Re:“Location-Based Pay” – Who are we to complain?
by fast54 on Sunday February 14, 2021 @06:25PM
(#26137295)
It is actually more than likely to get 2x the throughput when paying for better talent. The bottom of the talent pool is saturated with coasters who never invest in learning. I am seeing way more than 2x. There is also a cumulative factor when you get most of your employess in that caliber. Lastly, there is a limit on what a low talent pool can achieve regardless of the numbers. 1,000 people with my physics skill won't invent the theory of relativity. 10,000 coasters can't invent page rank.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:“Location-Based Pay” – Who are we to complain?
by chrischen on Sunday February 14, 2021 @07:01PM
(#26137506)
I think it’s disingenuous to assume everyone in SF is commanding higher rates because they are all super talented and not coasters. There are definitely tons of undervalued engineers in poorer or lower cost areas being overlooked to do this fallacy.
Just because someone is charging $200k doesn’t mean they are worth it.
Companies previously established artificial constraints such as colocation that forced higher salaries. If colocation is no longer a requirement, it’s only natural the associated premium is going away. That is, if you want the benefit of living in, say India, then you’ll also have to incur the cost of competing against someone like Ramanujan (famous mathematician) rather than whoever just happens to be within commuting distance of Mountain View.