It boggles the mind that so many people didn’t know that employees are paid (at least in part) based on what the market will pay for a skill set in a given location. Often, there’s a disconnect between this and cost of living.
-
Show this thread
-
For example, I’ve managed tech workers in engineering and business in London and they were always paid less than workers in SF or NYC, despite the very high cost of living in London.
3 replies 0 retweets 46 likesShow this thread -
SF companies don’t pay more because SF has a high cost of living. SF companies pay more because it’s a highly competitive environment with strong talent that companies are willing to pay more for.
5 replies 7 retweets 81 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @cjc @thijsniks
I get paid 80% of what I can earn in SF to work in Singapore / Hong Kong. Most strong talent are geographically mobile and compete on a global marketplace. You just have to pay me more to live in a feces-infested city where heroin needles are a common sight on sidewalks.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @yuarecold @thijsniks
Perhaps true for certain folks. Harder for people with kids, aging family members, partners with jobs also tied to the same location.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @cjc @thijsniks
true. but I think that also reflects the price premium employers have to pay to convince people to move to the bay area. if I got paid double what I earn now, I'd be more willing to move there; the price premium on tech comp in SF is a market-clearing price
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Have you ever tried to hire folks in SF? Any good candidate, in any role, will get multiple competing offers. It’s not about location. It’s about competition. Once there are more remote companies, great candidates will just have more competing offers.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I agree that many great candidates will have more competing offers. That's a separate point to there being a general price premium on people having to move to Bay Area. Bay Area is missing out on some great talent that don't want to relocate to the region at current prices.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Most people are already in the bay area or _want_ to move to the bay area. Anectotal I guess, but i've never hired someone who needed a premium for moving to the bay area. IMO here's what will happen:
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Jauny @yuarecold and
1. SF co will keep the same headcount budget (w/ same salaries) 2. More cos in general will become remote 3. Undervalued, non-SF based folks will start seeing they can get SF salary 4. Cos that don't pay will be left with folks without confidence (I would never get a job at X).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Same salaries in this case means = we will continue to pay what we would already pay for your location, which is often lower than Bay Area because your local market is cheaper for us?
-
-
for sub par candidates, or the ones that can't negociate. Just like I've seens 50%+ variance in salaries between similar candidates at the same company in SF, because one can negociate (skills and/or competing offers) and the other can't
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
at
retweets