly more output for creative/knowledge work. (Similarly, the internet would have you think anywhere offering "unlimited vacation" is a scam but I used and loved it)
opportune 4y ago
I agree with this in general but it depends on the individual. If I were looking to hire someone who was extremely smart/an expert on X I'd be focused more on their value:cost than location. But for large tech companies that's not how you're hired - a body is needed to fill head count and the overlords determined that this particular position was better filled by a body in a cheaper country. Even if you do turn out to be very valuable to the company, the system is not set up to accomodate that scenario (and realistically, if you leave, the company can just hire another 5 people and hope to get another very valuable person among them).

mutt2016 4y ago

Same, and I hold certain cultural biases too. Which is horrible, but also learned experience. Certain countries have stronger low level programmers, some cultures make for poor leadership traits, while others seem to create amazing UI/UX skills. Understanding there are no absolutes, and people are people, I just continue to observe some countries produce interesting niche skills. Like in my home town, C# is king.

version_five 4y ago
I've said this before: it's not really that there is some inherent thing about being from a country that makes people better or worse. But it certainly correlates, because of education, etc. I (and most remote north America workers) could go live in India and get the same money I do now. Nobody cares about location, but they do care about the labor market based on skills and education, and that's what they are hiring from and that's why people get paid less.
uxcolumbo 4y ago
Which country or countries do you see that have great UX folks?

withinboredom 4y ago

And what are you going to do if that dev moves to the US while working for you (such as on a partner visa)? Are you going to pay them more or fire them? I don’t work for less as an American Expat, I work for how much I’m worth (which is a lot more than local wages) and I live where I live because the money let’s my wife stay at home, in a nice house in a nice neighborhood instead of us both working our asses off just to have a decent house in a shitty neighborhood. If you want to pay local wages, go be a local and hire locals.

frostwarrior 4y ago
I had an interview a few days ago and I asked something similar. I asked about the possibility to travel to the US to greet my coworkers and work alongside them. They said they won't raise my salary and they expect me to stay in my region (Latin America). They also said that if I go to the US or Europe, it would be though to live there with my remote salary. It felt somewhat insulting tbh. As if they said "we want you as disposable cheap labor, not to become a part of the company" directly upfront.
- mattdeboard 4y ago
  Exactly. Alienation from the fruits of your labor. It's disgusting we expect people to tolerate it, and act like it's not a totally optional choice by management to exploit labor resources to get a better return on investment for the already wealthy. A modern take on colonization.
  - Friday0722 4y ago
    On the other hand, the only reason the company hired someone overseas was to save money. They would not have even considered these candidates if they weren't hugely cheaper. Instead, the company would have hired from the local labor market instead. What the submitter should be asking themselves, is whether they can pull a higher wage working from their current location with any other company. If they can do that, they should. If they can't, and it's likely that they cannot because most companies are operating similarly, then they're getting a fair market rate for their situation. That's the free market.
    - mattdeboard 4y ago
      Well, we agree that "cheaper labor" is desirable because it's more profitable to the company right? So let's apply transitivity to your first paragraph: "The only reason the company hired someone overseas was to make more money. They would not have even considered these candidates if they weren't hugely more profitable. Instead, the company would have hired from the local labor market instead." Yeah, what you are describing is practically the definition of exploitation of labor by capital, and alienation of the worker from the value they create.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

slyall 4y ago

As a non-US worker I definitely agree. My big advantage over US-based employees is that I'll work for less. Why would I insist on getting paid exactly the same as a Bay-area employee when I could ask for significantly less and be well ahead of what I could make locally?

oaiey 4y ago
Even goes that far that companies fire first in the US and then in other locations (assuming same performance).
herbst 4y ago
I was going to ask exactly that. Don't people in tech in the bay area work on average something like 60 hours a week? Barely anyone in Europe is working more than 40 (or 42) hours.
- gcommer 4y ago
  This is a common thought but it certainly hasnt been the case at any of the bay area startups or faangs I have worked at or interviewed for. Always 40 hrs. Are there super heavy hustle places? Probably, but most places realize more time is not linearly more output for creative/knowledge work. (Similarly, the internet would have you think anywhere offering "unlimited vacation" is a scam but I used and loved it)

opportune 4y ago

I agree with this in general but it depends on the individual. If I were looking to hire someone who was extremely smart/an expert on X I'd be focused more on their value:cost than location. But for large tech companies that's not how you're hired - a body is needed to fill head count and the overlords determined that this particular position was better filled by a body in a cheaper country. Even if you do turn out to be very valuable to the company, the system is not set up to accomodate that scenario (and realistically, if you leave, the company can just hire another 5 people and hope to get another very valuable person among them).