Maybe it's the fact that I don't have a separate "office", I just sit where I would do my computer stuff at home anyways.
If I need to be "remote", I go to a coffee shop or a library, anywhere but stay home. It's essential for my brain to have that distinction between "I'm at work" and "I'm at home".
At GitLab, we don't force you to work from home, if you want to work from an office, we’ll pay for that. You can probably find an office space pretty close by, so you don't have to commute long. A lot of people when it's their first time remote working, they first do the office thing so that their family gets adjusted to it. And then also enjoy the benefits of your kids barging in on a meeting and distracting you, it's the best distraction in the world.
There was one guy who was allowed to work remotely when he moved out of state and when he was on a conference call, there were frequent interruptions from his toddler. It's not professional and it happened often.
Perhaps the first N times. When it happens the N+1st time it is no longer the "best distraction in the world"
AFAICT this comment is indistinguishable from saying nothing at all
The atmosphere was great, lots of chatting and collaboration with colleagues. I really liked it. It felt like going to work and hanging out with mates.
Now I work in a shared office space 4 days a week. I would rather be at home, it's depressing as shit when you are in a busy office and have no one really to talk to. So the days when no one else is there from my company, I just don't go and work from home. It's a bit tougher to motivate myself to work but I have a nice work space / home office setup and the work computer is a seperate computer to my personal one. So when it gets turned off, I'm done.
At the same time, I love being able to work from anywhere. I can visit family more often, take weekend trips with Tuesday flight pricing, save $500+ every Thanksgiving and Christmas.
I wonder if the (long-term) winning model will be something like self-organizing hubs + remote workers. If enough employees are in one location and express interest, create a local office.
Most companies flat out made us use Windows workstations, even though 100% of our work was developing for Unix/Linux and not for Windows.
Another company allowed Linux workstations but only CentOS, and we were stuck with 6 until years after 7 was released.
Finally there was the company that let me use whatever software I wanted, but had fixed-height desks that were simply too low to fit my knees underneath. Aside from that, it was the best place I've ever worked, but I had to quit after less than a year because my posture was getting noticeably worse just from having to use that desk.
Now I work at home and everything is set up perfectly. I'll never go back to an office, even though I have to give up more than half of my potential income to work at home, it's just not worth it.
I have broken down and just grabbed some bricks or cinder blocks to jack up such desks in the past. It does make me wonder why so many businesses draw the line and refuse to spend a couple hundred dollars to keep an employee that they are spending six figures on happy. This kind of penny-wise, pound-foolish thinking is endemic.
Also, with all the cloud stuff, I don't even have to go to the data center anymore, further reducing my need to be on-site.
Lots of places open to tele-commute. You should NOT have to give up half your income to do it. If you get tired of the current gig, I'm sure you'll find a remote position with a competitive salary.
That said, unless you're not planning on sticking around for very long, I agree that the total compensation number is the one that ultimately matters.
edit: remove unnecessary 'actually'. too much time on imgur :-P
Up and down my office hallway, I can spot height adjustable or convertible standing/sitting desks, various flavors of adjustable chairs, several kinds of adjustable monitor or laptop stand, as well as a wide range of monitor sizes and orientations.
I prefer remote work too, but I'd get sacked before allowing some PHB to dictate my OS, or sit at some weird communal longdesk. It's so far from my experience as to seem like a joke.
You spent a _year_ at a place that made you sit at a fucking desk that doesn't fit you? My god.
> You spent a _year_ at a place that made you sit at a fucking desk that doesn't fit you? My god.
Sounds pretty ridiculous when you put it that way, yes :) but after all, what do we expect them to do? Tell the office manager that her beautiful design had to be screwed with just because of some senior engineer doesn't fit there?
Yes. Literally that. Seriously. I ruined my hearing sitting in a server room for a year when I was younger. Don't fuck up your body for any company, you will regret it.
Also most countries have accessibility legislation of some sort. It's not just for "disabled" people, this sort of thing is normally explicitly part of it.
It's really not my problem. I work for companies and clients that respect their staff. We both do better that way.
The more decentralized nature of coworking spaces means you can choose whichever one is closest to you, shortening the commute and decreasing traffic.
Sure you can choose a home near your company if you're just starting out your career or moving to a new city, but once you're in that city for a while, it's not feasible to move to a new home every time you move companies. Coworking spaces allow you that flexibility.
I work for a 10k+ employee company with locations worldwide, so online communication is a must in the first place. In most projects I work, my closest collaborators aren't necessarily even in the same timezone as I am.
My work/life separation is simple: I have a separate laptop for work, and when it's closed I'm not at work any more. My remote work arrangements have tremendously increased my quality of life.
The difficult part is that many employers don't offer the possibility of mostly remote work. I tried looking for jobs elsewhere for unrelated reasons, but I ended up turning down the offers I got because it was 5 days a week on-site.
This is enough to separate work from life. No need for extra office space in your house etc. - simply add decent noise cancelling headphones to that and you're good to go.
Or, IMHO, at all.
However, for a lot of people, their workspace at home is a table in a corner someplace and they don't really have room to setup a keyboard tray, multiple big monitors, etc.
if i'm on linux, i'm working. if i'm on windows, i'm not. i don't even have VPN software on my windows install -- it's purely for entertainment.
other than that, i have a separate office on my apartment that i treat as my... well, office. i'm the only one on it during the day (apart from my dog, but sometimes a dog break is necessary) and my wife knows that if i'm here with my door closed, it's because i'm focusing. this arrangement worked pretty well for the past ~7 years.
To me these seem contradictory. If remote work is so transparent, location shouldn't matter.
It feels like they're praising remote work only when it's profitable for them.
I have coworkers in Nebraska. They make a different amount than I. They also have and own a house on that salary. Do they move? No, they like it in Nebraska.
It is not GitLab's job as a large remote company to "fix" global economics.
GitLab is a "small multinational". If you look at other multinationals (or even large nationals) like Google Microsoft, GE, Comcast, etc, I'm 100% positive you'll find that they don't pay the same in different cities.
It's no different. One step at a time. GitLab is offering remote. In 10 years, if local economies level out more due to globalization, this can be less of an issue.
Until then, I'll just keep reading this argument on HN...
If they were a brick and mortar business operating in all these regions, fine, costs vary and it makes sense that salaries would too. But they are just using the excuse of locale to grow their margins, simple as that. It’s their business, and employees can work wherever they want. But let’s not pretend they are doing anyone any favors with that policy.
- What company?
- What role?
- What's your comp range indexed to?
- VC Backed?
https://careers.hotjar.com/o/customer-support-americas - this role is $45,000 to $62,000 (looking for EST, would be hired as a contractor)
For intermediate (of which you can go to senior) and you'd be an employee of GitLab in the US, so no dealing with self-employment tax etc)
- Florida $46,740 - $57,126
- Raleigh $54,940 - $67,148
- NYC $63,140 - $77,172
Very comparable except in NYC which is a higher cost of living. I'd love more data. I know Basecamp is doing the "everyone indexed to Chicago" which means that most regions are getting a little bit more purchasing power.
I would be quite let down with the pay range you have mentioned.
Gitlab doesn't have these constraints. They could pay the same, they just don't want to.
On the contrary, as a participant in global economics it has a responsibility to pay its workers fairly. No one is asking them to "fix" the economy, just to not perpetuate unfair hiring and salary practices like regional salary limits.
The work you do is worth it to GitLab or it's not. The value of the work doesn't change whether it's done in Nebraska or New York or Amsterdam.
Here's Glassdoor info about Google. I chose the following cities because Glassdoor said they had "high confidence". Consider it anecdotal:
- Glassdoor San Francisco SWE - "AVG Base - $129,065"
- GitLab Average at Intermediate: $160,000
- Glassdoor Bangalore Google SWE - ₹1,691,257 current exchange == $23,785.84
- GitLab Average at Intermediate: ₹3,406,961
- Glassdoor Toronto SWE Google - $119,055 CAD current exchange == $89,925.81
- GitLab Average at Intermediate: $114,075 CAD
(This doesn't account "perks" and RSUs and such which I assume Google's are larger, so Google comp can probably be 20-40% higher. Consider doing a search of your own with $company of your choice to compare.)
Do I want to live in a world where everyone gets paid the exact same for the same work, and everything costs the same everywhere because we have perfectly efficient markets, absolutely.
Do I think companies are dumb for making competitive wages for local markets? Not at all. We live the majority of our life in a local market.
Can workers find companies that are "outliers" that will pay them the same for their work no matter where they are? Yep.
Do I think that due to globalization and a remote work force over time we will have more evenly distributed salary. Yep.
All I want is for you (and others) to bring the same vigor for salary to any tech company thread as people do to GitLab's. We are a tech company that built our compensation model like many other tech companies (and other global companies). We also allow you to work where you live and want to pay a wage that is respectable in that region. Just like Google.
The next time a thread comes up for any company on HN, I want anyone reading's first thought to be: "I wonder if they pay people the same in different cities?" Let's talk about it more than just in GitLab threads, and we can start that acceleration towards perfect salary around the world.
Edit: I think it goes without saying, but I wanna be abundantly clear, these thoughts are my own, and I'm a longstanding member of this community first, and an employee of GitLab second. No one asked me to go on this rant this AM, I was just tired.
SF is very expensive. Where I live, my salary provides an extremely comfortable standard of living (I'm in the top 5% income bracket overall here). If I made the same amount in SF, I'd be hard-pressed to afford a small apartment.
The NYC rate is justified if they work you harder or if your job requires face-to-face interactions in NYC.
Imagine someone making the argument it is OK to pay less for X class of people, because we can get away with it. X being some historically marginalized, but now protected class. And they should be grateful because some other place pays even less!
It would be really nice if remote discriminating companies could not be called equal opportunity employer at the very least.
(Note that is ~700 sq feet, not meters)
But, you also make literally twice as much money, so it easily offsets the extra rent.
For people who need space, just forget it. House prices are roughly 10x higher than in the ordinary small cities, ignoring the difference in land area. Families need the space.
I know a former San Francisco resident, now in Florida, with enough space to raise sheep and shoot an AR-15 in his yard. He's not rich. He earns a salary as a good software developer, and he decided to buy that kind of space. It's 11 acres if I remember right. He couldn't have that in San Francisco, even earning literally twice as much money.
Really? My impression is that nobody wants to live in expensive tech hubs where they can't even own a place to live, but they can't leave because there is much less work elsewhere.
There are certainly people who are convinced that they can only find meaningful work in a handful of tech hubs--first and foremost the Bay Area. I'd argue they're mostly wrong but you won't convince many of them.
However, there are others who genuinely like the Bay Area in spite of all its downsides for reasons that I even somewhat understand when I visit. The culture, the lack of snow, etc. Others are like New Yorkers who consider every other city a provincial cowtown.
As someone who kind of feels this way, I guess it depends on how you define meaningful. I grew up and live in the Southeast. Its not like there arent jobs out here, but majority of jobs around here a corporate, "code monkey" jobs. Yeah, there are startups and some markets that are outliers, but its rare for me to see a job in this region and thing "wow this would be a really cool job". OTOH I've seen job listings for companies in say, the bay area or Austin that seemed really interesting (to me), from companies large and small and it just seems to come down to where the companies have offices.
The reason why doctors get paid more in underserved areas is because very few highly educated people want to live in rural Alabama, even if the houses are cheap.
I certainly wouldn't want to trade Amsterdam for the town I grew up in. Then again, my dad clearly disagrees. On the other hand, Amsterdam probably isn't quite as expensive as London, New York or San Francisco.
"Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."
There are some reasons to want the ability to hire anywhere regardless of salary cost. But, if you are going to pay everyone competitive Bay Area salaries anyway even if they work from a beach in Southeast Asia, there's going to at least be a bias towards hiring for nearby timezones, language fluency, the ability to get together physically on a regular basis, etc. You're essentially paying for it after all.
(And if you conversely pay a salary that's decent for a typical midsize city in the South or Midwest, you're probably going to have a lot of trouble attracting talent that can get jobs and wants to live in or near major US coastal cities.)
As others have said, GitLab is transparent about it which most companies are not. It does let you see that the best "deal" is to live somewhere that the salary multiplier is determined by a high CoL urban area--but then live in a low cost area of the same state.
But, even historically in the Bay Area, that's not really the norm. Compensation in high CoL areas is often higher but not really equivalent with respect to housing, etc.
I don't understand what "transparency" has to do with anything here? Given that we know their algorithm for pay, based on CoL, it sound that they are being transparent?
as well as the fact that paying for insurance out of your own pocket entirely is unfeasible, when I was contracting I was paying like $400 - $600 for health insurance I barely used (I can't remember the exact number, but it was a hit),
If you assume you work 1800 hours a year and your insurance is $600 a month, it’s $4/hour you add to the amount you charge per hour. (Insurance is pretax).
Companies don’t generally hire contractors to save money, they hire them because it is a lot easier to get rid of them. You should be able to charge a premium as a contractor not make less.
But then you better be damn good at budgeting, networking and keeping your eye on the market.
I've been working remotely from different parts of south/southeast Asia for almost a year now and my cost of living is comparable to my previous residence in Amsterdam. If I was paid less just because I'm in Asia now, I'd be a bit peeved.
I spend a somewhat similar amount on rent because I expect a certain standard of living. I also bought recently bought a new laptop, which ended up costing more than if I had bought it in most expensive countries. Last time I checked, most of the items I regularly buy (e.g. a cold brew coffee) cost exactly the same here.
You should be paid for the value you bring to the company. Your location WRT earning potential is none of your employer's business.
[EDIT] actually, looks like they finally fixed it so it's about right. Nice. Glassdoor info on their interviews still make it seem like way too much of a PITA for a lateral comp move, but that's better.
And by "earn" I mean once you deduct taxes, cost of living, and personal required expenses (education, kids, healthcare, rent..). The extra one keeps/gets to use after all those are deducted should be the same for the process to be fair.
Why would someone working remote earn more? That somehow doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.
"Shouldn't" has very little to do with salary offers.
Of course, real life is more complicated than that and all things are rarely equal.
ADDED: GitLab actually explicitly states: "All things being equal, we will hire people in lower cost markets vs. higher cost markets."
Otherwise they re just subsidizing the rent seeking behaviour of crazy expensive cities
Wages and cost/quality of living are in a feedback loop. Remote work will net benefit the cheaper cities and will deflate prices in the expensive ones. I think that is inevitable
That's great for lifting everybody out of poverty of course, but how is this suddenly possible? Can we maybe give everybody a Basic Income to take care of all the cost of living stuff?
Also, if living in an expensive city doesn't cut into your disposable income, then even more people will want to live in those cities, driving housing prices up even more.
I'm absolutely sympathetic to the equality for all argument, but I suspect there's a reason why this is not how capitalism usually works.
Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should get fair wages. But that's just not how it works in different societies. "Fair wages" means different things in different places.
in particular, if i want to keep my european lifestyle, malaysia ends up being more expensive than europe. same goes for most other asian countries. it gets worse with kids. education is very expensive in asia if you want to get the same quality as europe. and i also need to factor in expensive travel to visit family back home.
average cost of living is meaningless.
life is only cheaper if you accept the local living standards and if you don't have any family on another continent. so you are telling me that me having to accept a worse standard of living than you is fair?
Up front, I believe everyone should be paid the same. I want that. But I do accept local living standards. I must - and therefore I am paid less. It's just a reality of our world today.
I think this conversation is about how global our economies are. Which I think are more local than people believe. Also keep in mind that cheaper living isn't always worse living, just cheaper.
and i decidedly disagree that cheaper living isn't always worse. it is. that was the whole point of my post. traveling to visit family, sending my kids to a school with european standards, getting insurance for european quality medical care, all are expensive no matter where i go.
i have lived on 4 continents in dozens of countries. i have yet to find a place where a high standard of living was cheaper.
cheaper living always required trade-offs.
I understand why GitLab does it, it increases profits, but why can’t you pay someone in Malaysia Silicon Valley wages? If there was an individual contributor they wanted badly enough they’d break policy and I’d be surprised if there aren’t some people for whom exceptions have been made.
Well, yes, but $1 in Malaysia goes a lot further than $1 in SV. So "equal pay" isn't really equal at all.
COL-adjusted salaries are perfectly reasonable in my opinion.
Would I be happy to be paid the regular rate of a Malaysian developer while I live in Silicon Valley? Or would I demand a higher pay? Does that mean everyone in the Malaysian office gets paid more? Does the company go under?
GitLab is in a weird position because they have workers in both. We don't chastise a local Malaysian company for paying the local rates, but we do for GitLab?
It's an unfair reality, but not an unlivable one. A cheaper lifestyle isn't necessarily a degraded one.
That still doesn't make it fair. I personally believe these global companies could step up and try to change that. But that's if it weren't about profits - which is is.
Who budges? Do the global companies lower their prices or do local economies step up and pay more? Or even are they able to pay more?
Especially since they don't do region based pricing - everybody pays the same price worldwide, but they only pay cost of living salaries? Hypocrites.
I don't know, it seems fair to me. If you pay your workers in a high-COL area the same in terms of absolute money as those in a low-COL area, then the people in the low-COL are effectively making a lot more than those in the high-COL area.
What's important, in terms of business or personal finances, isn't gross income -- it's net.
Many more customers would be on gitlab if regional pricing exists. The profit number would go down though.
More candidates would apply to work for gitlab without the policy.
In both cases gitlab makes more money. Which is fine but spinning it doesn't seem right.
TLDR; we want to pay close to market, and location still is a big factor in market wage.
As someone who's worked mostly full-remote for 5+ years and has been in an office for the past 2 years: I absolutely prefer being in an office with my coworkers.
Everyone has different priorities of course, but commuting and location-lock-in aside the office wins in all categories for me. I could technically be working from home whenever I want but unless I have practical reasons to work from home I always come in.
Interesting conversation, though. And I think that in order to make it work properly, you kind of need to be "remote-first" as a team (most communication digital) or you will be hit with chaos.
And I think it's really great that GitLab is going all-in on this. There are also many teams in the cryptocurrency/blockchain space that are fully remote, where the team members meet physically a couple of times a year for conferences or team retreats.
Yet, it isn't for everyone. I think it is great to know which camp you fall in, and seek out work that lets you succeed in whichever environment works best for you.
I understand the other side but I attribute the downsides to the fact that modern lifestyle has not adapted. Americans seem to center their social life around work, so yeah thats gonna be rough if you go remote. Esp. if you work in a boring residential-only suburb. I think we re about to see lots of changes around this culture in the following years
I think the steps outlined in this interview, oriented around taking small, iterative steps fast, is going to soon become the new norm for work, but that will require advancements in the state of technical architecture.
Microservices needs a new, language-agnostic framework. I'm excited for GraalVM, might be the only thing Oracle ever gets right.
my rule for remote work, is that remote should be first. even if you only have one remote employee.
i also realized that this is actually a good thing -- because if someone get sick, has an emergency and has to work from home for sometime, it doesn't break the team's flow.
but i recently read circleci's blogpost on remote first, and it's really good too https://circleci.com/blog/what-almost-failing-the-gre-taught...
That should be the goal. Some people like full local, some like full remote, some (like me) like a mix. I would guess the majority fall into the later.
Companies should cater to all three, because A) its not hard to do, B) its cheaper for them, and C) they don't eliminate great employees.
I’m in the same position as the other person. I just quit my remote job for a local in-office position.
If you have a local meeting the immediate aftermath can be more useful than the actual meeting. You talk a little more and one-to-one with someone and exchange ideas and maybe you quickly go over some difficult issues.
I now work remotely and do enjoy some aspects of it. However, there is much to be said for the co-location of coworkers. If everyone on your team is in an office and you are somewhere else you lose part of the dynamic. You have to work harder to stay in the loop on things instead of just organically being in the know.
I could take the train some days but still a huge chunk out of my day. I couldn't have dealt with that long term.
At big companies, it was pretty easy to do. Everything is electronic and formal. Still days I wanted to be in the office but remote was fine.
Small company where everything is in flux based on customer needs, it's more of a mix where we're making real decisions every day and really need those face to face meetings / I want to be there. Sometimes just to get that face to face time with someone new or such.
Really though it is not about size, it is about the job / how the company works, and that's OK. Different jobs, phases of a company's life, DIFFERENT PEOPLE and etc all lend themselves more to remote work, or way way less. There's no right or wrong more than there is inherently right or wrong code as much as you consider the existing system and make decisions about what works best given that system.
Communication between team members is a huge issue in remote work.
It works if everyone is on site. It also works if everyone is remote.
But when some are at the office and some aren't, communication and information sharing becomes a lot harder. Mostly it's a process and tool issue, but still humans will rather just turn around and ask the team than spend a minute describing their issue on Slack/whatever.
I actually find it harder to understand people who prefer to call/talk rather than describe the issue in text.
First, when you have an e-mail/wiki/Slack - you've got a proper paper trail on who's responsible for what. Second, you've got a conversation you can always return to - so that you wouldn't need to ask about the details again and again. And third - you can send this conversation to someone else and they can understand what's happening.
Basically - my point is that for the issues that are worthy of a long conversation, screen is always better. Especially if you can add things like diagrams (e.g. graphviz) into the equation.
I am mostly not happy about people who are currently older at the offices (40+) and who think that chats are made as a replacement for the phone (e.g. you are supposed to say "hello", wait, then "hello" again, then to communicate in real-time).
One of the best collaborations I had was with I was 15 ~15 years ago. We had an IRC chat with a wiki. The team was all over the globe - and we made things happen without speaking to each other in real-time. We used wiki for documentation and chat for most of the communication that didn't need history.
Some things are just easier in person.
Again, this can be solved with tools (some tool that allows a shared drawing surface with video/audio for example), but very few people bother. I've seen $$$$ put into expensive 80" Surface screens and they're still used like a cheap whiteboard.
As you say, while companies take different approaches, most large companies (or even medium large companies) has offices all over the world, teams that have grown and morphed through acquisition and reorganization, etc.
I have a couple different offices I could go into--daily if I wanted to--but most of the people I interact with are elsewhere and many of the people I do work with in those offices spend most of their time traveling and in meetings.
The situation may be different for small development teams of focused projects, but I'd be working across timezones every day whether I was in an office or not.
Is there any data to support this, especially considering that compensation is usually the number one way to attract and retain talent, and remote workers are often not paid well (even after adjusting for cost of living) compared to on-site teammates doing the same job but physically present in an office location?
There are rare and uninformative exceptions sure, but largely remote work pay sucks for doing the same job. The company is treating you like basic needs (quiet & private workspace, avoidance of crushing commute) are perks that should be offset with lowered salary, even though the salary is for the job you’re doing.
Edit: Gitlab apparently even publishes their own policies about this:
It actually smells like outrageous bullshit pay policy to me. That’s actually kind of sad given they are held up as an example of more healthful & open-minded work policies.
I can say for sure I’d rather deal with the downsides of an office commute & environment than to be paid less than a teammate doing the exact same job potentially solely because they are choosing to live in a higher cost region. That’s a pretty clear signal the company is looking for fungible, cheap talent and views remote as a cost-cutting tactic, not some corporate ideal.
> “If we start paying everyone the highest wage our compensation costs would increase greatly, we can hire fewer people, and we would get less results.”
Wow, what complete horse shit. So what about companies located in expensive urban centers that don’t offer remote positions? All their hires are at the highest local rate, yet companies like these are thriving, hiring plenty of talent, growing, etc.
I see the “location factor” between San Francisco and NYC is 0.85. I would be laughing my way right off of that negotiation video call...
I am frankly stunned to learning it’s such a sham with Gitlab!
I'd also like to see some data to back this up, but intuitively it makes sense to me at least. A lot of engineers want to work remotely, yet there are disproportionately less remote positions available.
Remote work is a huge deal for a lot of people (including myself), and many would happily trade a somewhat lower salary for it - no commuting means you save money, get more sleep, and more free/family time. I've been remote for several years now, and little things like getting to have breakfast and lunch most days with my family really matter.
Yikes, would never work for gitlab after reading that and the relocation chapter.
The only thing that makes GitLab exceptional is they're very transparent and upfront about it down to the specific numbers--some of which admittedly seem rather off.
If you’re an expert in a special database system, a company is going to have to pay you what you ask, regardless of whether you’re interviewing for that company’s NY office or Boulder, CO office or working remote from Alaska.
Companies that don’t do this, whether hiring remote or hiring into different office locations, generally aren’t investing in employees but are looking to cut costs with location arbitrage, and get reputations for being bad places to work, lacking compensation or career growth.
Gitlab is welcome to just be another one of these crappy companies, but it seems like they aspire to be seen as some type of thought leader, which is at odds with a pay policy that is at best mediocre and at worst actively exploitative by design.
I stand by my assertion that very few large employers ignore location when it comes to salary offers.
I agree with you but only because most large employers enforce commodity models of labor, and only far up the hierarchy do you get to unique employment requirements that break commoditization.
This doesn’t fit Gitlab at all though. They are still in a phase where very few employment needs are commodity.
Dallas is a 0.800. I'd be all over Gitlab if I still lived there.
Meanwhile, New Jersey and Virginia have the same factor as Alabama and Mississippi (0.633).
I don't oppose the idea, but I want to know whose ass they pulled this table of adjustment factors out of.
From what I've seen, if you want to buy something large like a car in the UK, you can approximate the cost by taking the American price and converting it using the official exchange rate, which is...1.23 at the moment but often higher.
But the salaries I see advertised are generally as if the exchange rate were 1:1.
So I think wherever this factor comes from, it's not new or obscure, and at about 20%, it pretty much explains the discrepancy here.
The emphasis on _async_ communication stands out. So many places basically think "we have video chat and slack! done!". But then you realize that the east coasters all got together at 5am west coast time. If everyone is used to at least recording, then just notifying the channel "hey we chatted about X", it helps a lot.
At the same time, I still feel if offices were just nicer spaces, people wouldn't be as pro-remote. Every office I've been subjected to (over 15-18 years, it's been several) are rather ugly, distraction-laden environments. I'd be ok to go work in an office, but, almost every tech office I've been in is both depressing and full of stupid interruptions.
The best schedule, in my opinion, is one day in the office, to deal with meetings and planning and such that actually benefits from face-to-face, to four days remote, for actually doing work.
This is 2019; you can always jump on a video call. And even though I do have a private office (with a door!) at work, my office ar home is less prone to incidental interruptions, and the network connection is more stable.
Would have loved to pivot to that full time if the guy I worked for hadn't turned out to be unreliable. It's still a fond fantasy to find an arrangement like that again somehow.
I'm not sure Gitlabs COL rule caters to this sort of situation at all. I'd prefer an employer to have no concern whatsoever as to where my "permanent" residence is, albeit that of course complicates HR/legal things.
Before that I worked completely remotely for years and I miss it so much. Unfortunately this isn't really a thing so far in Singapore as far as I can tell (The previous job was being proud about an initiative that introduced one day of remote work for select people. One day per month).
>That apartment in the bay area has great weather, it's above a fun little Thai fusion dive bar, and within walking (or public transport) distance to some of the worlds largest tech conferences and meetups. Meanwhile, an employee in Iowa has to drive an hour for a P.F. Chang's and has to wake up 5am to shovel his driveway 5 months out of the year to get his kid to school.
Could we inject just a little more Bay Area condescension for the flyover states?
To be clear, I understand the visceral appeal of the fairness argument and reducing two locales to a single ratio is incredibly simplistic. But ultimately, almost every distributed company lets market forces set different salary ranges--which may or may not be a better approach than a preset ratio.
This is sort of a case of malicious compliance.
(Presumably this partially relates to salary but they also make the point they're really not indifferent to location. They take things like timezones, proximity to customers, etc. into account.)
Small companies do indeed not expand geographically for this reason--or hire through a partner or other entity that is already established there.
If you have the skills and experience gitlab is seeking you could work for any bay area company for $160,000 or more remotely or $200,000+ locally (sv/sf)
This ensures gitlab will get average, some good but very few great employees. Most will flock to google/facebook/etc and by pass gitlabs when they are paying double.
In lower cost areas they are coming in at the top end but a lot of places are hovering in that range.
Designers always have the best hardware, perhaps that's why they overlook how their designs are rendered on 'typical' machines.
Lato 300 is too light for body text.
font-family: 'Lato', sans-serif;
Personally, I would ditch the header typeface too. You can surely find something which is fairly unique while still being legible.
But if I'm not too comfortable, and not too distracted, I can be more productive. To do this, I have to turn off slack and e-mail, and go to a room which isn't very comfortable and has no distractions. Ideally there would also be other people in there for the same purpose, for accountability.
At work we have these "focus zones" where a conference room is booked for 2-5 hours a day. You can go there and just work in silence with others. If I turn off slack and e-mail, it works well. The only problem is the chairs are almost too comfortable, and conference tables aren't ideal for working on laptops.
"Missing out" is one reason, but not the biggest one. The biggest one is that I prefer to have a clear physical/psychological separation between being "at work" and "at home".
In either case, with VR and AR maturing GitLab's groundwork will be gratefuly re-used with in the future.
The comment by Sid about investors seeing remote-only as an additional risk something that never really crossed my mind. Gitlab truly are pioneers in going remote-only at this scale.
<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=https://www.nohq.co"/>
I’m baffled and curious as to why that got there in the first place.