81–90 of 96 posts
If its an 8 hour workday, being able to make hypothetical emergency briefings at the office within 2 hours with no/short notice may be worth a 25% salary hike.
Its the new remote first companies that will exclusively hire for skill and balance the equation once the next wave gains more traction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everything points towards companies historically paying employees not the salary they deserve, but the salary they will accept. You hit it on the head. This is exactly what is happening. This is why people job flip every 2 years to increase their salary. Getting good at negotiation is critical if you are job searching.
I don't think this is an ideal state of affairs, but what's the alternative? Why would a company pay more? Have you ever gone to purchase an item or pay for a service and tried to give more than what was on the price tag or accepted quote? I have once or twice in my life, but it's certainly not a regular occurrence.
Look at collectible cars or houses high demand areas. People are going to pay above asking price.
I think the same is true of very talented individuals. I was seeing compensation figures of 1M+ for C++ developers that can design high speed trading systems last year. I think AI researchers are able command higher compensation due to the lack of supply.
No. For us, an easy litmus test is "if one of our people had to move home to care for a sick parent, would we want to reduce their pay by $50k?" Obviously not, and if you don't do it in that scenario, you don't do it in any scenario. For reference, we're entirely distributed, no offices.
What will be the effect on the local economy and society, when a junior programmer right out of university will earn more than critical services to society?
At a practical level, the industry will pay you the least amount of money for which you will accept the offer. In SF/Seattle, if they do not add the COL multiplier, your wages are low enough, that you might reject the offer. On the other hand, it is quite unlikely for a person to able to find another competitive offer, even if their salary is significantly lower than their colleague who make less. At an ideological l…
To me COL adjustments are a proxy for the underlying metric of replacement cost. Employers are not going to pay someone more than the cost to replace them. For a lot of professionals this is dictated by their local employment market and COL is an easy way to approximate this. However not every skillset is tied to local markets. My own job is fairly niche and the hiring pool is on a national level. If I moved to a low…
At a practical level, the industry will pay you the least amount of money for which you will accept the offer. In SF/Seattle, if they do not add the COL multiplier, your wages are low enough, that you might reject the offer. On the other hand, it is quite unlikely for a person to able to find another competitive offer, even if their salary is significantly lower than their colleague who make less. At an ideological l…
Salary is about how easy you are to replace, and nothing else. Remote workers are easy to replace because you can go all around the world to find someone to do the work. Why pay COL to someone in Mississippi when you can pay much less for someone in India?
I can think of some reasons:
timezone,
because you're looking for someone who can do the job well. That's not "someone in India" at the very least that's someone qualified enough in India (definitely not the same hourly rate),
language/accent/cultural awareness/ease of communication/market awareness (I'm saying this as a non-American non-native English speaker),
availability of high quality tools in house/lab that the Indian counterpart can't get his hands on,
And so on.
PS: the low COL world is larger than India. There are options such as (Eastern) Europe that are full of highly educated tech people without jobs and... well.. the rest of the world? Why always India?