roosterdawn

> Yeah, but pip and venv don’t leave me impressed, so please elaborate why those are better.

Maybe you misspoke, but whether you are left impressed or not is your opinion. What is factual is that these tools are the ecosystem's default tools for their jobs, and have been for a long time. I have relied on them operating multiple production codebases over the course of a decade.

I think you need to elaborate on what about that doesn't suit your needs rather than that they don't impress you for some vague, unspecified and potentially arbitrary reason.

To answer your question, why do they impress me? They get out of my way, they work, and they don't require me to do anything but have a system version of Python installed. With them, I get reasonably sane package management and environment isolation without headaches. That's enough for me.

> But if company goes 'remote' much more work becomes outsourcing worthy.

Again, there's a difference between "outsourcing worthy" and "can reliably outsourced for enough cost savings for the whole thing to not be ROI negative". And, that's my point. Companies going remote doesn't magically jump start geographic labor arbitrage from zero. That geographic labor arbitrage has been ongoing for a long time.

> Edit: Wow. Downvote in five seconds. Really makes you think how much effort people are putting into processing the words I wrote.

What is there to process besides you making a strawman and injecting flat politically polarized tropes and adding nothing but pollution to a discussion? You are arguing in bad faith with shoddy arguments and should be downvoted:

- False equivalence between blue collar and white collar outsourcing -- what makes you think knowledge work isn't substantially different from blue collar work for them to be apples and oranges?

- Putting words in someone else's mouth -- no one here ragged on Trump voters who "didn't see any other way out" -- you perceived that and projected it into a space inappropriately. This is a giant forum with a variety of people and political opinions. Don't flatten that into a single viewpoint and expect to not get heat for it.

- Misunderstanding of labor pricing. Employers pay the minimum they can, but saying "salaries are high right now because of concentration of talent" misses the network effect of concentration of talent. If you don't understand the nonlinear effect of that, I think it is a little bit misguided to suggest that others do not understand "basic economics"

Please, rethink how you worded your post and how you can say what you were trying to say in a more factually grounded and less inflammatory way. I promise you will get better responses with this approach.

> What globalization did to manufacturing jobs, remote work will do to many service jobs.

This is bait. It's taken as a given rather than a hypothesis to be proven, which invalidates most of this post for me.

Issues with the analogy:

- Offshoring existed before remote work was popularized. For the many of "your jobs" up to be "taken" that shift has already occurred.

- Outsourcing is not a magic bullet. Timezone gaps, communication style, expert knowledge, and legal compliance are all issues that previous outsourcers to call centers have already discovered.

- Significant gaps remain between "tier-1" and "tier-2" support. Effective deployment of offshoring requires using the two to complement one another, not trying to use the latter to replace the former.

No matter what it is that your company is selling, tricky situations will come up that needed to be escalated to an experienced customer success team, whether that's the founder or a dedicated team. Being able to recruit globally doesn't magically make building that team any easier.

You read my mind. This is awesome. Wonder how hard it'd be to DIY a smartphone and go from there.

As it pertains to statecraft, what is the point of bringing up "insurrections"? It just seems like a pedantic red herring to avoid discussing war. Insurrections are either aborted attempts to start wars and brutally suppressed, or they become protracted wars, which folds into the empire cost benefit analysis I pointed to. When it comes to wars, I think that territory, violence, the threat of it, and its costs are the attendant free variables in which decisions are made.

I don't think this logic applied to humans actually is inaccurate. For much of human history, extended family cohabitation was the norm, and the standard American nuclear was a radical, almost unimaginable idea. Most animals operate on a biological impulse to further their offspring; do most animals operate this way to pursue immortality and evade death?

I don't see anything inaccurate with this base level analysis, although it obviously elides most of the finer elements of human existence that exist a bit higher up on Maslow's hierarchy.

This should really be the pinned comment, as it does tell you everything you need to know. You've always had to move somewhere more expensive/with a heavier tech center gravity to have your career take off whether it's in terms of clout or total compensation (both of which are inextricably intertwined).

Where this development fascinates me is that it vastly increases the pipeline into the FAANG BigCos. I'm sure that, not to be outdone by FB, other members of FAANG will be having serious conversations that are along the same lines as this. Even if your career at a certain company plateaus because of satellite syndrome, you at least have the door open to moving to where the action is if that's what you prioritize.

But for me, so long as the real world reflects the asymmetry of capital allocation at central nodes, so too will salaries reflect that. I don't see any point in protesting that. I feel like it's more valuable to try and figure out a way to speed up the diffusion from central nodes outwards which already appears to be happening, and which this story is part and parcel of.

Because you, the laborer, begin as a fungible commodity to a company that very much operates on a short-term, quarterly basis. But with that said, it's certainly possible that Facebook will need to functionally do as you described and "keep salaries the same and get the absolute best talent in every market across the world" because otherwise, they won't be able to effectively recruit. They'll get outbid by startups that don't attempt such hare-brained schemes, and maybe they'll dislike it enough to raise wages where required.

Secondly, it's not likely the case that Facebook needs the "absolute best talent" across the board -- it's more likely that they do for some positions (and will pay appropriately) and not so much for others. And for where it stands there, I'm pretty sure Facebook knows what that Pareto frontier looks like -- at least in recent history, they have generally outbid their weight class competitors [1] in terms of total compensation.

[1] https://www.levels.fyi/company/Facebook/salaries/Software-En...

A thorough reading of history shows that violent uprisings are de facto _what_ is effective, and certainly in post-industrial modern times. Empires cede control of territory when they become too expensive to maintain. Usually, that is in terms of violence, which threatens mercantile stability and integrability.

Unfortunately, the violence and instability that often accompanies secession doesn't always end up resulting in prosperity after independence. That is because violent or not, uprisings do not necessarily upset the power balance between the colonizer and the colonized. Some say the alphabet agencies that form the worldwide practice of SIGINT operate on this inertia -- well, I don't want to speculate about what I don't know about, but I think that at least my own country's declassified documents are telling. The USA has had a hand in kingmaking much of LatAm and the Middle East. Historically, I think this kind of proxying only ends when the empire itself shrivels.

> The cynical part of me thinks all this "WFH Permanently" initiative is just a disguise for companies to start lowering cost for entry to mid-level IC positions by hiring from areas with much cheaper CoL.

This isn't cynical, but the sword cuts both ways. Eventually, those lower CoL areas will equalize towards a higher CoL as folks begin moving there to WFH. The other way around will occur there too, as the discount to entry or mid level IC engineers will erode over time, and the good ones will cost more because of trajectory, while the more middling ones likely will experience some erosion due to increased labor market competition.

With that said, I can't really speak as to what the second order effects or black swans will be regarding the shift to remote first. Some speculation:

- Will suburbs become more or less attractive as commute becomes less important of a perk?

- Will more remote tracts of land previously relegated to just outside the reach of exurbs become more or less attractive now that inhabitants are no longer precluded from virtual labor market participation?

- Will a caste system solidify around those who continue to commute to the office versus those who do not, or will it dissolve as the majority moves towards working and collaborating virtually?

- What will the effect of timezones be? Will we begin to see nations organize around timezone based vertical blocs as economies increasingly shift towards virtual labor and knowledge work?

Oil. You can probably connect the dots from there.

> people today scroll through their feed where in one instant they are reading an article about war crimes in South America committed by the U.S. and in the next instant what Kylie Jenner wore to the MET gala

Doesn't this completely invalidate your argument? If it's that much easier for folks to read an article about war crimes in South America committed by the US and the next about Kylie Jenner at a gala, how is that different from reading one section of a newspaper and then a different section?

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."

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.

Simple concept, but it hits me right in the nostalgia, presumably as intended. Very well done.

There was a relatively viral tweet I saw a few weeks ago saying "Gen Z career options: Fulfillment Center worker or OnlyFans" with gendered undertones. For what it's worth, though, while less common, it's not that rare to see men have (and quite successful) OnlyFans. But I agree with the economic sentiment of what you're saying. It's hard not to believe that we're seeing the middle class being completely hollowed out during this pandemic.

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.

Wow. Talk about solving the real problems! I'm not sure if this has been an issue yet, but how do you QC masks from known good manufacturers to make sure quality doesn't slip?

> But we're specifically talking about someone who already has a job at Gitlab here and how the CoL adjustment affects them and the weird situation it creates, so the competitiveness doesn't really matter, they've already got the job.

Of course the competitiveness matters. It informs the level of optionality and leverage they have to negotiate. I would say that it's the only thing that matters. What about the CoL adjustment is weird besides it being reflective of the somewhat ugly and distasteful truth that to the company, you are a human resource and fungible cog? That's what they're paying for.

This employee will have to think about what happens if they do not come to a favorable agreement with their employer. Their BATNA completely depends on 1) the demand of other firms in the area (or remotely) and 2) their relative ability to compete. If they can perform well enough to move to a competing employer in the same locale that pays better, they will.

Yeah I get it, I just don't buy it. Move to a higher COL area, and you tend to get access to a market with expanded labor demand. So, it's $HIGHER_COL_MARKET_EMPLOYER (or $HIGHER_COL_MARKET if you catch my drift) increases your wages which pays for your mortgage.

But the competition tends to be fiercer in a higher COL area, so you are still not guaranteed even a median pay job in that area if you cannot get it. Many do not. The "higher COL area = higher pay" equation seems magical except it hides that it also includes higher competition.

> 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?

A fellow individual of taste, I see.

But honestly, I would really enjoy seeing more of the latter type of think-piece in all seriousness. I genuinely do believe that the field as a whole would benefit from a bias towards $BORING_DEPENDABLE_TECHNOLOGY and customer centricity.

I think you have things the wrong way around. If you are able to pass the interview bar for a selective company that pays market rate in a tier-1 tech city, then yes, you get to move. But, if you don't, you won't get the job whether you move there or not.

> 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).

Lost it at $AN_ENGINEER_TOOK_A_MYTHOLOGY_CLASS. I guess it's not as bad as $A_FOUNDER_WHO_TOOK_AYAHUASCA or $THE_VC_WHO_SPEAKS_ONLY_IN_RAP_QUOTES_AND_METAPHORS.

Did anyone else read this and, experiences colored by startups, immediately begin thinking about an analogous effect in startup organizational developmental dynamics?

Anyways, to be more on topic, I read this quote from the article: "Because of the founder effect, showing that a particular mutation increases viral transmission in humans is very difficult." Does the author here mean that it is hard to determine whether a mutation increases viral transmission in humans or not because that mutation's survival may not necessarily be the result of genetic fitness but founder effect?

Not sure why you're getting downvoted and I 100% agree. And furthermore, I would be very surprised if your point is not eventually echoed by senior leadership, at least internally. This is the only correct course of action, and based on leaked documents, senior leadership made a reactionary misstep in the opposite direction (that ostensibly they regret, once it was leaked) and doubled down on it. The fact that said member of senior leadership even publicly recanted his original idea indicates that folks understand that mistakes were made. The question is how the company is going to respond and rectify them going forward.

The problem I have with your argument is that depending on one's viewpoint, this could be a feature and not a bug. Historically, humans have had some conception of reasonable ranges of rates to charge for interest and purchases to underwrite that fall inside the bounds of ethicality, and things outside of that boundary that were deemed unethical and usurious or outright slavery.

Let's take your example of student loans. We can both agree that making student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy and not owed to the government would cause the student loan market to contract. What if you think that this kind of debt, being non-asset backed, is not just unethical but unsustainable inside a functioning free market? What if you think that many institutions have made use of debt inflation to bloat their bureaucracies, facilities and other non-academic investments via a bubble that can and should pop? What if an alternative financial product should exist that forced institutions to put skin in the game towards the permanent economic future of the students that they are ostensibly responsible for and selling a product towards advancing?

I think that we need to remember that debt is primarily a mechanism for moving around value, and that the intrinsic value (liquidity) that it provides is distinctly marginal. We as a society in America should question whether it is a robust long term strategy for the country's economic future to even allow for the option of selling an education with debt-based financing without some kind of a positive outcome guarantee. Otherwise, the incentives are almost guaranteed to result in bad actors exploiting the disenfranchised. Outside of the moral hazard here, the more unavoidable hazard is the market hazard of overleveraging assets whose intrinsic value cannot support the bonds they back, causing an unnecessary macroeconomic financial shock that could be avoided with foresight.

I agree with your criticism in that the form and tone really do get in the way of a clear communication of his point. But I don't think it negates that he does have a point, which is that IQ is "scientistic" rather than scientific.

And furthermore, not only is what you're saying ("that people with an IQ of 60 are equally wealthy as those with an IQ of 110") a disingenuous reading of his point (he actually says that IQ is closer to a step function where correlation exists below the median but not above), but so too is the tone of what you're saying. To state that science is "a method to ascertain facts, entirely indifferent to our human affairs and feelings" is not something he is even arguing, it's the other half of what you say ("science is never unfair, never has an agenda") where you indict yourself.

He says this:

```

The “best measure” charlatans: IQ is reminiscent of risk charlatans insisting on selling “value at risk”, VaR, and RiskMetrics saying “it’s the best measure”. That “best” measure, being unreliable blew them up many many times. Note the class of suckers for whom a bad measure is better than no measure across domains.

```

When you say "science is never unfair, never has an agenda, never backward", shouldn't you be saying "science SHOULD never be unfair, science SHOULD never have an agenda, science SHOULD never be backward"? History is littered with examples of scientism masquerading as science that were only later on unmasked (such as Lysenkoism, phrenology, the humors, VaR as he mentions and so on) as frauds by the purportedly "scientific" concept's inability to _work_, and only then after causing a significant amount of ignorance and damage. For what reason are we to believe IQ is not one of these? Taleb's argument is that assumptions about IQ which misinterpret it as a linear function when it is a clipped linear function injected with noise lead to erroneous conclusions. If you have any criticism of Taleb here, then by your own reasoning, shouldn't it be because his hypothesis is wrong? And shouldn't you have a compelling argument for that? What are you doing but proving his point?