Cost was one of multiple variables determining which site we hired at. At the extremes, it was a 10x difference. The higher the salary, the more senior the team. The competition to hire and retain software engineers caused salaries to go up everywhere, but at a faster rate in the low-cost countries. And low-cost countries were our go-to source for new grads. The profiles of say Russia and China universities varied significantly e.g. experience with open source, mathematical rigor, English skills, credentials, initiative, teamwork, and relevant courses.
The core product develpoment was done in the US but over time, other sites took on more product responsibility. In some of the countries, we also wanted to be closer to our customers, in expanding markets.
It's hard to measure quality, productivity and contribution on an individual basis but it was reasonably correlated with salary. There were outliers though.
So geographically-based staffing was complicated.
I’ll add: Many of the Indian ICs I worked with were fine, but there was at least one manager who was an absolute disaster and the American executives had very little ability to fix the situation. Given that financial capital is here, executives will be here, and so some part of the org chart has to bridge across cultures, which is going to be a slight friction that compounds over the years of the project.
you mentioned the new grad pipelines have already moved
what advice would you give to a engineer in the west hcol, pivot to product?
Put another way: Since WWII, we've been moving from US engineers (used broadly) with US as the only country who can afford our products to global engineers with everyone buying products.
There's no magic "US is a superpower fairy" which guarantees US salaries, cost-of-living, etc. will be 10x higher than everywhere else forever.
I can't predict the future, so I don't know what that will do for jobs outlook, but it's not as simple as "they're coming for our jobs."
My biggest worry is that the US is increasingly training incompetent engineers (again, used broadly). Much of the rest of the world has much better math and science in K-12. In winner-takes-all markets, 7-figure salaries can make sense sometimes to get the best over low 5-figure ones in the developing world, but if we're not the best....
A one bedroom apartment in my city rents for $1,800/mo - $2,200/mo and it's very "nothing burger" in terms of what you get. I'd imagine the rest of the world has a lot of catching up to do in that department?
Shanghai: https://www.smartshanghai.com/housing/apartments-rent/156977...
$1200.
Delhi: https://bnnbreaking.com/world/india/navigating-the-maze-of-b...
$330
Nairobi: https://propertypro.co.ke/property-for-rent/houses/in/nairob...
$20
Bangkok: https://propertyscout.co.th/en/spectacular-high-rise-1-br-ap...
$560
Lagos, Victoria Island: https://nigeriapropertycentre.com/for-rent/flats-apartments/...
$400
Ann Arbor, MI: https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_rent/condo,apartment_duplex...
A bit under $1000
It's actually quite all over the map.
One nit pick:
https://www.apartments.com/ann-arbor-mi/
Under $1k is living pretty 'not so great' in Ann Arbor
I've spent a lot of time in a lot of places (including several from that list), and I'm not sure what conclusions I'd draw about cost-of-living versus much of anything.
One unusual thing is often the very high cost-of-living in some cities in low-income countries. Like, if you can pay $50/month for housing an hour out of the city, why do people who earn a fraction of what I do spend $1000+ on housing in the city? Why don't people and businesses relocate?
I'm sure there's a good reason (and probably not the same reason everywhere -- crime, schools, economic opportunity, social standing, etc.), but apparent paradoxes like that are interesting.
Are we always going to need millions of javascript developers? Possibly not, productivity gains might outpace demand. But people can retrain on things that are in high demand.
The reverse is also true - people in high CoL locations tend to move out when their skillset no longer commands top compensation.
In other words, I think the available workforce, to at least some degree, sorts itself into expensive and cheap locations based on what skills are in demand.
To give a concrete hypothetical: you hire an ML research team in Poland. While ML is in demand, those people can easily get a job offer in London or Zurich and get paid 2-3 times as much. They don't even need a work permit, and it's a 90 minute flight. Why wouldn't they take it?
They actually need a work permit for London (it's not EU anymore).
I believe that for Switzerland there might also be requirements for the employer to state that they couldn't find talent in the country, before extending an offer to foreign nationals (including EU: Switzerland is not EU, though it's part of Schengen... And thus EU citizens have freedom of movement)
But your point stands... I think that fiefdom building, and needing teams close to where the execs (and/or investors) work and live is the other big reason why companies hire in high COL areas
https://www.eda.admin.ch/missions/mission-eu-brussels/en/hom...
As for Switzerland, you don't need it. As the Swiss government itself says: "Thanks to freedom of movement, citizens of EU/EFTA member states can enter, live and work in Switzerland.".
[1]: https://www.ch.ch/en/foreign-nationals-in-switzerland/workin...
I think it is also important to recognize that the engineers top American tech companies hire are often not American, they just happen to be in America. It is a geographical bias, not an American-as-nationality bias.
Engineers with unusually high skill in any particular area are geographically diffuse. You can't hire a "team" in some distant inexpensive country, there might only be one or two such engineers in the entire country and they are difficult to find. The moment a company invests in creating a concentration of domain skill where none really exists, that clustering of expertise has a natural gravity not only for engineers with those skills but for other companies that want to hire those skills. Why search for a particular engineering expertise in Bolivia when you know there are a hundred top engineers in some specific city? Even if the wages are higher, the risk is lower, hiring velocity higher, and the engineers more experienced, which has a large real ROI on its own. So people with those skills gravitate toward that concentration because that is where the money and jobs are. Wash, rinse, repeat.
There are many large cities in the world with a reputation for having a proper tech presence, albeit on a lower tier, where it is nearly impossible to hire certain expertise and experience even for Silicon Valley money.
You see the effects of this throughout tech, and not just software, where specific skill sets are oddly concentrated in one or two regions, including ones that are not particularly known for being tech or where the company that originally created the concentration became irrelevant decades ago. This expertise flywheel is how new globally leading tech hubs are created in practice e.g. Taiwan for silicon fabrication or Seattle for cloud.
This is the tech hub bootstrapping problem. You have to heavily invest in a valuable technical domain that is currently being ignored by existing tech hubs. Taking advantage of these opportunities requires vision and an appetite for risk, since it is a contrarian position almost by definition. I think this explains much in the European context, where you have large concentrations of excellent engineers but minimal investment in genuinely bold visions.
I have seen slightly better results with offshoring from Latin America - fast feedback makes a huge difference - being able to meet frequently and provide feedback in the same time zone makes a huge huge difference.
I think that AI will rapidly slot into this niche of “indirect programming” however. As soon as token sizes allow large codebases to be be parsed and modified, it’s all over.
Yupp, it pretty much turns a quick conversation at standup or a quick huddle about a change into a 16+ hour turn around time at minimum.
Context size is the least of an issue - current models suck in capability.
I've been building stuff on top of openai API for months and getting it to do trivial stuff with instructions reliabily is incredibly hard. These are things like "if a user asks a question about an individual but only specifies first name ask for last name before invoking a search function" - even with examples of what to do you'll get GPT 4 ignoring instructions and calling search with just a first name.
Like I understand that the potential they are showcasing is a breakthrough, and people are right to be excited about that - but we are extrapolating way to much based on breakthrough improvement pace.
We've seen similar claims about self driving cars being a year away since 2016.
Unless there's some breakthrough, I don't see AI affecting developer demand in the next two years at least.
The reasoning is different for Latin America - there the issue is more of a language barrier. While a great many people in Asia and Europe already know or seek to learn English, the same isn’t as true in Latin America.
But it's also true that FAANG all have global offices and teams fully in places with lower salaries. They are aware of the pay differences and take advantage of them. But they can't completely have all development done in a separate time zone or even same time zone separate region (like LATAM). That slows down dev cycles, invites gaps in product understanding, and allows you to miss out on top talent who will move to get paid top dollar.
Others seek instead to make remarkable things, and for these it makes sense to throw money at the best talent. What does it matter if an engineer costs 1m/yr if they make something worth 100m - 1000m? In fact, it’s a bargain.
This phenomenon doesn’t exclusively exist in America, but the environment there is more conducive to entrepreneurs swinging for the fences than most other countries. They’ve also been playing at a high level for much longer than most, so investors there have lots of wealth to fund startups.
So that’s where you find the big salaries as well.
I think it would be very difficult to take the ~100 or some engineers who do make $1m/yr at Google and draw the direct line to "this specific engineer is responsible for $1,000,001 worth of profit (aka paying for himself/herself/themself + some)", let alone $10m, $100m, etc.
Now I'm not saying iPhone assembly and architecting cloud computing are the same skillset. I just find it "unlikely" that America really has that large of a quality gap internationally? I work for a company that has a remote team of developers in Shanghai. I don't know for sure but I'm going to guess they do the same work/probably better work than the US team for less pay.
The other thing is the amount of skill required. There are more people who can be hired to assemble iPhones than to design all the parts that go into the product.
Finally, there’s an arbitrage effect going on. A company can more easily go into a low CoL and pay the predominate local wage than a person from a low CoL can move to a high CoL and get paid a fair wage (aside from legal barriers there are also social ones involved with leaving your family)
Thought exercise: what kind of profile would you expect of someone going into software engineering in a country where the good jobs pay 5x median wage (and ~25x global median wage) vs a country where the good jobs pay 2x median wage (and ~6x global median)?
Thought exercise: what kind of skills and experience would you expect of a 90%ile senior engineer in a country that gets lowest-bidder outsourced contract development work, vs a country that is directly employing engineers in "cutting-edge" development?
And anything that is not core product, they do outsource.
I just thought I’d jump in before someone talks about how [insert Ivy League school here] is the best thing since sliced bread.