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

Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 233 posts

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#81

Post by umeshunni »

somebrody wrote: post #37
alkibiades wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think therse a good subset of people who dont really care that much about their careers. atleast from my experience working at fang. they just like the high pay and WLB and dont seem to care about being promoted or advancement.

> good subset of people who dont really care that much about their careers Caring too much is a bad bargain. The companies don't care too much about you and me

I think OP is talking about people caring about their own careers (i.e. growth, promotions etc).

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#82

Post by ip26 »

volkk wrote: post #57
Hamuko wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $150k is not what your work is directly valued at, but rather an agreement of what it'll take for you to drag your ass to San Francisco, which is objectively a bad place to live if you're a human that has to make budgets, and come to work at Facebook. Also yes, if Facebook starts to hire remote workers, then your value will drop because they now have the access to a pool of workers who don't want to drag their as…

i'm kind of super interested (also scared) in the effects FAANG companies allowing remote workers will have. sure, maybe salaries at FAANG might decrease as supply/competition rises, but then all of the other companies that arent FAANG now have to sort of raise the lower boundaries of their pay since they cant just say "well you can go ahead to move to SF if you dont like it". Are we looking at lower high end of the…

It seems like the top end would drop a lot more than the median would rise. Given the poaching it seems clear SF has a scarcity of developers that satisfy FAANG, and scarcity drives price up radically. If remote work becomes more widespread, the scarcity condition would presumably evaporate.

Socially speaking it could be a very good thing. Many of the big challenges we are facing (wealth disparity, political polarization, housing crunch) can be tied to the gross disparity in economic opportunity between places like SF, Austin, NYC, vs everywhere else.

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#83

Post by rob_b »

polote wrote: post #26
Jemaclus wrote: post #2

This is one of the things that's always bothered me. Let's say you hire me for your company in San Francisco and pay me $150K. You've made a calculation: my value to the company is greater than $150K, and $150K is a price you're willing to pay to leverage that value. In other words, the company will (eventually) make more than $150K per year off my contributions to the company. But now if I decide to move to Tulsa, O…

> Why? My value to the company hasn't changed! I am still worth the same amount as I was before! Do we have stats about he difference of hours between remote and non remote employers? I thought the main goal to have those big tech campus is to have dev stay longer at work. If you are remote you will work less and then your value decrease

Being remote means you always have access to work, thus often resulting in you working much more than you would in an onsite only role.

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#84

Post by Jare »

Jemaclus wrote: post #2

This is one of the things that's always bothered me. Let's say you hire me for your company in San Francisco and pay me $150K. You've made a calculation: my value to the company is greater than $150K, and $150K is a price you're willing to pay to leverage that value. In other words, the company will (eventually) make more than $150K per year off my contributions to the company. But now if I decide to move to Tulsa, O…

> my value to the company is greater than $150K, and $150K is a price you're willing to pay to leverage that value

Now change the second "is" in that sentence, to "was".

Offer and demand are (largely) what determine your salary. The value you create is what sets a ceiling to that price.

It's that simple. FB becomes willing to hire people who live anywhere, and stops believing that candidates in SF or other expensive locations provide more value. They will have a way larger pool of candidates, and they will likely find people who provide just as much value for FB (sorry to burst any bubbles here) but are willing to do so for less money than currently happens.

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#85

Post by sct202 »

joshpadnick wrote: post #34

We're a remote-first company and went through this same discussion when we began hiring people in different cities, not just in the USA but all around the world. What we found is that any approach to setting salaries has to balance the following factors: * Pay people enough to live comfortably * Pay people enough that they accept our offer vs competition * Pay people in a way that feels fair * Pay people in a way tha…

How do you do the cost of living adjustment? I've used a few just for fun before and have gotten wildly different results for NYC vs Chicago (+21%, +51%, +75%) from the first few listed on Google.

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#86

Post by brogrammernot »

mech422 wrote: post #56
Jemaclus wrote: post #2

This is one of the things that's always bothered me. Let's say you hire me for your company in San Francisco and pay me $150K. You've made a calculation: my value to the company is greater than $150K, and $150K is a price you're willing to pay to leverage that value. In other words, the company will (eventually) make more than $150K per year off my contributions to the company. But now if I decide to move to Tulsa, O…

Of course, programmers in Oklahoma are not idiots either.. They know that not only does the company have a wider choice of employees - the employee has a wider choice of employers. They also know SV companies pay more then $90K, and if they already have a decent gig they will not 'settle' for what they could get at a small company. They may not ask for the full $150K - but they are going to ask for say $120-125k. End…

AZ salaries, when factoring in COL, are more than most tech jobs in California. This is leaving the allure of non-valued startup options but on average the salaries I’ve seen (yes, n=1) are in the realm of the upper curve of Bay Area salaries .

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#87

Post by ipnon »

jldugger wrote: post #76
Hamuko wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $150k is not what your work is directly valued at, but rather an agreement of what it'll take for you to drag your ass to San Francisco, which is objectively a bad place to live if you're a human that has to make budgets, and come to work at Facebook. Also yes, if Facebook starts to hire remote workers, then your value will drop because they now have the access to a pool of workers who don't want to drag their as…

> The $150k is not what your work is directly valued at Indeed, presumably you are worth more than that to them. It's a pretty naked cash grab to cut salary in response to a location move, and somewhat illogical considering they moved their HQ to the bay area in the first place. If it's objectively bad and expensive, why not move your HQ to Austin or San Antonio or Portland? > if Facebook starts to hire remote worker…

All business decisions are cash grabs.

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#88

Post by pimpampum »

Jemaclus wrote: post #2

This is one of the things that's always bothered me. Let's say you hire me for your company in San Francisco and pay me $150K. You've made a calculation: my value to the company is greater than $150K, and $150K is a price you're willing to pay to leverage that value. In other words, the company will (eventually) make more than $150K per year off my contributions to the company. But now if I decide to move to Tulsa, O…

The $150K is so you can have certain lifestyle there but not save enough to leave and become competition, it's the cost of labor reproduction. In Tulsa your cost of reproduction would be lower, paying you too much might allow you to leave the shackles of capitalism.

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#89

Post by Vysero »

mrkurt wrote: post #59
Jemaclus wrote: post #2

This is one of the things that's always bothered me. Let's say you hire me for your company in San Francisco and pay me $150K. You've made a calculation: my value to the company is greater than $150K, and $150K is a price you're willing to pay to leverage that value. In other words, the company will (eventually) make more than $150K per year off my contributions to the company. But now if I decide to move to Tulsa, O…

I'm disappointed that all the replies to this sentiment are "lol, it's supply and demand". I mean, maybe that's it but it's not a very useful thing to think about. As someone who's run two remote companies now, I have struggled with this dilemma as an employer. Because I agree with you, if a person is worth $x to the company, their location doesn't change that. The flip side, though, is that I also want people to be…

"Not everyone can move to optimize their relative adjusted income"--

Yes and not everyone can get married, and have a partner to share the load with either. So does that mean a bachelor and a married man should be paid different salaries?

Not everyone can find the time to run a side business. So should those who can be penalized?

You pay your employees what they are worth to the company and forget entirely about what they are and are not capable of doing outside of the company because it's really none of your business. If that means you can't find employees because you aren't willing to value an employee correctly than your company will fail, end of story.

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#90

Post by Tade0 »

aeternum wrote: post #49
ones_and_zeros wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about where you live. It's supply and demand. Those companies artificially limited their supply and provided a ton of demand within their narrow market. They are now opening up to new markets and spreading out the demand accordingly. Forced analogy time: It's like if I decide I'll only buy peaches from the organic farm down the road. They charge $20/lb. I calculate that I get $21/lb worth of utility. The Far…

The part that doesn't make sense though is keeping the employees that live in SF, or paying an employee more if they choose to relocate to SF. Tech companies typically do increase your salary if you move to a higher CoL area.

Relocating for most people is actually a bigger deal than it may seem.

I personally have no problem with it and did just that at least once, but after returning I asked around and most if not all of my friends and family would not do the same even for - and this was especially shocking to me - 4x the salary.

Apparently flexibility is rare and sought after.

Post reply on HN