Ask HN: Local vs. remote salary gap • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: Local vs. remote salary gap

#41

Post by davewasthere » Wed, Jul 02, 2014, 12:13 PM UTC

nomadpdx wrote: post #37

crdb wrote: post #34

We pay the same (and offer a Singapore visa if they change their mind). The method is pretty simple: we pay X amount of money and get Y (or more) amount of code "value" back, and try and keep Y/X relatively stable. Works out well for those living in cheaper cities, but it does suck a bit if you're in a high tax country/state, since Singapore's tax rate is in the single digit percent.

This is exactly the comment I was looking for. So many folks on here that are resistant to the idea of paying everyone equally for the amount of value they bring to the team.

It's quantifying that value that is the difficult part. Delivery of x amount of lines of code would be a terrible metric for example...

Re: Ask HN: Local vs. remote salary gap

#42

Post by bkjelden » Wed, Jul 02, 2014, 3:39 PM UTC

izolate wrote: post #14

bfwi wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I read this, Buffer doesn't pay remote employees less. Rather, you're payed more if you work from expensive cities (eg. Hong Kong), than if you work from cheaper cities (eg. Bucharest)

I've never understood or agreed with this approach. Your lifestyle choices should have no bearing on your salary. If somebody reduces costs by choosing a cheaper city to live in, it should be regarded as any other frugal activity. That is, an independent and completely personal affair. I understand the cost saving benefit from an employer's perspective, but since that's not me, I've chosen my side.

I work at a satellite campus for a large tech firm, and I've come to the conclusion "cost of living adjustments" are just HR BS for the company's belief that talent markets are local, not national or global, and they are using that belief to exploit satellite/remote workers.

Re: Ask HN: Local vs. remote salary gap

#43

Post by crdb » Thu, Jul 03, 2014, 9:09 AM UTC

davewasthere wrote: post #41

nomadpdx wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the comment I was looking for. So many folks on here that are resistant to the idea of paying everyone equally for the amount of value they bring to the team.

It's quantifying that value that is the difficult part. Delivery of x amount of lines of code would be a terrible metric for example...

I'm not saying it was the only predictor, but we did have a candidate who solved the application task with a quarter (1/4!) of the code submitted by the next best, whose submission was already beautifully succinct. So, number of lines of code CAN be a meaningful predictor ;)

More seriously, I agree with you. I don't think performance is quantifiable with parametric methods, you just have to allocate a fair amount of mental effort to the problem. For example, a "maintenance guy" who enjoys breaking other people's code, fixing holes and doing tests is extremely valuable, but not someone that is easily sold to non-technical management, nor that is very visible; at the same time, without some builders to work with, his salary is wasted.

We get away with it because we have a carefully selected (around 3 man-month of just recruiting) small team (10) of experienced developers from a small but strong and mature community (Haskell) on a well defined problem (fix and improve a large e-commerce platform). I shudder to think of the magnitude of the problem for a much larger company with much larger teams, like Google or Microsoft.

Re: Ask HN: Local vs. remote salary gap

#44

Post by nilkn » Thu, Jul 03, 2014, 2:18 PM UTC

WalterSear wrote: post #40

nilkn wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The salaries are low for San Francisco but high for most of the country. The people working remotely are getting a great deal, provided they're using the opportunity to live cheaply. The people working locally in SF not so much.

They are low, even figuring in the locality pay.

I'm not sure I agree. Take the $88k salary for the frontend engineer. See if you can go get that salary with little experience out in Springfield, MO or a place like that. You'll be very lucky if you get $60k. I think you underestimate how much salaries plummet in truly cheap areas. You're probably thinking of "cheap" areas that aren't actually cheap at all, like Houston or Austin.

Re: Ask HN: Local vs. remote salary gap

#45

Post by WalterSear » Thu, Jul 03, 2014, 6:21 PM UTC

nilkn wrote: post #44

WalterSear wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are low, even figuring in the locality pay.

I'm not sure I agree. Take the $88k salary for the frontend engineer. See if you can go get that salary with little experience out in Springfield, MO or a place like that. You'll be very lucky if you get $60k. I think you underestimate how much salaries plummet in truly cheap areas. You're probably thinking of "cheap" areas that aren't actually cheap at all, like Houston or Austin.

I'm in SF, so I little expereince with the salaries in those places. It may be that it's their 'cost-of-living' difference that is at the heart of the issue.

Re: Ask HN: Local vs. remote salary gap

#46

Post by jimmy5804 » Sat, Jul 05, 2014, 3:11 PM UTC

A bit late to this discussion, but I'll provide a comment from the employer side. Employment is a market, and it has market-based dynamics. Most of the developers here are (understandably) looking at this from a cost-perspective - "I should be paid what value I provide" etc. That's not how it works. Just like products aren't priced by what they cost, employers don't value developers by the value they add.

Instead, developers are priced by companies at what the market will bear just like any other product. If a $40k salary in Bangalore will get them X quality of developer, and they need $120k in SF to attract the same quality of developer, then that's what the policy is. The policy might be disguised behind cost-of-living etc., but it's really market-based pricing.

In the same vein, keep in mind that it costs a company more to hire someone in an expensive area. So if developer skill was the only issue, why would companies want to hire locally if it costs more? The answer is If developer skill was the only thing at issue, no developers would ever get hired in SF because there's plenty of great developers elsewhere for less money. The reality is that having people local adds significant value, all other things being equal, so companies are willing to pay more for local people.