Comment by sunils34 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sunils34 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Hi there! Sunil here (CTO at Buffer). Really great question! We've had a long and hard look at our salaries and have been in the midst of overhauling how exactly we determine salaries. One of the great things with being transparent about our salaries is that we learn so much about how we've originally set up our salaries and how we'd need to further adjust things. We received some great feedback and through that, we've realized how under-market our rates have been for areas like SF and NYC, while being quite above market rates in many other regions. We've been in the middle of overhauling how salaries get set, and have adjusted developer salaries based on some solid feedback. I believe we'll update the public numbers and be transparent about the process we took and our overall learnings quite soon!

Generally our approach with salaries (and much of the company) has been to iterate with continuous feedback loops. The feedback we receive in HN may further influence how we think about things. Would love any more thoughts/advice you have :)

> we've realized how under-market our rates have been for areas like SF and NYC, while being quite above market rates in many other regions.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that you have to pay more in markets like SF and NYC. The costs of living are much higher, and employees can switch jobs almost effortlessly.

Well, that's the weird part - they obviously knew that, because they have the location modifier (SF/NYC are location A/+$22k). Seems like the base levels are too low.

You get $10k more for living in SF over Nashville. Seriously, $10k? SF has to be somewhere around 50% more expensive than Nashville.

Perhaps that is intentional? Buffer may prefer employees in Nashville to those in SF for all manner of reasons.

Perhaps

I worked in another state for a well known and generally hated company based in SF who wanted me to transfer there, offering a 20k cost of living adjustment. But the actual standard of living increase that would be required amounted to a raise of at least 50%. The response was that a lot of people want to live in SF and would take the hit. No thanks.

Taxes and rent costs blow away these piddly adjustments. Moving into SF from elsewhere requires _massive_ income adjustments.

After you take out the difference in house prices and gas prices, the rest is minimal.

I'd say an apartment here would cost $2000/mo more than Nashville. Gas is say 50% more expensive; let's say that's another $4K/year. That adds up to an additional $28K/year after tax; or, roughly $40K/year before tax.

Could you talk more about how it took "great feedback" to realize how under-market you were? I would imagine a tech company -- especially one that took so much time and effort coming up with compensation formulas -- would have their finger on the pulse of salary levels.

Thanks for the reply, Sunil! Wasn't expecting a response from the CTO. :) Glad to hear you are constantly making changes and improvements. I almost applied a while ago, but the salaries were off-putting.

How do you deal with someone who's doing just as much work as a person in SF/NYC, but living somewhere else feeling resentful that they're not making as much?

Offer to relocate them?

You send me their email because my team compensates people based on talent, not zip code.

I don't think you should pay some one more because they want to live somewhere expensive, just like you shouldn't pay them more if they decide they want to drive a tesla.

So you don't have offices in SF then?

We do.

> I don't think you should pay some one more because they want to live somewhere expensive

I don't think that's the problem. The problem is, if you have someone you want in your team, and if that someone is living in SF for example, then you can't offer him the same kind of salary otherwise he will never accept.

I don't think I was very clear because this example is backwards. Maybe I should say we don't pay people less because they live in a flyover state. Engineers in sf do produce value that justifies a high salary. In many cases engineers outside sf can produce as much value.

Buffer seems to be aiming to provide an equal standard of living rather than an equal salary, so by that measure, they are making as much.

How's the $177k/yr and 0.96 equity treating you?

What choices have you made in the past year that make you feel you're worth $63k/yr more than Colin? I mean, is Colin just not quite as smart and good at technology as you? Have you two talked about how much better you are than him?

That rhetorical line of questioning is a low blow, but as CTO you might be able to answer: what positive open and honest discussion has the open equity/salary table actually encouraged?

Idle gossip around the virtual water cooler is one thing, but for open salaries to be appreciated, there have to be positives that outweigh the obvious negatives.

Another thing not mentioned, does Buffer give bonuses for good work or is the spreadsheet an employee's total compensation?

What are the "obvious negatives". Not trying to be snarky, I honestly wonder what people think the downsides of this approach are.

Resentment?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com