3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoBut 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 agoMost 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.)