Because people aren't stupid and when they realise they're being paid less than they're worth they'll leave, and then you'll have to go through the pain of recruiting someone else.
> Because people aren't stupid and when they realise they're being paid less than they're worth they'll leave, and then you'll have to go through the pain of recruiting someone else.
I just took a 20% pay-cut to go work somewhere I thought I might like. There is more to a position than the compensation package.
Sure, in those rare cases where you can find a company that really does interesting work (this is doubly difficult if you are limited to companies that allow remote work). For boring company A vs boring company B you are going to follow the money, I think (unless you actually work for The Boring Company).
There are a non-trivial number of factors that go into picking a job such that I sincerely doubt I would ever find myself going "Well, that one is offering 10K more per year." Off-hand:
- Size of company, size of department, size of team
- Future prospects, both in terms of company's market and my own growth
- Type of work, e.g. maintenance vs. active development, "rescue" mission vs. greenfield vs. boring brownfield.
- Composition of team, leadership, etc.
- Industry, e.g. do I find it reprehensible vs. tolerable vs. interesting
Perhaps I'm the odd man out here, but I've never been in a position where salary was the material factor in picking one job over another.
Disclaimer, I am a GitLab employee. But IMO this isn't really comparing apples-to-apples, since we're specifically talking about remote companies. Sure, someone may have 2 job offers from 2 different remote companies, in which case the company offering SF rates has the advantage. But I'd argue that would be a fairly rare case overall given how globally competitive remote work is.
What's probably more likely is that someone is comparing Local Company A vs Remote Company B (this was my case), with the compensation rates being fairly equal. Then, the decision is "am I willing to be paid less than a coworker in SF for the opportunity to work remotely?" I was fine with that trade-off personally, and I'm sure a lot of people who are attracted to remote work would be as well.
> when they realise they're being paid less than they're worth
Some observation though:
1. If you're still being paid more than local offerings, it's still worth pursuing.
2. More remote-only companies mean more global-scale competition. In the long run, this would mean that people would be paid equally among the various location (so yes, they'll leave).
What is less than worth though? $1 in my city goes a lot lot lot further than $1 in silicon valley. Sure, I could move to SV and get paid 400% more but I would end up with a worse quality of life and be poorer. I want to stay where I am and from what I have seen gitlab pays thats quite good for my city.
Because people aren't stupid and when they realise they're being paid less than they're worth they'll leave, and then you'll have to go through the pain of recruiting someone else.