Comment by roosterdawn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by roosterdawn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> when the same talent can live outside of the bay area and can do with 1/3rd of the salary

What makes you think this is true and not just a post-hoc rationalization? Let me put it this way: offer that salary worldwide and you will still have difficulty finding top-tier talent, as many remote-first companies are finding out the hard way. Having been a hiring manager in such a position before, I will tell you that you are still competing against every other remote tech company to find and hire from the same global talent pool.

Secondly, you're not accounting for communication ease and timezone differences. A huge amount of the world is cut out if you optimize for remote candidates within +-1-3 TZs.

Finally, the assertion that the average valley firm doesn't need a $200k+ in 2020 USD terms engineer is also not necessarily true. Demand for senior talent is significantly higher than for mid range and junior talent, because mid-large size firms want it (to bolster their senior roster and make it easier for teams to subdivide), and small firms absolutely need it (they simply do not have a senior engineer and need at least one).

The current gig I've got, if they'd had a senior engineer - even as an advisor - from the outset, basically the last ~8 mo of work split between myself and a different senior engineer would have been unnecessary.

I wasn’t asserting or claiming one way or the other. I’m asking the question. Your response assumes some stance I might have - I don’t. I found your response pretty unpleasant and combative even though there is truth in what you’re saying.

> I wasn’t asserting or claiming one way or the other.

You verbatim asked "why pay $200k for a software engineer same talent can live outside of the bay area and can do with 1/3rd of the salary" and you got a response. If you think there's truth in what I'm saying but find that response "unpleasant and combative", I have two suggestions for you:

1. Communicate more clearly. If you are meaning to express an argument rhetorically or as a "devil's advocate" but it's easy to misinterpret your statement as if you simply support it, consider rewriting your comment for clarity.

2. Rethink your premises. If you actually do believe what it is you're saying, consider that you're the argument of "same talent for 1/3rd of the price" is the original offshoring argument, which has well known conceptual issues.

If you're more thoughtful about checking your assumptions when you could be wrong, it will be much less likely that you end up in a situation where you find yourself saying "Gee, I found so and so's response unpleasant and combative, even though there is truth in what you're saying." If you put your hand on the stove, do you criticize the stove, or do you realize that maybe it was a mistake to put your hand there and then move it away?

I accept the first suggestion - yep, should have be more clear. I reject the second one - now that's just pedantry.

My feedback is to learn how to write in third-person grammar [1]. It is one of the most important skills in effective communication and it puts the issue at the forefront.

[1] https://www.grammarly.com/blog/first-second-and-third-person...

If you only meant the statement as a rhetorical device or devil's advocate then the second part doesn't really apply to you. For what it's worth, I do think there's value there, so here's how I would have phrased that statement if you're curious:

"The question I have is what portion of the $200k salary is 1) due to the raw talent of the individual 2) because they live in the bay area. From a company's POV, if they have to pay a 2x premium for the local talent, what are they getting for that price, if anything?"

First of all, I switched around the order so you're leading with your priors. This sequence makes it clear that the statement "what portion of the $200k salary is 1) due to the raw talent of the individual 2) because they live in the bay area" is not your conclusion, but your starting point. I phrase the second sentence that way rather than "same for 1/3rd of the price" because it focuses on why people are _already_ paying the extra money when they could buy the cheaper "substitute" product rather than leaving unquestioned the presumption that the two are substitutable.

Sorry if this advice is unwarranted, but given that you've clarified what your intentions were from your post, I think the underlying curiosity is still pretty valuable, and I believe it's worth exploring. I would just personally take a different stylistic approach as described to explore it.

If this were true, remote positions would pay just as well as the highest paid places in the US, but they generally don’t, because they don’t have to.

It’s only difficult to hire developers anywhere because you don’t want to pay what it would cost to get a yes.

Remote positions are not monolithic. Some are highly selective and highly compensated. Others are the opposite. If you're looking at a random cross section of the global remote opportunity pool, you're likely going to see reversion to mean that reflects that.

then how come the same engineer at google transferring to a europe or india office gets 1/5th the pay? they are just as skilled. it’s the same person

Upvoted because you ask a great question. I'm just speculating here, but here are a couple points for further questioning:

1) How many people transfer to rather than from the Europe or India office? I'd wager that it's mostly in one direction, which is towards the higher wages.

2) Are RSU grants are adjusted downwards after the transfer? I believe the answer is no. Which means that the total package is not decreasing significantly until cliff.

3) What's the pre-existing financial situation for folks that move towards a lower CoL area? If you've already made a significant enough amount of earnings in the US that you could survive off of them in your destination, the base salary is going to matter a lot less.

4) Is there lateral incentivization in terms of trajectory? If you get to start a new office in a different country (or head a new team or something along those lines), the clout you develop long term may be enough to balance out the temporary salary loss, as when you return back to your origin country, you could have leveled up substantially and retain your level. You're effectively engaging in arbitrage here.

Suffice to say, I don't have a great answer, but I will note that this is a pretty specific exception, enough to make me repeat that platitude that "it's the exception that proves the rule."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com