5 ms·
> we've realized how under-market our rates have been for areas like SF and NYC, while being quite above market rates in many other regions. It shouldn't come
by discardorama 11y ago
> we've realized how under-market our rates have been for areas like SF and NYC, while being quite above market rates in many other regions.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that you have to pay more in markets like SF and NYC. The costs of living are much higher, and employees can switch jobs almost effortlessly.
- Domenic_S 11y agoWell, that's the weird part - they obviously knew that, because they have the location modifier (SF/NYC are location A/+$22k). Seems like the base levels are too low.
- pitnips 11y agoYou get $10k more for living in SF over Nashville. Seriously, $10k? SF has to be somewhere around 50% more expensive than Nashville.
- kasey_junk 11y agoPerhaps that is intentional? Buffer may prefer employees in Nashville to those in SF for all manner of reasons.
- pitnips 11y agoPerhaps
- ElComradio 11y agoI worked in another state for a well known and generally hated company based in SF who wanted me to transfer there, offering a 20k cost of living adjustment. But the actual standard of living increase that would be required amounted to a raise of at least 50%. The response was that a lot of people want to live in SF and would take the hit. No thanks. Taxes and rent costs blow away these piddly adjustments. Moving into SF from elsewhere requires _massive_ income adjustments.
- discardorama 11y agoAfter you take out the difference in house prices and gas prices, the rest is minimal. I'd say an apartment here would cost $2000/mo more than Nashville. Gas is say 50% more expensive; let's say that's another $4K/year. That adds up to an additional $28K/year after tax; or, roughly $40K/year before tax.