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

Basecamp doesn’t employ anyone in SF, but now we pay everyone as though all did

m.signalvnoise.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 192 posts

Re: Basecamp doesn’t employ anyone in SF, but now we pay everyone as though all did

#21

Post by dennmart »

b6 wrote: post #19

> It started to increasingly seem like an arbitrary choice, and if we were going to make one such, why not go for the best and the top? So you picked San Francisco? Not London, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, etc? Why not pay everybody as if they live in Manhattan?

As someone who worked in Manhattan and San Francisco and currently lives in Japan, San Francisco wages for tech workers are definitely the highest and most competitive that I've seen. You can argue that the cost of living offsets the higher wages, but that's not what Basecamp or its employees need to deal with.

Re: Basecamp doesn’t employ anyone in SF, but now we pay everyone as though all did

#22

Post by netsharc »

Double_a_92 wrote: post #7
jasonkester wrote: post #2

Well done. Personally, as a remote developer, I always make a point of billing at my "Bay Area Rate", even though I've never lived there. There was a point, early in my guy-on-the-beach-with-a-laptop era where I would cut my bill rate in half while working from the beach with a laptop. Clients were happy about that, and it more than paid for beers and thatch huts. Then one time I tried not cutting my bill rate in hal…

I've always wondered what kind of development work you can do with a laptop chilling at the beach...

He's probably exaggerating, but I can see the allure of remote work. You may be working on a laptop in a cheap room in a hot country, but when 5PM comes, you'll be a few steps away from the surf.

And depending on the client's timezone, you could start work later during the day...

Re: Basecamp doesn’t employ anyone in SF, but now we pay everyone as though all did

#23

Post by pjc50 »

rplnt wrote: post #14
jasonkester wrote: post #2

Well done. Personally, as a remote developer, I always make a point of billing at my "Bay Area Rate", even though I've never lived there. There was a point, early in my guy-on-the-beach-with-a-laptop era where I would cut my bill rate in half while working from the beach with a laptop. Clients were happy about that, and it more than paid for beers and thatch huts. Then one time I tried not cutting my bill rate in hal…

> the work you're doing is exactly the same regardless of where you do it from But the "bay pay" isn't for your work. It's so you can work - i.e. cover your expenses associated with working at that particular place.

No, it's a market-clearing rate like everything else. It is for the work and only for the work. Otherwise you get the bad old days where unmarried employees were paid less than married ones, and so on.

Re: Basecamp doesn’t employ anyone in SF, but now we pay everyone as though all did

#25

Post by welly »

rplnt wrote: post #14
jasonkester wrote: post #2

Well done. Personally, as a remote developer, I always make a point of billing at my "Bay Area Rate", even though I've never lived there. There was a point, early in my guy-on-the-beach-with-a-laptop era where I would cut my bill rate in half while working from the beach with a laptop. Clients were happy about that, and it more than paid for beers and thatch huts. Then one time I tried not cutting my bill rate in hal…

> the work you're doing is exactly the same regardless of where you do it from But the "bay pay" isn't for your work. It's so you can work - i.e. cover your expenses associated with working at that particular place.

Isn't it?

Given a situation with two developers working remotely with exactly the same skills, experience and knowledge on the same project, but one works in India, the other one works in the Bay area.

Can you give me one valid reason why the developer in India should get a penny less than the developer in the Bay area?

And that the cost of living is less in India than in SF is not, in my opinion, a valid reason.

You pay your developers, or any staff come to that, what they're worth to you.

Re: Basecamp doesn’t employ anyone in SF, but now we pay everyone as though all did

#26

Post by tudorw »

mgc092 wrote: post #10
Adam89 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jason, how much did you increase your rate by in percent?

I guess 100% (doubling it), since he wrote that he was cutting it in half before

have you thought about a career in software development ?

Re: Basecamp doesn’t employ anyone in SF, but now we pay everyone as though all did

#27

Post by raverbashing »

jasonkester wrote: post #2

Well done. Personally, as a remote developer, I always make a point of billing at my "Bay Area Rate", even though I've never lived there. There was a point, early in my guy-on-the-beach-with-a-laptop era where I would cut my bill rate in half while working from the beach with a laptop. Clients were happy about that, and it more than paid for beers and thatch huts. Then one time I tried not cutting my bill rate in hal…

Is it just me that thinks working on the beach is awful?

Too much light, sand, and heat to be able to concentrate

Even if you're working in a coastal hut, nothing beats good ergonomics of a real office

Re: Basecamp doesn’t employ anyone in SF, but now we pay everyone as though all did

#28

Post by rplnt »

welly wrote: post #25
rplnt wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the work you're doing is exactly the same regardless of where you do it from But the "bay pay" isn't for your work. It's so you can work - i.e. cover your expenses associated with working at that particular place.

Isn't it? Given a situation with two developers working remotely with exactly the same skills, experience and knowledge on the same project, but one works in India, the other one works in the Bay area. Can you give me one valid reason why the developer in India should get a penny less than the developer in the Bay area? And that the cost of living is less in India than in SF is not, in my opinion, a valid reason. You…

> You pay your developers, or any staff come to that, what they're worth to you.

It's not that easy. What they are worth to you is your upper limit. What they are willing to work for is the lower bound. It's composed of many things, mostly supply and demand, but not an insignificant portion is living expenses. Most employers would gravitate towards the lower bound. And for a dev in India, it might be reasonable to pay them less. If there's another company willing to pay Bay rate, that's great for the dev, but the expectation that everyone (let's stay in remote developers category) around the globe should be paid the same is not based in reality.

Re: Basecamp doesn’t employ anyone in SF, but now we pay everyone as though all did

#29

Post by czechdeveloper »

antonkm wrote: post #8
jasonkester wrote: post #2

Well done. Personally, as a remote developer, I always make a point of billing at my "Bay Area Rate", even though I've never lived there. There was a point, early in my guy-on-the-beach-with-a-laptop era where I would cut my bill rate in half while working from the beach with a laptop. Clients were happy about that, and it more than paid for beers and thatch huts. Then one time I tried not cutting my bill rate in hal…

How much is your/the "Bay Area Rate"? Thinking about internationalization of my consultancy and have no real insight into hourly rates for devs in the US. Don't want to leave too much money on the table because I haven't done my research.

EDIT: This comment was incorrect and I do not wish for more down votes.

ORIGINAL: I believe it should be about 100 USD/hour for skilled consultant, but maybe someone with more experience can correct that.

Re: Basecamp doesn’t employ anyone in SF, but now we pay everyone as though all did

#30

Post by rplnt »

jasonkester wrote: post #18
rplnt wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the work you're doing is exactly the same regardless of where you do it from But the "bay pay" isn't for your work. It's so you can work - i.e. cover your expenses associated with working at that particular place.

Just up the beach from my $6/night bungalow in Thailand there was a resort that costs $1,500/night. The work I'd do from there would be functionally equivalent from my employers' perspective. So as long as we're covering expenses, I'd prefer they cover mine at that second place. The fact that I might actually be living cheaper is none of their concern.

If there's an equally qualified dev willing to take $1494/day less, employer would take that one. But if the only available people live in resorts, then the employer has no choice.
Post reply on HN