3 ms·
He clearly said that he targeted companies claiming that they accommodate telecommuting. >Especially at 115k. If you think $115k is a lot for a senior positio
by thoughtsimple 15y ago
He clearly said that he targeted companies claiming that they accommodate telecommuting.
>Especially at 115k.
If you think $115k is a lot for a senior position in SF, you are going to have trouble finding good people.
- SeoxyS 15y agoIt's a lot for a remote employee. For a good senior on-site dev I'd gladly pay that, or more.
- byoung2 15y agoAnd I would gladly take less if I could live somewhere cheaper. Let's say you offered $115k for me to work onsite in SF. I would take $95 to be able work from home in Los Angeles, or $75 to be able work from outside the US.
- thoughtsimple 15y agoOK, then I don't get it. Why do you want to pay a remote employee less than on-site? This is assuming that your company was amenable to the idea in the first place. The employee off site is actually cheaper than on-site. Theoretically, you should be willing to pay more, not less. If the employee is not manageable off-site then you have a problem but an offer can be made conditionally that the first 3 months are a trial and if it doesn't work, then you are canned. Why is off-site worth less money?
- codeonfire 15y agoI don't think you understand what motivates management very well. An off site employee is almost worthless to a manager's prominence and career.
- count 15y agoWhy does their working location matter?