I'm all for personally earning more money, but this also disproportionately rewards people who live in cheap places.
The main goal here appears to be securing their talent, as it’s becoming increasingly difficult to hold onto staff and create a stable enterprise. I imagine that only becomes more difficult when you’re a distributed team.
From the employee perspective: Will you really switch jobs now that your salary is top of market for your location? Any job nearby won’t pay you anywhere near that salary! You will have to move to the valley.
So it obviates job choice based on salary being a deciding factor in your life, your location and your connections. (Just because SF and other places have opportunity doesn’t make it attractive to all - opportunity cost like being away from family or friends can outweigh it.)
It’s then entirely up to you where you live and how beneficial you make that salary to you and your family.
The community where the staff live benefits too. Their surplus income will most likely be spent locally and depending on how they’re taxed, the local authority will benefit too.
Basecamp also has a sideline benefit: the massive PR that comes from awareness of this. And I bet they get droves of great talent jumping all over their new positions this year, from everywhere, _especially_ the valley!
Great tactic. Putting people first.
But we are the ones who decide whether paying the countryside person less is "fair". The moral weight of our actions are mostly independent of what a free market gives.
The market is a tool, not the objective.
This perspective I agree on. Specifically, markets are a tool for finding prices, because we've observed all throughout humanity that alternative methods of pricing (and hence resource allocation) go poorly. It's the least worst system! If you need to do that thing (establish prices and distribution of resources with minimum waste) then the market is a great tool.
If you're trying to solve some other problem (establishing "fair" pay) -- then I agree that appealing to the market is like pounding nails with a saw. It isn't even supposed to do that thing.
In Buffer's case, they're trying to go after fairness, which is fine. But this overall post above (bringing us back to topic) is that they're starting to introduce factors that are swinging them back towards the market. The market is pretty tough to ignore in the long term, irrespective of our feelings about its fairness.
On the other hand, I'd take the opposition position of yours and say that we should be incentivizing people to live in big cities for [many reasons](https://www.city-journal.org/html/why-big-cities-matter-more...). It is not perfect or tradeoff-free, but nothing ever is.
They do have places where your value is tied to your location. They're called offices.
The reason these high cost of living places exist is because they are in high demand due to all the benefits. Someone living in North Dakota (sorry anyone who is, I'm sure it is great!) won't have all the culture, food, weather, entertainment, night life, etc of someone living in the bay area.
A "Do the Right Thing" would be to truly embrace "remote-first" and realize you are paying someone for the work they do, not where they live. We are paying $x for job y and what you do with the value you bring to the company is up to you: live some place nice or some place cheap.
Our company is 100% remote (most live in bay area anyways) and we don't have pay scales by area.
OTOH, location matters a lot. Otherwise your company wouldn't be in the Bay Area. Centers of gravity are a thing. Why not pay for location? Even if an employee is remote only, if they network well where they are, it's worth paying for location.
Given a group of 7 people (posit some great team) their output is the same irrespective of location, sure -- but how did you get those 7 people? If you were in rural USA, your probability of ever having arrived at that situation is already much lower.
If location truly didn't matter, then you'd be able to move your SF team to Iowa and save a lot of money, but that's not going to work.
Or it matters very little for most things and companies choose the Bay Area for shared reasons: preferences of independently wealthy executives, signalling of some sort, etc.
But they should just call a spade a spade. It's basically a retention bonus: somebody living in SF is far more likely to jump ship than somebody living in Podunk Hollow. So just practice some of that radical transparency they're claiming and say that outright.
> It's basically a retention bonus: somebody living in SF is far more likely to jump ship than somebody living in Podunk Hollow
That's more reasonable, but again, the probability of jumping ship doesn't correlate with cost of living. We already give people who are likely to jump ship more money than others when we do the initial salary negotiations, this is a strict subset of that.
A fully rational company should be thinking "what do I have to pay to get the work I need doing done?" If that work can be done remotely then that optimisation works out as:
- Who can I hire in low cost locations and pay less for, without sacrificing quality (which I'm using VERY broadly to represent ANY differences in the work, team interactions, etc.).
- If I can't hire enough of those, fast enough, how much am I willing to pay in high-cost locations.
In the short term, when the company is trying to hire fast, talent is scare globally, and the company isn't connected to all global talent pools (so struggle to hire there) a sensible optimisation is salaries adjusted by location.
In the long term, as the company has time to build its remote brand and (if) its hiring requirements stabilise, a sensible optimisation will be work leaving high-cost centres like SF.
Don't feel too sorry for people in low-cost centres who work gets redistributed to at a lower cost - in the long term work from the high-cost centres is shifting to them, unless there are quality reasons for it to stay in the high-cost areas.
"Who is the cheapest person I can hire that passes a quality bar?"
Why should they care about location at all? They just want the job done.
> Don't feel too sorry for people in low-cost centres who work gets redistributed to at a lower cost - in the long term work from the high-cost centres is shifting to them, unless there are quality reasons for it to stay in the high-cost areas.
I don't feel sorry for them (us), I just dislike it because I see job postings from companies I'd like to work at that say "Come work for us! Oh, you live in <place>? We can only make you an offer that's a fourth of what you're currently making at <other company>, sorry. Feel free to move to SF and our offer will go up fivefold, though!".
In the end, it's a free market and everyone does what they want, but these companies end up missing out on good people because they artificially restrict their search to high-cost areas (because people in low-cost areas won't work for these companies when they can get higher-paying work elsewhere). It just irks me to see that a company I like is engaging in misguided, indirect area targeting when they purport to do remote.
The magic of concentrations of people is that the advantages scale faster than population growth because of the network effect.
Which, separately, is why cities are awesome and population density is a good thing for the planet and most people, even if it upsets some people that they can't have a big yard.
Smaller cities like Boulder, Fort Collins, etc offer a decent amount of variety while eliminating the majority of the problems with the large cities.
Career is about the only thing a big city can be critical for and you have to be in the right city for your field.
I wrote this to contrast any size city with places like the endless suburbs or rural areas, not to create a hierarchy of "biggest is best".
Problems do also scale with size, so it's not like the massive benefits of cities are tradeoff-free. For as great as San Francisco is purported to be, they have a huge homeless problem that they seem to do relatively little about.
However, your argument is not valid: Large size doesn't imply high cost. Neither Shanghai (most populous city) nor Manila (most dense city) have higher costs of living than SF.
This comment doesn't take away from your point - but isn't densest either Dhaka or Mumbai?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population...
That makes sense. Thank you for the reference.
You know - it's funny. Paris rates above Hong Kong (which does not even appear in the table), and Paris never felt (to me) as dense as HK. Even Manila never felt (to me, subjectively) as dense as HK.
Unfair how? The ENTIRE POINT of paying in currency rather than in square feet of living space is that it abstracts all of this - you earn the cash proportionate to the value you create then spend it however (and wherever) you like
If the company forced you to be in a high cost area, then by all means they should adjust for it. If they want their employees to be in a specific area they could add a bonus for it.
Think of it the other way. Let's say we have two people with exactly the same skills and experience, the only difference is that one lives in SF and the other in Sri Lanka. They both provide the same value to the company but according to the calculator, if the person in Sri Lanka gets $100,000 the person in SF should get $438,000. Is that fair?
Or, alternatively, "You don't live in SF so we don't have to compete with a bunch of other companies for your salary? Haha, sucker, here's less money for the same job."