3 ms·

So if they quit, are you saying the company to refuse to hire a replacement from the US/EU due to some purely budget related limit? That is definitely not my ex

So if they quit, are you saying the company to refuse to hire a replacement from the US/EU due to some purely budget related limit? That is definitely not my experience working with a few remote first companies. They will try to find a suitable replacement in the relatively short period that is recruitment (1-3 months, depending on seniority). The cost difference for one employee is usually not big enough to worry about in the larger scheme of things. The opportunity cost of not having that senior dev on board for more than 3 months is damaging for rest of the team and company goals/time lines. In the current market, my guess is that this person would be replaced with someone NOT in that location unless for some reason it is business critical to have someone in that area, which is almost never for software developers.

RestlessMind 4y ago
> The opportunity cost of not having that senior dev on board for more than 3 months is damaging for rest of the team and company goals/time lines. I work with HR team who sets compensations for our global workforce. If you think that HR and leadership does not take this opportunity cost in consideration when setting policies, you are badly mistaken. They are very rational in their decision making.
- vladvasiliu 4y ago
  But then, why would the company agree to an increase in compensation if OP moved elsewhere? This is the point that doesn't make any sense. If it costs them X in OP's locale and 2X in EU, the company should kick them out if they decided to move and replace them with someone in the original locale, or maybe someplace even cheaper.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    Most people who haven’t already moved countries won’t when offered that rebuttal. (Some can’t. Many more won’t, for some good and practical reasons.) Because of that, the rare employee who does move can be paid the new location wage without increasing the costs of the people who don’t move. Companies don’t care about the costs of the <5% of people who move. They care about the costs of the >95% who don’t. (Side note: There are companies who budget in headcount and work like GP suggests. I think most companies budget in money and work like you suggest.)

RestlessMind 4y ago

> The opportunity cost of not having that senior dev on board for more than 3 months is damaging for rest of the team and company goals/time lines. I work with HR team who sets compensations for our global workforce. If you think that HR and leadership does not take this opportunity cost in consideration when setting policies, you are badly mistaken. They are very rational in their decision making.

vladvasiliu 4y ago
But then, why would the company agree to an increase in compensation if OP moved elsewhere? This is the point that doesn't make any sense. If it costs them X in OP's locale and 2X in EU, the company should kick them out if they decided to move and replace them with someone in the original locale, or maybe someplace even cheaper.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Most people who haven’t already moved countries won’t when offered that rebuttal. (Some can’t. Many more won’t, for some good and practical reasons.) Because of that, the rare employee who does move can be paid the new location wage without increasing the costs of the people who don’t move. Companies don’t care about the costs of the <5% of people who move. They care about the costs of the >95% who don’t. (Side note: There are companies who budget in headcount and work like GP suggests. I think most companies budget in money and work like you suggest.)