3 ms·

Now replace WFH with 401K and see if it makes sense. Its a benefit. To be competitive you offer it. If you don't, bye bye talent.

twblalock 4y ago
FAANG total comp is a lot higher than what most other companies will pay. I think the parent poster is right -- the smaller companies will pay lower salaries and offer remote work, and the larger companies will pay higher salaries and require at least 3 days per week in the office.
- whateveracct 4y ago
  FAANG total comp is higher, but I think I've made way more money/hour off working remotely than I ever would have if I stayed at FAANG [1]. So while I have less total money, I have made the money I made way more efficiently. Which in some ways, makes me richer :) I sometimes have to remind myself that this level of leisure is basically what "traditional retirement" looks like (but with like a quarter-mil/year income + benefits) and that gives me get a sense of perspective when I'm feeling stressed. [1] A key thing that makes this true is that commute + forced office time is like 3-4x the active working time I average working from home. So it's not hard to beat the Amazon 400k total comp quote when weighted against hours - I honestly beat that at my first remote gig years ago as a relatively junior dev! And I have the same engineering output more or less.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    The commute angle of the remote work argument always seemed weird to me. If you work at a FAANG you can afford to live anywhere, including in places that would give you a short commute to work. I feel sorry for people in the service industry who have hour-long commutes because they can't afford to live closer. But that is not the case for tech workers.
    - whateveracct 4y ago
      To be fair, I had a 15-20 minute walking commute. But that adds on 30-40 minutes to an 8+ hour workday. Also, you can start bean counting and consider the costs of housing with a short commute vs the longer commute and realize that the market knows what it's doing and it becomes a wash comp-wise.
    - QIYGT 4y ago
      > If you work at a FAANG you can afford to live anywhere, including in places that would give you a short commute to work. Not necessarily. If you're an E4 with kids, good luck paying $150k a year for a 3br apartment in walking distance of Facebook's NYC office.
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      > If you work at a FAANG you can afford to live anywhere, including in places that would give you a short commute to work I think this is an exaggeration. Not everyone who works at FAANG companies is making $300K+/yr or whatever the current figure being quoted is, although senior people probably are. For rank-and-file employees, even engineers, your choices "within walking distance" of a FAANG office typically are: 1. A tiny apartment or townhome, 2. A larger townhome with roommates, or 3. Unaffordable. Numbers 1 and 2 are fine I guess if you're young and don't have kids, but I'm not willing to move my family into a sardine can in Mountain View or Cupertino. So yea, you can afford to live almost anywhere, but only if you adjust your lifestyle drastically.
- weard_beard 4y ago
  Contractor total comp is a lot higher than salary. I don't see anyone talking about the glamour and prestige, just the uncertainty and overhead. Companies that don't offer it 100% will be seen as "gig" equivalent. Cheap, manipulative, gross sweat shops.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    Being a contractor means less income security than an employee, higher and more complicated taxes, and no benefits. There is not much "glamour and prestige" either. Frankly most contractors do not make as much as FAANG employees, and even if they did, they would end up keeping less of it because of the taxes and paying for their own health care etc. Even contractors contracted by FAANG companies make less money than full-time employees at those companies.
- alright_scowl 4y ago
  Smaller salary to be able to live in much cheaper cities where your general quality of life will also be massively improved? Sounds like a win-win to me. Especially considering that the decrease in cost of living probably far surpasses de decrease in salary.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    If you do the math that doesn't always work out. The main thing that is cheaper in cheaper cities is housing. Most of the other stuff people buy costs the same everywhere. If you move to a cheaper place and have a lower income, your non-housing expenses will become a larger portion of your spending. Once you've worked in tech for several years in the Bay Area or Seattle you will generally be well off enough to buy a home in a nice area and still be able to save or invest a large amount every year. Housing will feel expensive but everything else will feel cheap -- even new luxury cars will cost a fraction of your income. Early retirement will be a definite possibility if you have a basic amount of self control over your spending. And if you have children, they will have access to all the opportunities that some of the country's largest metropolitan areas offer.
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      You pay more for many products and services in cities but have more choice. You are also taxed at a lower rate, qualify for different rebates.
    - alright_scowl 4y ago
      > If you do the math that doesn't always work out. I disagree. But it depends on how less the remote companies pay. Are we talking about 80% of the salary of a RTO company? 60%? 30%? The close it gets, the better the math works out for remote companies. Moving away from metropolitan areas incurs in a huge decrease of expenses, and a huge increase in quality of life. But of course, it depends on the salary you'd make working remote.
mjr00 4y ago
401K is unambiguously a benefit to every employee. Remote-first or remote-only is not unambiguously a benefit; some people actually prefer to be in the office and interact with people face-to-face. Yes, even some talented ones. If remote work was all it took, Gitlab (remote only since 2014) would have sucked up every talented engineer on the planet. Yet somehow they're still a very distant second to Github in their space.
- weard_beard 4y ago
  I prefer to microwave fish for lunch. Leave your preferences that make me ill at home. Where you belong.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Gitlab is somehow in the conversation with github and a huge reason for that is talented engineers. There hiring process is not the best, the ego level is higher than it should be and management isn't the sharpest or most creative. Without wfh you wouldn't be talking about gitlabs. They have access to a greater pool of talent but they still have to have a solid business plan / sales / some luck.. And they have to pick the right talent from that greater pool
- tkiolp4 4y ago
  The problem is that interaction face-to-face takes at least two people. You may like it and you would do it any day of the week, but the person in front of you may hate it. So, obviously the win-win scenario is to be flexible and let the people decide where they want to work from. Only then you can be sure that the person in front of you really want to see your face that close… it was their choice.

twblalock 4y ago

FAANG total comp is a lot higher than what most other companies will pay. I think the parent poster is right -- the smaller companies will pay lower salaries and offer remote work, and the larger companies will pay higher salaries and require at least 3 days per week in the office.

whateveracct 4y ago
FAANG total comp is higher, but I think I've made way more money/hour off working remotely than I ever would have if I stayed at FAANG [1]. So while I have less total money, I have made the money I made way more efficiently. Which in some ways, makes me richer :) I sometimes have to remind myself that this level of leisure is basically what "traditional retirement" looks like (but with like a quarter-mil/year income + benefits) and that gives me get a sense of perspective when I'm feeling stressed. [1] A key thing that makes this true is that commute + forced office time is like 3-4x the active working time I average working from home. So it's not hard to beat the Amazon 400k total comp quote when weighted against hours - I honestly beat that at my first remote gig years ago as a relatively junior dev! And I have the same engineering output more or less.
- twblalock 4y ago
  The commute angle of the remote work argument always seemed weird to me. If you work at a FAANG you can afford to live anywhere, including in places that would give you a short commute to work. I feel sorry for people in the service industry who have hour-long commutes because they can't afford to live closer. But that is not the case for tech workers.
  - whateveracct 4y ago
    To be fair, I had a 15-20 minute walking commute. But that adds on 30-40 minutes to an 8+ hour workday. Also, you can start bean counting and consider the costs of housing with a short commute vs the longer commute and realize that the market knows what it's doing and it becomes a wash comp-wise.
  - QIYGT 4y ago
    > If you work at a FAANG you can afford to live anywhere, including in places that would give you a short commute to work. Not necessarily. If you're an E4 with kids, good luck paying $150k a year for a 3br apartment in walking distance of Facebook's NYC office.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    > If you work at a FAANG you can afford to live anywhere, including in places that would give you a short commute to work I think this is an exaggeration. Not everyone who works at FAANG companies is making $300K+/yr or whatever the current figure being quoted is, although senior people probably are. For rank-and-file employees, even engineers, your choices "within walking distance" of a FAANG office typically are: 1. A tiny apartment or townhome, 2. A larger townhome with roommates, or 3. Unaffordable. Numbers 1 and 2 are fine I guess if you're young and don't have kids, but I'm not willing to move my family into a sardine can in Mountain View or Cupertino. So yea, you can afford to live almost anywhere, but only if you adjust your lifestyle drastically.
weard_beard 4y ago
Contractor total comp is a lot higher than salary. I don't see anyone talking about the glamour and prestige, just the uncertainty and overhead. Companies that don't offer it 100% will be seen as "gig" equivalent. Cheap, manipulative, gross sweat shops.
- twblalock 4y ago
  Being a contractor means less income security than an employee, higher and more complicated taxes, and no benefits. There is not much "glamour and prestige" either. Frankly most contractors do not make as much as FAANG employees, and even if they did, they would end up keeping less of it because of the taxes and paying for their own health care etc. Even contractors contracted by FAANG companies make less money than full-time employees at those companies.
alright_scowl 4y ago
Smaller salary to be able to live in much cheaper cities where your general quality of life will also be massively improved? Sounds like a win-win to me. Especially considering that the decrease in cost of living probably far surpasses de decrease in salary.
- twblalock 4y ago
  If you do the math that doesn't always work out. The main thing that is cheaper in cheaper cities is housing. Most of the other stuff people buy costs the same everywhere. If you move to a cheaper place and have a lower income, your non-housing expenses will become a larger portion of your spending. Once you've worked in tech for several years in the Bay Area or Seattle you will generally be well off enough to buy a home in a nice area and still be able to save or invest a large amount every year. Housing will feel expensive but everything else will feel cheap -- even new luxury cars will cost a fraction of your income. Early retirement will be a definite possibility if you have a basic amount of self control over your spending. And if you have children, they will have access to all the opportunities that some of the country's largest metropolitan areas offer.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    You pay more for many products and services in cities but have more choice. You are also taxed at a lower rate, qualify for different rebates.
  - alright_scowl 4y ago
    > If you do the math that doesn't always work out. I disagree. But it depends on how less the remote companies pay. Are we talking about 80% of the salary of a RTO company? 60%? 30%? The close it gets, the better the math works out for remote companies. Moving away from metropolitan areas incurs in a huge decrease of expenses, and a huge increase in quality of life. But of course, it depends on the salary you'd make working remote.

mjr00 4y ago

401K is unambiguously a benefit to every employee. Remote-first or remote-only is not unambiguously a benefit; some people actually prefer to be in the office and interact with people face-to-face. Yes, even some talented ones. If remote work was all it took, Gitlab (remote only since 2014) would have sucked up every talented engineer on the planet. Yet somehow they're still a very distant second to Github in their space.

weard_beard 4y ago
I prefer to microwave fish for lunch. Leave your preferences that make me ill at home. Where you belong.
ipaddr 4y ago
Gitlab is somehow in the conversation with github and a huge reason for that is talented engineers. There hiring process is not the best, the ego level is higher than it should be and management isn't the sharpest or most creative. Without wfh you wouldn't be talking about gitlabs. They have access to a greater pool of talent but they still have to have a solid business plan / sales / some luck.. And they have to pick the right talent from that greater pool
tkiolp4 4y ago
The problem is that interaction face-to-face takes at least two people. You may like it and you would do it any day of the week, but the person in front of you may hate it. So, obviously the win-win scenario is to be flexible and let the people decide where they want to work from. Only then you can be sure that the person in front of you really want to see your face that close… it was their choice.