4 ms·

"Compensation and benefits are reasonable as well, considering the low cost of living." Why not ignore the the local cost of living and compensate at SV market

"Compensation and benefits are reasonable as well, considering the low cost of living." Why not ignore the the local cost of living and compensate at SV market rate levels? That way there is a tangible and obvious pro to the move: the delta between "tech-hub" cost of living and "flyover" cost of living. If you scale compensation down to be relatively in-line with local cost of living you aren't really offering anyone a pro in the face of many cons (harder to find another job if this one doesn't work out, the general inertia of moving halfway across the country, likely less interesting social/cultural options, likely screwier rules when it comes to non-competes (than what you get in CA), etc.)

angersock 12y ago
This is exactly what I've seen in some companies near where I live--they refuse to hire at market rates, and if they resort to "but but but cost of living" I assume they're trying to sell me something. It's so fucking obvious--pay the same amount, have a better culture, and that should be it. Alas, some folks are a bit slow. :(
- notastartup 12y ago
  at least they are descent enough to consider cost of living. In a corner of Canada where I live, they refuse to adjust to the highest cost of living, highest cost of real estate, and still find a way to pay under the market rate because "remember, you are living in the most beautiful part of Canada, and warmest too, that's the cost" such bullshit.
  - JPKab 12y ago
    Vancouver?
- freehunter 12y ago
  Paying the same amount would be challenging if they're not doing the same amount of business. Google can pay an average software engineer $100k because they do a lot of business. Should a company that only makes $100k in a single year pay their developers the same? Tech companies in SF tend to be pretty big/well funded organizations.
  - georgemcbay 12y ago
    This is true, but at the same time a company making $100k in a single year probably doesn't need to hire "the best of the best" (even if they think they do, because everyone thinks they do) and can actually get by with local college grads until such a time as they hit a scale where they need outside help, by which point they can hopefully pay for it.
noodle 12y ago
This is what I was going to say, myself. If you want top talent you have to pay for it. Period. Even if the job is unpleasant, money can solve the problem. "Reasonable rates considering local cost of living" doesn't sound at all enticing. The problem is compounded by the fact that you can work remotely for a SV company and get a comparatively high rate. If someone were talented and "stuck" in a flyover state, why would they work for this company compared to working remotely for a SV company?
JPKab 12y ago
I've just (as in 20 minutes ago) accepted an offer with a supply chain data analytics company in northwestern Arkansas (right in the middle of the Ozarks). They are paying WELL above cost of living for the position. I think the recruiting for these locations needs to be targeted based on a demographic profile. Fresh grads will take anything, unless they are highly recruited due to some stand-out factor like school, side-project. Experienced people are another story. Here's what sold me on the Ozarks vs. offers in Austin, San Fran, etc: QUALITY OF LIFE QUALITY OF LIFE QUALITY OF LIFE. I'm a married guy with two kids. I've done the densely populated urban area thing in DC. Walk to work, take the train anywhere, live in a high-rise. Guess what? There are a lot of folks my age doing the same thing in our industry, and they are probably getting sick of it like I am. But I don't want to live in a suburb and fight traffic to get to work. This is where you can come in. Big yard, house, short commute. These folks made a point of selling a country-living lifestyle with a 10 minute drive to the office (and very flexible telecommuting options). A lot of people want nothing to do with that lifestyle, but the people who do will gravitate towards it. Another issue you have is the dual-income family. My wife is a full-time mom, so for us this issue didn't exist. Perhaps the affordability of an area allows this for those who want this and don't currently have it. A lot of moms AND dads I know would love to be a stay at home parent if they could. Flyover country allows for this if you pay well above cost of living. Since I'll be getting a similar salary when I move, I'll be able to save way more for one day starting my own business..... These are all selling points, and you should highlight them in your ads. It's not about an ad where 99% of the people who see it think "ok, cool." It's about an ad where 3% of the people who see it go "Oh my fucking god I want to do that."
- JunkDNA 12y ago
  A million times this. I'm in a similar situation. My wife and I just aren't that interested in relocating to a higher cost of living area and trading our nice yard and larger house for something small and expensive. With two kids we have very different priorities than younger folks with fewer attachments. We currently live outside a major Northeast city, so we get some of the benefits of a metro area but not the full brunt of the high cost of living or super-dense housing. We pay for it with a long train ride (for me) and both of us working. We would relocate to a less densely populated area if it meant she could be a mostly stay at home mom while roughly maintaining our existing home size, yard size, type of neighborhood, etc... We have built-in childcare being close to family, but that would be made moot by a relocation that allowed her to be a stay at home mom. Alternatively, a total work from home position that eliminates my commute, allows us to stay put, and pays top dollar would be attractive as well. It would allow us to not have to worry about who will be home when the kids get home from school for example.
Iftheshoefits 12y ago
This can't be up-voted enough. I turned down a very good paying (relatively) job in a midwestern town near family because it was 50% of what I could earn in the bay area, while being more than 50% of the cost of living. Compounding that problem was that the majority of other roles in the area were no-growth developer roles, and there were also few of them. Sometimes I think companies don't realize that potential employees engage in the same kinds of cost/benefit analysis for themselves that the companies engage in. As an addendum: frankly I consider the software pay in the Bay Area to be below the cost of living for anybody but: a) singles; b) couples with little or no debt. Sure it's good pay, but compared to the cost of housing it's not that good. My experience is that it's typically worse elsewhere, and especially in lower cost of living areas.

angersock 12y ago

This is exactly what I've seen in some companies near where I live--they refuse to hire at market rates, and if they resort to "but but but cost of living" I assume they're trying to sell me something. It's so fucking obvious--pay the same amount, have a better culture, and that should be it. Alas, some folks are a bit slow. :(

notastartup 12y ago
at least they are descent enough to consider cost of living. In a corner of Canada where I live, they refuse to adjust to the highest cost of living, highest cost of real estate, and still find a way to pay under the market rate because "remember, you are living in the most beautiful part of Canada, and warmest too, that's the cost" such bullshit.
- JPKab 12y ago
  Vancouver?
freehunter 12y ago
Paying the same amount would be challenging if they're not doing the same amount of business. Google can pay an average software engineer $100k because they do a lot of business. Should a company that only makes $100k in a single year pay their developers the same? Tech companies in SF tend to be pretty big/well funded organizations.
- georgemcbay 12y ago
  This is true, but at the same time a company making $100k in a single year probably doesn't need to hire "the best of the best" (even if they think they do, because everyone thinks they do) and can actually get by with local college grads until such a time as they hit a scale where they need outside help, by which point they can hopefully pay for it.

noodle 12y ago

This is what I was going to say, myself. If you want top talent you have to pay for it. Period. Even if the job is unpleasant, money can solve the problem. "Reasonable rates considering local cost of living" doesn't sound at all enticing. The problem is compounded by the fact that you can work remotely for a SV company and get a comparatively high rate. If someone were talented and "stuck" in a flyover state, why would they work for this company compared to working remotely for a SV company?

JPKab 12y ago

I've just (as in 20 minutes ago) accepted an offer with a supply chain data analytics company in northwestern Arkansas (right in the middle of the Ozarks). They are paying WELL above cost of living for the position. I think the recruiting for these locations needs to be targeted based on a demographic profile. Fresh grads will take anything, unless they are highly recruited due to some stand-out factor like school, side-project. Experienced people are another story. Here's what sold me on the Ozarks vs. offers in Austin, San Fran, etc: QUALITY OF LIFE QUALITY OF LIFE QUALITY OF LIFE. I'm a married guy with two kids. I've done the densely populated urban area thing in DC. Walk to work, take the train anywhere, live in a high-rise. Guess what? There are a lot of folks my age doing the same thing in our industry, and they are probably getting sick of it like I am. But I don't want to live in a suburb and fight traffic to get to work. This is where you can come in. Big yard, house, short commute. These folks made a point of selling a country-living lifestyle with a 10 minute drive to the office (and very flexible telecommuting options). A lot of people want nothing to do with that lifestyle, but the people who do will gravitate towards it. Another issue you have is the dual-income family. My wife is a full-time mom, so for us this issue didn't exist. Perhaps the affordability of an area allows this for those who want this and don't currently have it. A lot of moms AND dads I know would love to be a stay at home parent if they could. Flyover country allows for this if you pay well above cost of living. Since I'll be getting a similar salary when I move, I'll be able to save way more for one day starting my own business..... These are all selling points, and you should highlight them in your ads. It's not about an ad where 99% of the people who see it think "ok, cool." It's about an ad where 3% of the people who see it go "Oh my fucking god I want to do that."

JunkDNA 12y ago
A million times this. I'm in a similar situation. My wife and I just aren't that interested in relocating to a higher cost of living area and trading our nice yard and larger house for something small and expensive. With two kids we have very different priorities than younger folks with fewer attachments. We currently live outside a major Northeast city, so we get some of the benefits of a metro area but not the full brunt of the high cost of living or super-dense housing. We pay for it with a long train ride (for me) and both of us working. We would relocate to a less densely populated area if it meant she could be a mostly stay at home mom while roughly maintaining our existing home size, yard size, type of neighborhood, etc... We have built-in childcare being close to family, but that would be made moot by a relocation that allowed her to be a stay at home mom. Alternatively, a total work from home position that eliminates my commute, allows us to stay put, and pays top dollar would be attractive as well. It would allow us to not have to worry about who will be home when the kids get home from school for example.

Iftheshoefits 12y ago

This can't be up-voted enough. I turned down a very good paying (relatively) job in a midwestern town near family because it was 50% of what I could earn in the bay area, while being more than 50% of the cost of living. Compounding that problem was that the majority of other roles in the area were no-growth developer roles, and there were also few of them. Sometimes I think companies don't realize that potential employees engage in the same kinds of cost/benefit analysis for themselves that the companies engage in. As an addendum: frankly I consider the software pay in the Bay Area to be below the cost of living for anybody but: a) singles; b) couples with little or no debt. Sure it's good pay, but compared to the cost of housing it's not that good. My experience is that it's typically worse elsewhere, and especially in lower cost of living areas.