Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hacker News' “Who is Hiring?” thread, part 2, remote and locations

blog.whoishiring.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 237 posts

Re: Hacker News' “Who is Hiring?” thread, part 2, remote and locations

#201

Post by vostok »

ryandrake wrote: post #42
TrickzOnU wrote: post #16

I loved this line from the article "With unsolved US VISA problems for STEM workers, IT companies might have to get creative to hire potential employees." -- Yeah, creative...like paying a living wage for the location. Pay salaries that will allow someone to rent their own 1B (not bunking) and the "shortage" will magically disappear.

Yep, the tired old "Shortage of Engineers" meme is bound to come up in any discussion about tech hiring that ignores compensation. Saying there is a shortage of something in a market only makes sense given a price. Sure, there is probably a shortage of Bay Area engineers if you're paying $70K, but I bet there is no shortage if you're paying $400K.

> Sure, there is probably a shortage of Bay Area engineers if you're paying $70K, but I bet there is no shortage if you're paying $400K.

Just to reiterate this, I know many people who would become developers if they could make $400k. These are smart people with strong technical skills.

Re: Hacker News' “Who is Hiring?” thread, part 2, remote and locations

#202

Post by dasil003 »

morgante wrote: post #29
dasil003 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are tax treaties with most (all?) countries whereby you receive a US tax credit. In the case of the UK I believe even National Insurance contributions can be counted towards Social Security.

You receive some credits and deductions but the statement that "not a dime of the remote worker's income will reach american shores" is objectively and supremely false. The IRS brings in huge sums of money from Americans living abroad every year.

I lived in London for 3 years and did not pay a dime to the IRS.

That aside, your indignation over the quoted remark is misplaced since the GP was presumably talking about foreign nationals. So you're conflating two different points and then getting all self righteous about it.

Re: Hacker News' “Who is Hiring?” thread, part 2, remote and locations

#203

Post by syngrog66 »

TrickzOnU wrote: post #16

I loved this line from the article "With unsolved US VISA problems for STEM workers, IT companies might have to get creative to hire potential employees." -- Yeah, creative...like paying a living wage for the location. Pay salaries that will allow someone to rent their own 1B (not bunking) and the "shortage" will magically disappear.

I'd suggest that an even cheaper solution for them in the long run, instead of raising the pay they offer, is to figure out ways to cause less "false rejection" scenarios. I totally understand the desire to avoid "false positive/hire" scenarios. But currently our field also has a big problem with false rejections.

This would have the added bonus of increasing your usable talent pool both among residents/citizens as well as among remote/off-shore/foreign candidates.

Re: Hacker News' “Who is Hiring?” thread, part 2, remote and locations

#204

Post by TrickzOnU »

newjersey wrote: post #173
branchless wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, many hot-spots have large rentier presence including people "owning" and renting out multiple residencies which causes huge supply pressure. Credit also typically increases ahead of wages which squeezes people further. This isn't supply of people vs supply of homes, this is supply of credit. If you neutralise this you will see prices fall and be paying less of your labour to banks. 2008 - the credit taps ran dry…

I don't know why it is outrageous to say the solution to high rent is to build more. We shouldn't worry about "squeezing" people out. Ours is a HUGE nation. We have A LOT of natural resources and there is no reason why we can't let people build more (outside of protected areas, of course). People who are "priced out" should move to places where rent costs less. I keep hearing about property owners having enough polit…

>> People who are "priced out" should move to places where rent costs less

It is a huge nation, but one where 70% of the tech jobs are stuck in SF/SV. I can move to Lincoln Nebraska and pay $400/mo in rent, but I sure as heck wont find an employer seeking a python job.

Re: Hacker News' “Who is Hiring?” thread, part 2, remote and locations

#205

Post by Harimwakairi »

rco8786 wrote: post #195
makerman1982 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My 300k is 1/3 in private stock options which may not actually become money for another 5yrs, if ever. They don't accept it in exchange for homes and my 200k income isn't enough to buy a home, esp given there is a mass layoff every 7yrs. House prices go up more than the down payment I save each year so I get further from owning a home. Oh, and the east bay is about 2hrs fro SF so I'd never see my kids even if I bough…

You make 200k in income, not 300k.

I wish I could upvote this more than once.

Re: Hacker News' “Who is Hiring?” thread, part 2, remote and locations

#206

Post by nl »

TrickzOnU wrote: post #204
newjersey wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why it is outrageous to say the solution to high rent is to build more. We shouldn't worry about "squeezing" people out. Ours is a HUGE nation. We have A LOT of natural resources and there is no reason why we can't let people build more (outside of protected areas, of course). People who are "priced out" should move to places where rent costs less. I keep hearing about property owners having enough polit…

>> People who are "priced out" should move to places where rent costs less It is a huge nation, but one where 70% of the tech jobs are stuck in SF/SV. I can move to Lincoln Nebraska and pay $400/mo in rent, but I sure as heck wont find an employer seeking a python job.

Of course you will[1][2]. Lots more in Omaha[3] of course, but people underestimate just how widespread programming is.

[1] http://python.jobs.net/jobs/lincoln,nebraska.aspx

[2] https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/python-jobs-lincoln-ne

[3] http://www.indeed.com/q-Python-Developer-l-Nebraska-jobs.htm...

Re: Hacker News' “Who is Hiring?” thread, part 2, remote and locations

#207

Post by bayesian_horse »

ryandrake wrote: post #42
TrickzOnU wrote: post #16

I loved this line from the article "With unsolved US VISA problems for STEM workers, IT companies might have to get creative to hire potential employees." -- Yeah, creative...like paying a living wage for the location. Pay salaries that will allow someone to rent their own 1B (not bunking) and the "shortage" will magically disappear.

Yep, the tired old "Shortage of Engineers" meme is bound to come up in any discussion about tech hiring that ignores compensation. Saying there is a shortage of something in a market only makes sense given a price. Sure, there is probably a shortage of Bay Area engineers if you're paying $70K, but I bet there is no shortage if you're paying $400K.

Compensation has nothing to do with "shortage of engineers". Engineers have to come from somewhere, and the only way higher compensation can bring more engineers is by competing with other industries or regions.

It's not like engineers prefer living on social welfare to an underpaid engineering job.

Re: Hacker News' “Who is Hiring?” thread, part 2, remote and locations

#208

Post by bayesian_horse »

danieltillett wrote: post #177
branchless wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess they didn't get the memo on this in all the pre 2008 countries where supply was being added like crazy and so was credit and prices rose before a huge crash. It's very naive to think that this is simply any one factor, especially supply and demand alone. Why are economics conversations so limited?

The complication with the supply/demand story is speculation. What happened pre-2008 was demand was artificially boosted by speculators (i.e. a bubble). The true demand for housing didn’t change much, but the speculative demand for housing driven by rising prices and cheap money increased massively. The downside of all speculative bubbles is when they pop. The best way to avoid speculative run ups in prices (and subs…

You are running into the fallacy that you can know what is a bubble and what is not, before the fact.

Re: Hacker News' “Who is Hiring?” thread, part 2, remote and locations

#209

Post by bayesian_horse »

vostok wrote: post #201
ryandrake wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, the tired old "Shortage of Engineers" meme is bound to come up in any discussion about tech hiring that ignores compensation. Saying there is a shortage of something in a market only makes sense given a price. Sure, there is probably a shortage of Bay Area engineers if you're paying $70K, but I bet there is no shortage if you're paying $400K.

> Sure, there is probably a shortage of Bay Area engineers if you're paying $70K, but I bet there is no shortage if you're paying $400K. Just to reiterate this, I know many people who would become developers if they could make $400k. These are smart people with strong technical skills.

Until all companies are paying $400K, then they have the same problem again.

And on the other hand: Can they afford these wages? I would guess that many companies would have trouble justifying that salary on a broad level.

Re: Hacker News' “Who is Hiring?” thread, part 2, remote and locations

#210

Post by vostok »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #209
vostok wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, there is probably a shortage of Bay Area engineers if you're paying $70K, but I bet there is no shortage if you're paying $400K. Just to reiterate this, I know many people who would become developers if they could make $400k. These are smart people with strong technical skills.

Until all companies are paying $400K, then they have the same problem again. And on the other hand: Can they afford these wages? I would guess that many companies would have trouble justifying that salary on a broad level.

Companies can afford to give massive payouts to founders and investors so I don't see how they can't spare a few dollars for developers.
Post reply on HN