4 ms·

Gitlab has great remote work guides. I took a Coursera course about remote work from them. Generally it was good, but one of the things that bothered me about t

Gitlab has great remote work guides. I took a Coursera course about remote work from them. Generally it was good, but one of the things that bothered me about their justification for remote work—which I notably do not see listed here—is that they argue it's great because you can pay people less when they work in different geographic areas. Yes, this is fairly common, but I still don't think it's ethical. I don't think it's even desirable in the long run, as it will filter out sought-after candidates who happen to live elsewhere, which should be one of the big advantages of being fully remote. https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/company/culture/all-remote/remote-compensation/ https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/company/culture/all-rem...

roland35 3y ago
Supply and demand, baby! If a company really likes you, they can always scale up your pay even if you are in a low cost of living place. As a remote engineer in the Midwest, I still make over double what local rates are, despite the remote adjustment. So it stinks but it still works for me since moving to NY or SF would be much worse (financially at least, they are lovely places)
- laserlight 3y ago
  > Supply and demand, baby! If a company really likes you, they can always scale up your pay even if you are in a low cost of living place. I don't think it's that easy. When Person A who is living in a high-cost area asks for a raise, they will be perceived right. When Person B who is living in a low-cost area does the same, they will be perceived greedy. If the company thinks that cost-of-living has value, it will.
  - serial_dev 3y ago
    You need competing offers, then it doesn't matter if they think you are greedy (whatever the f that means in work context), because if they come back with that bs reasoning as to why they won't give you a raise, you can resign on the spot. In my experience getting competing offers remotely is not easy, but gets easier once you landed a well paying job.
    - laserlight 3y ago
      > You need competing offers, then it doesn't matter if they think you are greedy For sure. I gave the example of asking for a raise, because of the way parent comment was phrased: “If a company really likes you”. When you have competing offers, it's not a matter of liking. Having a competing offer doesn't make your pay independent of where you live though. If enough companies make your pay a function of cost of living, you will have a tough time reaching Bay Area salaries. > whatever the f that means in work context Can't agree more. Having seen spectacular failures from those who are supposed to be business-minded, I've come to appreciate that humans have their biases.
  - roland35 3y ago
    Honestly the best thing you can do is get alternative offers - that is what talks. In my mind it's easier getting a raise in a lower cost location. If the budget for a role is $200k for SF and $150k for Corntown Iowa, I already have $50k of wiggle room before I even hit the existing budget. But I personally just ask for the SF rate :)
ip26 3y ago
If you don’t pay by location, how should you pay? If you pay flat rate and are fully remote, why would you peg your rate to SFBay?
- karaterobot 3y ago
  Good question, why would you peg your rate to the bay area? I wouldn't. It's not sustainable, or even rational in a world where money isn't cheap. The argument goes: I have to pay Bay Area salaries, because that's where the best people live, and the best people live near the Bay Area because that's where the money is. But in a world where you can recruit from anywhere, I'm not sure that's true, or that it will be true on a medium to long timeline, as people disperse to decentralized, remote jobs. So, I'd pay the same amount, irrespective of geography, based on the value the employee brings to the company and the difficulty of filling that position with the marginal next employee. That makes most sense to me, would likely select for happier employees (because living the bay area isn't ideal for many), less turnover, and a wider (ultimately better) pool of candidates.
  - elondaits 3y ago
    Agree. Also, I live in a “cheap” country… so cheap for food and rent. Expensive for clothes, very expensive for tech, rather expensive to travel, etc. So anyone paying me in relation to the cost of buying food is abusing the asymmetry.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - mavelikara 3y ago
    > But in a world where you can recruit from anywhere, I'm not sure that's true, or that it will be true on a medium to long timeline, as people disperse to decentralized, remote jobs. Enough employers paying by location indicates that they have not bought into your assumptions here. What data do you have to convince them?
ambicapter 3y ago
Paying people way more than market rate in their area is a great way to trigger inflation in their area.

roland35 3y ago

Supply and demand, baby! If a company really likes you, they can always scale up your pay even if you are in a low cost of living place. As a remote engineer in the Midwest, I still make over double what local rates are, despite the remote adjustment. So it stinks but it still works for me since moving to NY or SF would be much worse (financially at least, they are lovely places)

laserlight 3y ago
> Supply and demand, baby! If a company really likes you, they can always scale up your pay even if you are in a low cost of living place. I don't think it's that easy. When Person A who is living in a high-cost area asks for a raise, they will be perceived right. When Person B who is living in a low-cost area does the same, they will be perceived greedy. If the company thinks that cost-of-living has value, it will.
- serial_dev 3y ago
  You need competing offers, then it doesn't matter if they think you are greedy (whatever the f that means in work context), because if they come back with that bs reasoning as to why they won't give you a raise, you can resign on the spot. In my experience getting competing offers remotely is not easy, but gets easier once you landed a well paying job.
  - laserlight 3y ago
    > You need competing offers, then it doesn't matter if they think you are greedy For sure. I gave the example of asking for a raise, because of the way parent comment was phrased: “If a company really likes you”. When you have competing offers, it's not a matter of liking. Having a competing offer doesn't make your pay independent of where you live though. If enough companies make your pay a function of cost of living, you will have a tough time reaching Bay Area salaries. > whatever the f that means in work context Can't agree more. Having seen spectacular failures from those who are supposed to be business-minded, I've come to appreciate that humans have their biases.
- roland35 3y ago
  Honestly the best thing you can do is get alternative offers - that is what talks. In my mind it's easier getting a raise in a lower cost location. If the budget for a role is $200k for SF and $150k for Corntown Iowa, I already have $50k of wiggle room before I even hit the existing budget. But I personally just ask for the SF rate :)

ip26 3y ago

If you don’t pay by location, how should you pay? If you pay flat rate and are fully remote, why would you peg your rate to SFBay?

karaterobot 3y ago
Good question, why would you peg your rate to the bay area? I wouldn't. It's not sustainable, or even rational in a world where money isn't cheap. The argument goes: I have to pay Bay Area salaries, because that's where the best people live, and the best people live near the Bay Area because that's where the money is. But in a world where you can recruit from anywhere, I'm not sure that's true, or that it will be true on a medium to long timeline, as people disperse to decentralized, remote jobs. So, I'd pay the same amount, irrespective of geography, based on the value the employee brings to the company and the difficulty of filling that position with the marginal next employee. That makes most sense to me, would likely select for happier employees (because living the bay area isn't ideal for many), less turnover, and a wider (ultimately better) pool of candidates.
- elondaits 3y ago
  Agree. Also, I live in a “cheap” country… so cheap for food and rent. Expensive for clothes, very expensive for tech, rather expensive to travel, etc. So anyone paying me in relation to the cost of buying food is abusing the asymmetry.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mavelikara 3y ago
  > But in a world where you can recruit from anywhere, I'm not sure that's true, or that it will be true on a medium to long timeline, as people disperse to decentralized, remote jobs. Enough employers paying by location indicates that they have not bought into your assumptions here. What data do you have to convince them?

ambicapter 3y ago

Paying people way more than market rate in their area is a great way to trigger inflation in their area.