Hacker News Reader

Comment by Akkuma | Hacker News Reader

I think this system breaks down more than the imperfect implies, but still works alright. Let's say I live somewhere that cost of living is more than Chicago, but less than SF/NYC, such as DC. You are now asking people to take pay cuts, which reduces the potential employee pool, certainly one of the perks of being a remote company. Of course, the reverse also occurs where people living somewhere with a lower cost of living would probably really want to work for you guys thanks to a much larger salary, so I suppose it ultimately balances itself out.

View on HN

Yeah. This stuff is hard when you're a startup and can't pay Google rates. But as we've grown we've generally been able to grow salaries so folks are above market in the market they are in. Sometimes we lose out on folks in really high cost of living areas. But it's happening less often.

Thanks, knowing this I would avoid working for Zapier and would tell others not to, as you don't pay based on merit, but based on "what you need" based on cost of living. If a person is not limited to employment within a commuter distance then they have no reason to limit their salary based on the salarys within a commuter's distance.

A remote worker's "market" is the world, so you are competing with other remote companies, not other local-to-me companies.

We absolutely hire based on merit. People are living in rural areas making a great salary because we pay mostly fixed to Chicago market.

We don't downsize your salary. But sometimes we can't upsize it. There's a few companies we can't compete with on salary like Google. Most of those employers seem to be in the bay area. Sometimes we lose out. A lot of times we don't. The world isn't quite so black and white here.

Yes, you do downsize salaries. Paying Jill less than Bob where Jill is a better worker because she lives in Little Rock Arkansas and Bob lives in NYC is downsizing Jill's salary.

Jill can do better. Hopefully other remote companies seek out the Jills and pay them what they are worth.

I suppose that is true in the narrow case of SF/NYC. We're working to grow profits to make it so that isn't the case in the couple places that have the highest cost of living in the world.

I read the rest of the comment chain - just responding here.

My 2c: You don't have to accept the job offer if you don't like the salary. Hiring is a 2-way street, if the employee and employer aren't both happy with the salary package - then bail. Plain and simple.

Do you propose to ignore/lowball compelling candidates who've put down roots in high cost of living areas and intend to stay in them?

Or pay rural/developing world employees more than they demand?

IMO, both are at least a little bit irresponsible.

I don't think most employers are struggling for a lack of employment pool. The economy and unemployment is pretty shit world-wide right now. The only people making out like bandits are the high specialized folks that can demand it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com