3 ms·

Not paying location-based salary is arguably more unfair. If you pay the global median salary to everyone, people in high cost areas are screwed and you’ll nev

by dangus 3y ago

Not paying location-based salary is arguably more unfair. If you pay the global median salary to everyone, people in high cost areas are screwed and you’ll never be able to recruit there. If you pay everyone in your company the highest salary, people in low cost areas live like kings while their peers in high cost areas live a more modest lifestyle. As a company you’re not out to solve global inequity, you’re out to hire good talent effectively and efficiently. Like leaving a 40% tip at a restaurant, overpaying the going rate on salary doesn’t really get you anything but feel goods at a certain point.

adolph 3y ago
People living in high cost areas have chosen that. It’s kind of like parking. If employees don’t pay for parking then an employer is subsidizing car driving over other options.
- dangus 3y ago
  Did they? The typical person in the US lives within commuting distance from their mother: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-family.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-f...
  - adolph 3y ago
    Yes, making a choice to "within commuting distance from their mother" is still making a choice.
    - dangus 3y ago
      What percentage of people under the age of 30 live with their parents to make ends meet? Choosing between abandoning your family and maximizing your revenue isn’t exactly an even choice.
      - adolph 3y ago
        Living with others (parents, partners, etc) is something that decreases core costs of domiciling anywhere you go. That is an excellent method of maximizing revenue while not abandoning your family. Otherwise, see The Complacent Class: The Self-Defeating Quest for the American Dream by Tyler Cowen. https://www.amazon.com/Complacent-Class-Self-Defeating-Quest-American/dp/1250153778/ https://www.amazon.com/Complacent-Class-Self-Defeating-Quest...
kmac_ 3y ago
Actually, a company's attitude toward this problem has to be balanced. I live in a country where most international companies pay less than the US and even the EU average. The effect is quite easy to predict: they are not attractive to senior candidates (i.e., Nokia) and suffer from higher employee attrition (not right now, as the job market is pretty dead). I don't want to mention the effect on employee morale. Is it discrimination, as the author says? When you do exactly the same job in the same company, same department, same team, with the same output — then definitely it's discrimination. Does it encourage various xenophobic behaviors coming from better-earning employees - very rarely, but yes. Is it legal? — Yes.
- dangus 3y ago
  Balanced, sure, but not completely location blind. Usually what I see is that remote jobs will offer a slight higher wage than the going rate in lower cost of living areas. That way you’re in a situation where moving to a higher cost of living area and making a more regionally average salary isn’t all that attractive. > When you do exactly the same job in the same company, same department, same team, with the same output — then definitely it's discrimination. But that’s my point as well: if you’re in San Francisco paying $5,000 a month in rent for an apartment and your coworker in Cambodia is also getting an SF salary living in a mansion with servants because your company is location blind that’s also a form of inequity.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >I live in a country where most international companies pay less than the US and even the EU average. Can I ask which country?
  - pas 3y ago
    probably Poland
  - n_plus_1_acc 3y ago
    Half of the EU?
atomicnumber3 3y ago
What about having a family? If you pay everyone the same, those living alone or with a partner will live like kings while those with children will live much more modestly. Oh wait, we get 2k in tax credits per kid. I forgot that one is all good. My point is, people are going to have different lifestyles that cost different amounts and give them different benefits. Companies should fuck off pretending they care about fairness or cost of living. Just call it what it is - competition-based pay. You pay someone in SF more because you are forced to by market conditions, and if you could, you would pay them less, with zero concern for their rent or mortgage. And since you CAN pay someone in Kansas City much less, they do. We've already seen the prevalence of remote work change the equation. Many places now pay SF 110% and everyone else in the US 100%. The COL difference between SF and KC is not that 10 percentage points. Nor could you compensate someone for the discomforts - both political and meteorological- of having to live in Missouri, who God himself has abandoned.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rad_gruchalski 3y ago
  > Oh wait, we get 2k in tax credits per kid The guy who doesn’t have kids paid it indirectly in his social contributions. The next guy next to him too. And the next guy. And so on.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
    I think their point was that 2k is a joke considering how expensive a child is
    - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
      Should it be more? Surely something one can think of when planning a child (or more)?
      - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
glenngillen 3y ago
That's not the way it works out in practice though. I've been a hiring manager and have had to see the impact these geo-based policies have on the salary of those in my teams. I work remotely and know how much it's hit me relative to my peers. Melbourne & Sydney are regularly listed in the list of most expensive cities in the world, yet Australia is almost always treated as one big market at the bottom end of the scale. I've had team members in Canada who are paid significant 6-figure amounts less than direct peers, if they moved ~1hr south they'd earn significantly more. This is rarely about avoiding paying a FAANG engineer $500K and letting them work from Bali. They're weaponised in ways to give a plausible defence to why two people with the same role and experience are paid vastly different amounts for doing the same job.

by dangus 3y ago

adolph 3y ago

People living in high cost areas have chosen that. It’s kind of like parking. If employees don’t pay for parking then an employer is subsidizing car driving over other options.

dangus 3y ago
Did they? The typical person in the US lives within commuting distance from their mother: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-family.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-f...
- adolph 3y ago
  Yes, making a choice to "within commuting distance from their mother" is still making a choice.
  - dangus 3y ago
    What percentage of people under the age of 30 live with their parents to make ends meet? Choosing between abandoning your family and maximizing your revenue isn’t exactly an even choice.
    - adolph 3y ago
      Living with others (parents, partners, etc) is something that decreases core costs of domiciling anywhere you go. That is an excellent method of maximizing revenue while not abandoning your family. Otherwise, see The Complacent Class: The Self-Defeating Quest for the American Dream by Tyler Cowen. https://www.amazon.com/Complacent-Class-Self-Defeating-Quest-American/dp/1250153778/ https://www.amazon.com/Complacent-Class-Self-Defeating-Quest...

kmac_ 3y ago

Actually, a company's attitude toward this problem has to be balanced. I live in a country where most international companies pay less than the US and even the EU average. The effect is quite easy to predict: they are not attractive to senior candidates (i.e., Nokia) and suffer from higher employee attrition (not right now, as the job market is pretty dead). I don't want to mention the effect on employee morale. Is it discrimination, as the author says? When you do exactly the same job in the same company, same department, same team, with the same output — then definitely it's discrimination. Does it encourage various xenophobic behaviors coming from better-earning employees - very rarely, but yes. Is it legal? — Yes.

dangus 3y ago
Balanced, sure, but not completely location blind. Usually what I see is that remote jobs will offer a slight higher wage than the going rate in lower cost of living areas. That way you’re in a situation where moving to a higher cost of living area and making a more regionally average salary isn’t all that attractive. > When you do exactly the same job in the same company, same department, same team, with the same output — then definitely it's discrimination. But that’s my point as well: if you’re in San Francisco paying $5,000 a month in rent for an apartment and your coworker in Cambodia is also getting an SF salary living in a mansion with servants because your company is location blind that’s also a form of inequity.
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>I live in a country where most international companies pay less than the US and even the EU average. Can I ask which country?
- pas 3y ago
  probably Poland
- n_plus_1_acc 3y ago
  Half of the EU?

atomicnumber3 3y ago

What about having a family? If you pay everyone the same, those living alone or with a partner will live like kings while those with children will live much more modestly. Oh wait, we get 2k in tax credits per kid. I forgot that one is all good. My point is, people are going to have different lifestyles that cost different amounts and give them different benefits. Companies should fuck off pretending they care about fairness or cost of living. Just call it what it is - competition-based pay. You pay someone in SF more because you are forced to by market conditions, and if you could, you would pay them less, with zero concern for their rent or mortgage. And since you CAN pay someone in Kansas City much less, they do. We've already seen the prevalence of remote work change the equation. Many places now pay SF 110% and everyone else in the US 100%. The COL difference between SF and KC is not that 10 percentage points. Nor could you compensate someone for the discomforts - both political and meteorological- of having to live in Missouri, who God himself has abandoned.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rad_gruchalski 3y ago
> Oh wait, we get 2k in tax credits per kid The guy who doesn’t have kids paid it indirectly in his social contributions. The next guy next to him too. And the next guy. And so on.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
  I think their point was that 2k is a joke considering how expensive a child is
  - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
    Should it be more? Surely something one can think of when planning a child (or more)?
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago

glenngillen 3y ago

That's not the way it works out in practice though. I've been a hiring manager and have had to see the impact these geo-based policies have on the salary of those in my teams. I work remotely and know how much it's hit me relative to my peers. Melbourne & Sydney are regularly listed in the list of most expensive cities in the world, yet Australia is almost always treated as one big market at the bottom end of the scale. I've had team members in Canada who are paid significant 6-figure amounts less than direct peers, if they moved ~1hr south they'd earn significantly more. This is rarely about avoiding paying a FAANG engineer $500K and letting them work from Bali. They're weaponised in ways to give a plausible defence to why two people with the same role and experience are paid vastly different amounts for doing the same job.