12 ms·
>This time around I expect companies to be more willing to experiment with the low-cost offshore options than they might have been last year; offshoring wasn't
by ramesh31 4y ago
>This time around I expect companies to be more willing to experiment with the low-cost offshore options than they might have been last year; offshoring wasn't really a well-established option back then.
More likely on-shore this time around. There are tons of devs in B/C tier cities now who are equally as capable, and more than happy to make $100k as the person in $MAJOR_METRO making $300k.
- outsidetheparty 4y agoBite your tongue. I'm one of those devs and would very much prefer the $300k tyvm ;)
- whatwherewhy 4y agoYou would prefer, but it's not an absolute necessity for you due to real estate prices around you.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- outsidetheparty 4y agoThe comment(s) you're responding to were mostly tongue in cheek, but for what it's worth the cost of living in HCOL areas doesn't justify a 3x salary difference. It's not all tumbleweeds and dollar stores outside the valley.
- whatwherewhy 4y agoIt's pretty impossible to be paid $100k in a place where your house costs you $100k.
- outsidetheparty 4y agoWhich is why both of us deserve way more than that. (But for what it's worth -- things may be different in your country but $100k for a house hasn't been a realistic possibility even in the most rural parts of the US for a very very very long time.)
- outsidetheparty 4y agoAlso… pay should reflect the value you add, not be a measure of your household expenses. If companies can afford to pay HCOL rates it’s because the employee is generating enough value to be worth that salary. They’d generate the same value if they lived in the boonies, and the company doesn’t magically become unable to afford it. Let’s not let the industry trick us all into major pay cuts, eh?