Google staff squirm as remote workers face pay cuts(wired.com)
wired.com
Google staff squirm as remote workers face pay cuts
https://www.wired.com/story/google-remote-work-pay-cuts-big-tech/
101 comments
> Many were tired of being locked into a geography which did not make them happy.
Do you compete with Bay area FAANG salaries? It seems that part of the reason companies pay so much in Silicon Valley is because the cost of local labor is so high.
Do you compete with Bay area FAANG salaries? It seems that part of the reason companies pay so much in Silicon Valley is because the cost of local labor is so high.
We do. It works for us because we are aggressive on salary (for a startup at our stage) and very aggressive with benefits and flexibility.
Could you elaborate on the compliance reasons for not hiring outside of US?
Indeed, as the other individual commented - there are compliance obligations which are more difficult/costly/time_consuming (not impossible) to satisfy if we have non US citizens working on the product. We are going to hire outside the US, but at our current stage there is a cost we can't easily absorb - right now.
Not the other user, but...
I'm not sure if FISMA/FedRAMP necessarily require it, but it certainly makes things 'easier' (as much as they can be).
Generally, the point is... federal stuff is the most likely candidate in my opinion.
I'm not sure if FISMA/FedRAMP necessarily require it, but it certainly makes things 'easier' (as much as they can be).
Generally, the point is... federal stuff is the most likely candidate in my opinion.
> Could you elaborate on the compliance reasons for not hiring outside of US?
Every country has their own laws and regulations around employment that you have to comply with, so even if it would be fine from the US side it would still cause a lot of legal work from the other side. Small companies might get away with hiring them as contractors, but large companies would get targeted if they did that too much since not every country is as lenient with these things as USA is.
Every country has their own laws and regulations around employment that you have to comply with, so even if it would be fine from the US side it would still cause a lot of legal work from the other side. Small companies might get away with hiring them as contractors, but large companies would get targeted if they did that too much since not every country is as lenient with these things as USA is.
In my career, cutting salary without just cause was viewed as a request to change employment. Or, a signal that the company was in dire straits and extreme cash management was required. I think we can assume google does not fall into the latter category. And cutting salary when it will improve retention and hiring “reach” and enable the company to better manage real estate costs strongly suggests it’s a stealth layoff, aiming to remove any peg developing a bit of square-ness. Round pegs fit the holes best, eh?
And remember, having the worker exit on their choice costs the company nothing.
And remember, having the worker exit on their choice costs the company nothing.
80% of my Bay Area salary is significantly higher than the local payment for my area. I’m just hoping these inflated salaries last. I’m nervous to buy a home because even if I make $$$ now, if I ever get fired and need to find a local job I won’t be able to meet my previous salary.
This is exactly why the company has the leverage to revisit your compensation,full stop.
This isn't a Bay Area problem but rather applies everywhere in the world. The risk adverse solution is to save for a home rather than take on a large mortgage.
No, the risk adverse solution is to live below your means while paying the mortgage, so that you have money left over if you ever have to take a pay cut.
Even in MCOL areas with an average-to-high non-FAANG tech salary, "just save 250-500k for a house" is not realistic advice. Even with a FAANG salary that's doable with concerted effort but not if you already have a family.
Who is saving that much for a house? Does anyone actually put 20% down these days?
20%? Absolutely. PMI is just setting piles of money on fire and except in the highest of high COL areas, you're almost always better off saving more or buying smaller than wasting years of PMI.
Enough to have something that doesn't qualify as a "large" mortgage? Rarely.
Enough to have something that doesn't qualify as a "large" mortgage? Rarely.
Seems worth it to pay PMI and get a place rather than wait another 1-5 years to have enough saved up to me, but I live in one of those highest of high COL areas and the market has appreciated so much more in the past few years that you lost out if you were waiting to have 20%.
Rapidly appreciating housing prices certainly change the math, and depending on your specific mortgage, may help get rid of PMI sooner.
The problem with saving for a house I that rent prices are set to get your savings as close to 0 as possible
That worry would technically still apply if you could move while keeping 100% of the salary as a remote worker, right?
Trust me. Buying a house when you can't easily change jobs is a risk - in down times, a forced move might/will lose you some money as the market will weaken if there's layoffs, etc. Remote work is a great help towards (significantly?) reducing this problem.
My point is that this is true regardless if the pay is cut a bit. If you work for Google and move to work remotely, you may need to worry that when you need to change jobs you may not find some other SV giant hiring you remotely with the same conditions.
All these companies had roughly these policies before Covid: move to the cheaper office, get paid slightly less.
It doesn’t impact tech people because the tech offices were always the bay, Seattle and nyc which often ended up in the same band.
It doesn’t impact tech people because the tech offices were always the bay, Seattle and nyc which often ended up in the same band.
Why does google (or any company for that matter) think this is a good idea? Especially with jobs in the tech industry being so abundant and people chomping at the bit to hire SWEs/SREs.
By adjusting pay to local cost of living Google is effectively saying that they will provide their employees with the same standard of living regardless of their location. In lower cost of living areas this means an accordingly lower salary, because a Bay Area salary would otherwise afford an employee a better standard of living.
As for losing talent, Google is sufficiently established that the majority of freshly minted computer science and software engineering graduates are still desperate to work for Google if they can get in. And Google doesn't need to hire all the top talent to grow or run with the same profit margins.
I suspect software engineering salaries for new hires will start declining in nominal terms within the next decade or so, as (1) automation lowers demand for engineers on the business side (2) the labor supply keeps growing (3) non engineers in tech companies demand adjustments to their own pay to match engineers or start leaving for other companies that do, leaving less money to pay engineers (4) MBAs keep moving into management and start cutting labor costs for their most expensive individual contributors to increase profits and satisfy shareholders.
When new graduates make as much as doctors, with only a fraction of the education, while every other profession, with the exception of junior investment bankers, including technical ones and non-software engineering professions, are lucky to crack $75k, I don't see how the current job market is sustainable.
As for losing talent, Google is sufficiently established that the majority of freshly minted computer science and software engineering graduates are still desperate to work for Google if they can get in. And Google doesn't need to hire all the top talent to grow or run with the same profit margins.
I suspect software engineering salaries for new hires will start declining in nominal terms within the next decade or so, as (1) automation lowers demand for engineers on the business side (2) the labor supply keeps growing (3) non engineers in tech companies demand adjustments to their own pay to match engineers or start leaving for other companies that do, leaving less money to pay engineers (4) MBAs keep moving into management and start cutting labor costs for their most expensive individual contributors to increase profits and satisfy shareholders.
When new graduates make as much as doctors, with only a fraction of the education, while every other profession, with the exception of junior investment bankers, including technical ones and non-software engineering professions, are lucky to crack $75k, I don't see how the current job market is sustainable.
It seems like people are constantly pessimistic about future salary for Software engineers. I'll present the opposite case, with the advent of software eating the world, good software engineers are infinitely more valuable than a good doctor or a good lawyer or whatever. This is only going to continue to get more extreme with software controlling more and more. Someone could stand up a web service or reduce server costs and save / make a company literally millions of $ (100's of millions at big tech). This was not possible 20 years ago when the job was much harder. Now conversely because its gotten much easier to write code, bad software engineers are basically worthless. So I predict what we'll see is an even more 2 tiered software developer salary market, where the best developers command crazy money while the bad devs get paid middling wages.
> By adjusting pay to local cost of living Google is effectively saying that they will provide their employees with the same standard of living regardless of their location. In lower cost of living areas this means an accordingly lower salary, because a Bay Area salary would otherwise afford an employee a better standard of living.
Except you are now stuck and can't transition back to a HCol area because all these years you were building less equity.
A 1M house in the Bay Area sells for 1M. A 300K house in Anywhere sells for... you guesses it, 300K.
Except you are now stuck and can't transition back to a HCol area because all these years you were building less equity.
A 1M house in the Bay Area sells for 1M. A 300K house in Anywhere sells for... you guesses it, 300K.
I'd put a slightly different spin on it- sure, junior positions will be automated and commoditfied, but I don't see senior salaries going down. There's a key difference between software engineers and doctors:
No matter how good a doctor is, they can only treat so many patients and/or train so many juniors. A software engineer can scale almost infinitely in some respects. In this they are more like the investment bankers you mention, indeed in some circumstances interchangeable
No matter how good a doctor is, they can only treat so many patients and/or train so many juniors. A software engineer can scale almost infinitely in some respects. In this they are more like the investment bankers you mention, indeed in some circumstances interchangeable
I would think that relying on folks straight from school or from 4-ish years of hacking is very risky when it comes to more complex products. Unless you retain some of those expensive, grumpy, possibly-now-remote designers...
EDIT: debugging skills are earned through experience, not taught.
EDIT: debugging skills are earned through experience, not taught.
You’d think… I’m definitely seeing a trend towards less experienced hires at inflated positions at the tech giants. It’s something they’ve fought off for a while but seem to be losing the battle. The “senior” engineer from a company of 3 with 2 years of experience behind them post-bootcamp has finally made it into the big leagues.
The amount of production outages we’re starting to see across Azure/GCP/AWS is telling if you ask me.
The amount of production outages we’re starting to see across Azure/GCP/AWS is telling if you ask me.
They've been going that way for a long time because it was the only way to keep up headcount growth after their initial growth phase pulled in all the experienced people who were already willing to move.
Even when I was there, the number of inexperienced grads who had never known anything except Google was growing rapidly. And they unfortunately seemed much more prone to bizarre outbursts, bad behavior and extremism of various kinds. They took where they worked for granted.
Even when I was there, the number of inexperienced grads who had never known anything except Google was growing rapidly. And they unfortunately seemed much more prone to bizarre outbursts, bad behavior and extremism of various kinds. They took where they worked for granted.
Maybe they are finally getting a little financial pressure?
It took me a long time to realize that these weren't CoL adjustments.
Companies want to be competitive in your local market so they can retain you and so they can "hire the best".
Where this gets murky is now everyone is remote so is there really a local market?
Companies want to be competitive in your local market so they can retain you and so they can "hire the best".
Where this gets murky is now everyone is remote so is there really a local market?
Exactly, not sure why the article doesn't address this.
From the employer perspective, the strategy toward compensation has NEVER been "equal pay for equal work". I understand why that is intuitively fair to people, but it's not rooted in reality.
The strategy is "I want to pay as much as other employers in the area". That is, if you get a job in the same area and your pay drops 40-50%, then that's a BUG from Google's perspective. They were paying you too much.
They want to pay you an amount so your pay will drop 0% or 10% when you get another job. Or conversely, if someone local is going to Google, they should get 0-10% more, not a 40-50% increase.
-----
As you mention, a corollary of this is that if most programmers start working remotely AND most companies offer remote jobs, then Google will be forced to adapt. Basically if all companies start doing what Reddit does, then Google will have to do that too to stay competitive.
It's a market-based system. There are many instances where markets determining prices produces outcomes we view as unfair.
Though I guess you can argue that it shouldn't be purely market-based and it should take into account "company loyalty". As the article mentions, employees can also "quit in place", which changes the calculus a bit.
From the employer perspective, the strategy toward compensation has NEVER been "equal pay for equal work". I understand why that is intuitively fair to people, but it's not rooted in reality.
The strategy is "I want to pay as much as other employers in the area". That is, if you get a job in the same area and your pay drops 40-50%, then that's a BUG from Google's perspective. They were paying you too much.
They want to pay you an amount so your pay will drop 0% or 10% when you get another job. Or conversely, if someone local is going to Google, they should get 0-10% more, not a 40-50% increase.
-----
As you mention, a corollary of this is that if most programmers start working remotely AND most companies offer remote jobs, then Google will be forced to adapt. Basically if all companies start doing what Reddit does, then Google will have to do that too to stay competitive.
It's a market-based system. There are many instances where markets determining prices produces outcomes we view as unfair.
Though I guess you can argue that it shouldn't be purely market-based and it should take into account "company loyalty". As the article mentions, employees can also "quit in place", which changes the calculus a bit.
Actually I just searched for "cost of living" and Bob See (a recruiter I worked with!) answered:
https://www.quora.com/Do-companies-like-Microsoft-Google-Ama...
Companies like the ones you've listed typically base salaries on "Cost of Labor" (for a given role in a given market), not "Cost of Living" (i.e. the price of a bucket of goods in a market) .
So that is exactly the misunderstanding here. People think the goal is "equal pay for equal work", or they think it's "cost of living". But neither of those is true -- it's a "cost of labor" adjustment.
https://www.quora.com/Do-companies-like-Microsoft-Google-Ama...
Companies like the ones you've listed typically base salaries on "Cost of Labor" (for a given role in a given market), not "Cost of Living" (i.e. the price of a bucket of goods in a market) .
So that is exactly the misunderstanding here. People think the goal is "equal pay for equal work", or they think it's "cost of living". But neither of those is true -- it's a "cost of labor" adjustment.
Most people who cry about CoL adjustments don't realize that the developers working in India are doing the same job for 1/5th the salary. In a remote-first world, there is going to be some averaging of pay as the pool of the talent accessible to companies increases.
'the developers working in India are doing the same job for 1/5th the salary.'
My experience is five of them could not replace me. They didnt have the skills. Maybe this has changed in the past year or so.
My experience is five of them could not replace me. They didnt have the skills. Maybe this has changed in the past year or so.
I'm from India and 5 of <insert your country here> devs can not replace me. Just kidding, I hope you understand that India is a huge country and you can find the entire spectrum of talent here.
Don't expect smart folks from India to work for $20 or even $50 an hour. You will get what you pay for.
My experience is that if you can pay 0.5 x <your salary> to an Indian developer I am sure you can find someone who can totally replace you.
Most of the times companies who want to "offshore to India" want to pay no more than 0.1 x <their local developer salary> and then cry when they can't deliver.
Indian tech companies are offering really competitive salaries nowadays. I have even started to see some Indian companies hire/outsource to Europe because it's cheaper.
Don't expect smart folks from India to work for $20 or even $50 an hour. You will get what you pay for.
My experience is that if you can pay 0.5 x <your salary> to an Indian developer I am sure you can find someone who can totally replace you.
Most of the times companies who want to "offshore to India" want to pay no more than 0.1 x <their local developer salary> and then cry when they can't deliver.
Indian tech companies are offering really competitive salaries nowadays. I have even started to see some Indian companies hire/outsource to Europe because it's cheaper.
This is exactly the case.
In my experience of looking for remote engineers, top talent costs the same pretty much everywhere and the great engineers in India (Russia, Poland,..) demand a pretty similar salary in USD when asked to perform the same tasks.
I think parent is under the impression that run of the mill engineers offshore SWEs can perform the same as a Googler.
In my experience of looking for remote engineers, top talent costs the same pretty much everywhere and the great engineers in India (Russia, Poland,..) demand a pretty similar salary in USD when asked to perform the same tasks.
I think parent is under the impression that run of the mill engineers offshore SWEs can perform the same as a Googler.
I agree, but even great Indian software programmers are happy with much less. Getting half of what a similar American would get should make any talented dev extremely happy here.
I get around 1/3rd of what I would receive in the US, work with a globally distributed team, and I'm quite satisfied with my salary and the company quite satisfied with me.
I get around 1/3rd of what I would receive in the US, work with a globally distributed team, and I'm quite satisfied with my salary and the company quite satisfied with me.
Probably you they cannot replace (taking your word for it). But that does not mean they cannot replace no one else from your company.
Also most of the big companies have their largest R&D centers in India (Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Adobe,..., Uber, etc.). It is ridiculous to say that those offices are doing any less work than their USA offices.
Also most of the big companies have their largest R&D centers in India (Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Adobe,..., Uber, etc.). It is ridiculous to say that those offices are doing any less work than their USA offices.
My main point was that salaries are based on the employee market that a company can utilize. So 'cost of living adjustments' are going to become a norm in a remote-first world.
Regarding the competencies of developers in India, I don't doubt your experience but I know that there are plenty of skilled developers working at Google, Linkedin, Amazon, Microsoft and countless budding startups in India.
Regarding the competencies of developers in India, I don't doubt your experience but I know that there are plenty of skilled developers working at Google, Linkedin, Amazon, Microsoft and countless budding startups in India.
A developer earning 1/5 of an American silicon valley salary in India is really good, they could easily replace you. The problem isn't them, the problem are the developers earning 1/20 of your salary in India, they are as crap as the bad developers in USA, and they are what most companies trying to get cheap headcount in India go for when they outsource to there.
Edit: The above numbers were 5 years ago, might be closer today, but still.
Edit: The above numbers were 5 years ago, might be closer today, but still.
I know someone who made this exact decision. They looked at the cost of software engineers in the Bay Area, then hired a team of 5 for $20 an hour each ex-us.
How did that go for them?
Great, they developed a functional product and were able to get the MVP to market. Because they went ex-us, they were able to self fund.
You get what you pay for even in LCOL places.
However the main difficulty with outsourcing is probably that the company want so save the hassle of recruiting and having employees and procures crappy programming sweatshops rather then having proper employer-employee relations.
If the goal was not to save "hassle" and cheaping out on already cheaper programmers hireing in LCOL countries would probably be a much different experience.
However the main difficulty with outsourcing is probably that the company want so save the hassle of recruiting and having employees and procures crappy programming sweatshops rather then having proper employer-employee relations.
If the goal was not to save "hassle" and cheaping out on already cheaper programmers hireing in LCOL countries would probably be a much different experience.
Not only India. It’s even Western Europe - which is generally not a low cost area. US salaries for senior/principal levels are 3-5x of what the rate is there.
And Canada. Just go 230 km between Seattle and Vancouver and see a 3x difference easily.
I'm actually in Vancouver (and moved from germany). It got a bit of a boost in the last years, and currently seems between the two. For the big tech companies I don't think 3x is true here, it's maybe somewhere between 1.6x and 2x. And it's easily more than 2x than what is paid in germany.
Quick question: Why don't they just... drive three hours south?
Healthcare/insurance costs, work visa and related paperwork, family in Vancouver, similar reasons.... And just not wanting to.
On a work visa you can only live so long in the US before you have to leave for one full year or morr. Greencard is a lottery, you aren't entitled to one.
I'm a Vancouverite who has worked in the US (flying to customer sites) for 15 years now. A coworker moved to the US, didn't get the Greencard lottery, had to move back.
On a work visa you can only live so long in the US before you have to leave for one full year or morr. Greencard is a lottery, you aren't entitled to one.
I'm a Vancouverite who has worked in the US (flying to customer sites) for 15 years now. A coworker moved to the US, didn't get the Greencard lottery, had to move back.
> On a work visa you can only live so long in the US before you have to leave for one full year or morr. Greencard is a lottery, you aren't entitled to one.
That's wrong.
That's wrong.
They are probably thinking H1, not green card lottery.
Other than that, the answer to "why don't Canadians drive 3 hours south" is "they do". The brain drain from Canadian tech is real.
Other than that, the answer to "why don't Canadians drive 3 hours south" is "they do". The brain drain from Canadian tech is real.
Even in Germany this is the case.
> the developers working in India are doing the same job for 1/5th the salary
The same job?
Sure.
Getting the same results? That's why every offshoring project I've seen was a complete success...
The same job?
Sure.
Getting the same results? That's why every offshoring project I've seen was a complete success...
I would guess in most cases whatever value the employees provided Google has not changed. Not only that, Google's costs are lower not having to provide a space for their workers.
Trillion dollar companies with their record quarterly profits cutting their employees pay is nonsense.
Trillion dollar companies with their record quarterly profits cutting their employees pay is nonsense.
Is it though? How is lowering an existing employee’s pay who moved away different than laying them off and hiring what you perceive as the exact same skill level of employee in this remote location at a lower pay?
Ignoring the whole “well my company already knows I’m a great fit and hiring somebody new is a risk” argument as that is an issue with hiring & firing generally.
Ignoring the whole “well my company already knows I’m a great fit and hiring somebody new is a risk” argument as that is an issue with hiring & firing generally.
It's different because it may not be so easy to find an "equal" replacement. And they could pretty easily get into that situation. If enough developers quit after such a pay cut and find work at other employers that don't play this game then Google may have some trouble.
And then you have to ask: "was this worth it?". And my guess would be no.
And then you have to ask: "was this worth it?". And my guess would be no.
Exactly these companies are ultra rich and can afford to pay for talent. Google has $160 billion in cash.
Im NYC, Google just spent $2.1 billion on a Hudson yards building, in addition to the $2.4 billion for the Chelsea market and $600 million for the milk building across the street two years ago.
They have the money, they just might not want to lose their real estate investments value.
Im NYC, Google just spent $2.1 billion on a Hudson yards building, in addition to the $2.4 billion for the Chelsea market and $600 million for the milk building across the street two years ago.
They have the money, they just might not want to lose their real estate investments value.
Funny to see this mentioned. A friend of mine started remote in the city where we lived, then moved to the sticks.
They tried to pull his chain on this, then realized he essentially was the market there.
Awkward exchange overall; felt very much like 'we want to dial the pressure of the thumb'.
Eventually they did a 180 on it and no adjustment happened. If it were me, it'd erode my trust. I'm thankful my employer only cares to know my location for tax/withholding purposes.
It's like you said... is there really a local market (with everyone remote?). Even then, this person was there just long enough to qualify for raises and already had several.
A bit like a slap in the face to have these rewards (presumably for your efforts) to be clawed back... because the employer essentially realized you didn't need as much anymore.
edit: To be clear, not Google - elsewhere.
They tried to pull his chain on this, then realized he essentially was the market there.
Awkward exchange overall; felt very much like 'we want to dial the pressure of the thumb'.
Eventually they did a 180 on it and no adjustment happened. If it were me, it'd erode my trust. I'm thankful my employer only cares to know my location for tax/withholding purposes.
It's like you said... is there really a local market (with everyone remote?). Even then, this person was there just long enough to qualify for raises and already had several.
A bit like a slap in the face to have these rewards (presumably for your efforts) to be clawed back... because the employer essentially realized you didn't need as much anymore.
edit: To be clear, not Google - elsewhere.
"What is it about my work that is somehow less valuable in a different location?"
That person is either incredibly naive or dishonest. If she's naive, she should start by asking herself why is she paid multiple times what someone doing the same job in Hyderabad is.
That person is either incredibly naive or dishonest. If she's naive, she should start by asking herself why is she paid multiple times what someone doing the same job in Hyderabad is.
All this outsourcing talk is so 2005. If it worked so easily, FAANG would've outsourced everything to India 10 years ago and tripled their profit.
In reality a common cultural background (i.e. how to approach some kind of work) is a lot more important than a lot of managers want you to believe. Outsourcing also requires extensive planning and management, which increases the number of managers required and thus increases the costs of outsourcing.
E.g. VW tried outsourcing over the last 10 years and is now recruiting developers en masse in Germany because it failed to make it work.
In reality a common cultural background (i.e. how to approach some kind of work) is a lot more important than a lot of managers want you to believe. Outsourcing also requires extensive planning and management, which increases the number of managers required and thus increases the costs of outsourcing.
E.g. VW tried outsourcing over the last 10 years and is now recruiting developers en masse in Germany because it failed to make it work.
> All this outsourcing talk is so 2005.
Except for the fact that it's not outsourcing to the lowest bidder like companies tried back then.
Pretty much every major American tech company has a development center in India. The developers working here are employees of the parent company. They have the same or functionally similar culture as the HQ.
And the cost advantage has significantly shrunk because of the booming local startup scene.
Except for the fact that it's not outsourcing to the lowest bidder like companies tried back then.
Pretty much every major American tech company has a development center in India. The developers working here are employees of the parent company. They have the same or functionally similar culture as the HQ.
And the cost advantage has significantly shrunk because of the booming local startup scene.
The first part is true - almost every major American tech company has a development center in India. The second part, well, I’m not so sure about that. There’s tensions about different cultures including things like different holidays that aren’t always well advertised. Tension about the perception that American jobs are being outsourced, or at the very least not-replaced, because of overseas development. Tension about quality. Tension about lack of overlapping work hours. Tension about poor connectivity at home (which has become less of an issue as the pandemic has worn on).
No matter how you slice it, it’s very hard to get people to feel like they’re all on the same team. It can happen, but it take tremendous time and effort. If you’re ever interviewing and someone insists that using an outsourced development firm or Indian development center will only cost 30% as much as those close to the HQ - I’d recommend walking out. Because it’s clear they don’t understand (or perhaps care) about the true economics.
No matter how you slice it, it’s very hard to get people to feel like they’re all on the same team. It can happen, but it take tremendous time and effort. If you’re ever interviewing and someone insists that using an outsourced development firm or Indian development center will only cost 30% as much as those close to the HQ - I’d recommend walking out. Because it’s clear they don’t understand (or perhaps care) about the true economics.
It's a cycle that keeps going. One VP will try cutting things over to the Indian teams to save some money. This generally works temporarily, and they go up and out. Then efficiency dies the death of a thousand cuts, and the next VP brings that function back in house, to great satisfaction albeit higher costs.
Rinse and repeat.
Rinse and repeat.
I have worked with people in such a development center, and the quality of their work is very noticeably worse than that of their equivalents in the US.
Then hire managers from Hyderabad
EDIT: by which I mean that the issue is more deep than just how to manage people. Managing an existing talent pool seems to part of the picture.
EDIT: by which I mean that the issue is more deep than just how to manage people. Managing an existing talent pool seems to part of the picture.
It isn't outsourcing. If I moved to London, my pay would be adjusted down by like 45%.
Given how much companies like CapGemini, TCS and Infosys grew in Germany during the last 15 years, I bet VW still has plenty of business units going at it.
I have never talked to anybody who used those outfits that were happy about the results. It must be an incredible cost savings.
When problems in such projects escalate they are sorted out during business lunches or golf matches.
What the crews on the machine room think about the deal hardly matters.
What the crews on the machine room think about the deal hardly matters.
As someone who had run 200 person offshore development teams, the biggest issues are time differences visas & norming\forming teams.
Time difference: this can be mitigated for North America by using teams in South America, but scale is typically limited, The time difference in India is brutal for everyone, you end up having small windows of time to communicate synchronously either early or late, people are typically tired when this communication happens, either just waking up and trying to get their kids to school/ family going or trying to go to sleep so they can wake up early for another call… which leads to sleep deprivation!
One way around this is key individuals who have strong people + technical skills spend significant amounts to of time at the start of projects in North America(assuming it is a NA centric project) this allows them to fully immerse and absorb the nuances of the people, product, requirements and politics of the program, this is expensive and can be challenging from a visa perspective, any project I’ve worked on that has succeeded started with this.
Time difference: this can be mitigated for North America by using teams in South America, but scale is typically limited, The time difference in India is brutal for everyone, you end up having small windows of time to communicate synchronously either early or late, people are typically tired when this communication happens, either just waking up and trying to get their kids to school/ family going or trying to go to sleep so they can wake up early for another call… which leads to sleep deprivation!
One way around this is key individuals who have strong people + technical skills spend significant amounts to of time at the start of projects in North America(assuming it is a NA centric project) this allows them to fully immerse and absorb the nuances of the people, product, requirements and politics of the program, this is expensive and can be challenging from a visa perspective, any project I’ve worked on that has succeeded started with this.
If the company was willing to pay me $X for the work I'm doing, then they should continue to pay me at least $X if I change locations. The work has already been valued.
Does the company exist to support the HR department, or does the HR department exist to support the company and employees? At google, we know the answer.
Does the company exist to support the HR department, or does the HR department exist to support the company and employees? At google, we know the answer.
I wonder what operators at like the Hover Dam makes an hour. Surely they get payed by the value producing those 2GW?
You essentially get payed to afford housing in the area where you work, not by value.
You essentially get payed to afford housing in the area where you work, not by value.
No you don't, or Vancouver would have very well paid software jobs.
You're paid about the same as other jobs you could get. The drop in salary is a loss of leverage you have over the company
You're paid about the same as other jobs you could get. The drop in salary is a loss of leverage you have over the company
[deleted]
Google made $19B profit on $65B revenue last year. Whatever this is, it is NOT about being able to continue paying their workers what they already make.
People making hundreds of thousands of dollars complain because they don't get to keep their insane salaries when moving to less competitive areas.
Would you feel as strongly about this if it was a corporation, instead of a single individual?
If I as corporation buy from a third party OEM and they decide to move production from Texas to Malaysia or Vietnam, would you also feel strongly that I as customer am entitled to a discount?
Or would you consider that we have agreed to a contract where the supplier is delivering the same OEM product but now from a different location?
If I as corporation buy from a third party OEM and they decide to move production from Texas to Malaysia or Vietnam, would you also feel strongly that I as customer am entitled to a discount?
Or would you consider that we have agreed to a contract where the supplier is delivering the same OEM product but now from a different location?
If a supplier changes locations I would definitely expect prices to change in future contracts. Of course the current contract shouldn't be changed if we had already agreed on a price for some number of units.
The OEM is selling a tradable, so you would expect companies to already search the world for the cheapest version and be buying that, as there is effectively a single global market.
Labor, historically, has not been so mobile. There is not a single market for labor, there are many different markets.
And in each market, the company pays the prevailing market wage. For that reason, when someone moves from market A to market B, their wages are adjusted up or down based on the cost of labor in those markets.
Labor, historically, has not been so mobile. There is not a single market for labor, there are many different markets.
And in each market, the company pays the prevailing market wage. For that reason, when someone moves from market A to market B, their wages are adjusted up or down based on the cost of labor in those markets.
People pay more for products made in USA than products made in China, even if it is the same product, yes.
I would, yeah. Chances are that the product has changed, same as the now-remote engineer's product
Just wait till Google realizes they can hire equally competent people overseas for a fraction of the wages and those people won't have any of the cancel culture tantrums American workers do.
This is a great way to finally lower the massive engineering bloat that plagues FAANG.
A lot of the discussions here never mentioned one issue that might arise if the companies didn't adjust for CoLiving:
What would happened to the existing employees of the same company that already accepted lower salary for being in LCOL?
Google Mountain View pays differently than other Google branches (heck for a while, the pay in Google Seattle was slightly lower compare to HQ).
Now you have Google Señor Developer in LCOL accepted the fact that they get paid less than their compadre in Mtn View, but your Mtn View compadre decided to be your neighbour while refusing your level of pay. Wouldn't that create tension?
What would happened to the existing employees of the same company that already accepted lower salary for being in LCOL?
Google Mountain View pays differently than other Google branches (heck for a while, the pay in Google Seattle was slightly lower compare to HQ).
Now you have Google Señor Developer in LCOL accepted the fact that they get paid less than their compadre in Mtn View, but your Mtn View compadre decided to be your neighbour while refusing your level of pay. Wouldn't that create tension?
Such issues already exist. When the company adjusts pay scales they don’t go proactively bring everyone up to their “true” deserved pay. They might make some minor adjustment but are otherwise happy to let compensation linger above some defensible minimum and pocket the difference.
FWIW from the data I've seen (at Google) this isn't really the case. When the guideline for a location increases, salaries are set to the new guideline * whatever the prior performance/tenure/whatever multiplier on top of that guideline was. This is also the case when you transfer to a more expensive location. (A well-tenured senior engineer who transfers from Bangalore to Mountain View won't be set to the minimum salary for L5, but something higher)
While I sympathize with the principle that two people providing the same value should be paid the same, in these discussions it seems to me almost everybody is forgetting we live in a capitalist world and the offer and demand law applies.
If a company can get the same or better quality of engineers in a lower cost of living area at a cost discount (example: Canada where salaries were about half than in SV and about 50% less than say Midwest US), why are they going to not take the discount? And this "arbitrage" is what it seems to be happening, with US companies hiring fully remote Canadians at 25% discount for them and still the Canadians making 25% more than they used to. (Obv this doesn't address existing employees who moved to LCOL)
If a company can get the same or better quality of engineers in a lower cost of living area at a cost discount (example: Canada where salaries were about half than in SV and about 50% less than say Midwest US), why are they going to not take the discount? And this "arbitrage" is what it seems to be happening, with US companies hiring fully remote Canadians at 25% discount for them and still the Canadians making 25% more than they used to. (Obv this doesn't address existing employees who moved to LCOL)
Pre-pandemic real-world scenarios at my employer:
1. Employee switches to 100% at home situation, same team, same role. But they remain in the employer’s town, they don’t move away.
2. Same as scenario #1, but they move away to somewhere with a cheaper cost of living.
#1 suffers no pay reduction, but #2 does.
1. Employee switches to 100% at home situation, same team, same role. But they remain in the employer’s town, they don’t move away.
2. Same as scenario #1, but they move away to somewhere with a cheaper cost of living.
#1 suffers no pay reduction, but #2 does.
Companies exist to inflate real estate prices, so they must pay based on local costs! /s
A lot of people seem to be under the assumption that this is based on "cost of living'.
Where I live has a higher CoL than almost all of the US, and local salaries are a fraction.
It's about google paying competitively compared to local companies. Nothing to do with cost of living.
Where I live has a higher CoL than almost all of the US, and local salaries are a fraction.
It's about google paying competitively compared to local companies. Nothing to do with cost of living.
Get real. Arguments about CoL or geography or stock are all smokescreen. They pay for Engineers is whatever the market will bear. It's quite curious that Engineers accustomed to calculating efficiency and tradeoffs will get mired in imaginary discussions about 'correct' hiring.
If arguments about CoL or geography or nationalism quite being persuasive to potential hires, the hiring organization will simply switch to some other arguments. It's just business.
If arguments about CoL or geography or nationalism quite being persuasive to potential hires, the hiring organization will simply switch to some other arguments. It's just business.
I dont understand how this makes any sense.
Seems mean and greedy to me.
I use MY resources, My power/internet/aircon/floor space to do a job for my employer. Why should I be paying for that?
Seems mean and greedy to me.
I use MY resources, My power/internet/aircon/floor space to do a job for my employer. Why should I be paying for that?
An opportunistic smash and grab, they've found some leverage they can use to their advantage. It'd be fair if the workforce were unionised.
At the same time, Google's stock is up massively over the last two years. Google has been relatively aggressive with RSU allocations. That appreciation in RSU value will act as an offset for a subset of those who would churn. This must also factor into their current policy decisions. The team's at Google try very hard to optimize for retaining their best people, but they are dealing with very large numbers of individuals during an unusual time. Further, they have traditionally been leading the charge for geographic proximity and density for product teams. Lots of change for them to manage through right now.
That said, as a CTO at a startup (which counts Google Ventures as an investor) I have hired many engineers from Google over the past 18mo. Approximately half our engineers are ex Google, Amazon, Microsoft. Beyond our product and ENG culture, our policy is fully distributed work (within the US - compliance reasons) and that is the one benefit ex FAANG engineers seem to value the most, currently (small N, selection biases acknowledged). Over all roles, I would estimate more than half the company consists of ex FAANG employees. Many were tired of being locked into a geography which did not make them happy.
So I view this as a change in the market dynamics which is allowing startups like mine to help make these engineers happier. We have engineers that have joined, and immediately moved to Hawaii, or purchased a rural farm in the Midwest - and we are 100% supportive of them having a work/life that makes them happiest. Also, we've removed policies of paying differently based on the traditional tier 1, 2, and 3 geographies.
This is a market advantage that favors engineers, and as such - I'm very supportive :)