[Klonoar]

This feels like a "welp we need to cut some pay, let's see who takes the bait".

Cost of living should not dictate your value to the company. If you're an engineer supporting x number of users worth y dollars, it literally does not change what you bring to the table whether you do the job in SF or Birmingham.

Yes, they could hire cheaper in Birmingham, but they can't hire _you_. If you have a proven track record of doing incredible work, then you should be paid accordingly. What you pay in rent/mortgage/etc is none of the company's business.

I would argue that if you're a SWE and you go along with this, you're complicit in the wage fixing that this industry has had to grapple with for ages now. Demand to be paid what you're worth or walk.

(And yes, I get that some people can't afford to be choosy. Those of us who can, should be, though.)

[jedberg]

> Yes, they could hire cheaper in Birmingham, but they can't hire _you_.

Unless you move to Birmingham. Now they can hire you. And if you want to live there then you'll probably take the offer because it will still be better than the local options in Birmingham.

Employee pay has always been about "what does it take to get them to work here" and not value to the company.

If there is something in Birmingham that you value, then you'll be willing to take a pay cut to be there.

[Klonoar]

_Some_ people will do that, like the aforementioned "can't be choosy" cohort I noted in my original comment.

For all the talk about abundance of engineering talent, talk to anyone who's actively had to hire in the past six months and it's a complete slog of unqualified candidates. I would find it hard to believe that engineering talent (_especially_ at FAANG level) is in a market position that doesn't afford them negotiation power. One or two people doing this is certainly nothing, but if enough do it, then it makes a potential difference.

I'll be very curious to see how FBs staff handles this come Jan 1. Probably disappointed, I'm aware... but curious nonetheless.

[jedberg]

> talk to anyone who's actively had to hire in the past six months and it's a complete slog of unqualified candidates.

That's always been the case. When I did interviews at Netflix, people who had resumes that said "Senior Engineer" for five years couldn't do fizzbuzz in their favorite language.

Yes, if enough really talented people all get together and demand higher wages, they might stay high. And some stellar performers will demand high wages regardless of where they are.

But the truth of it is that most people are not stellar performers. They're good engineers who can get work done. And they will demand median salaries.

Median salaries will probably shift towards an equilibrium below SF salaries and above {pick your favorite small town in middle America}.

[gwright]

> Cost of living should not dictate your value to the company.

Your "value" to the company depends a lot on your compensation and your compensation depends on the marketplace for other developers with similar skills.

[throwawaythekey]

I struggle to see the mental leap many are making here.

Are you stating that cost of living impacts your skill level? In some cases that may be true but I think for what most are discussing here the causation would be the other way.

Growing up in a poor area may effect your skill level but moving as an adult from a high COL to low COL area should have minimal impact.

To me it makes more sense that each developer would command the salary that corresponds to their skills, and then adjust their COL in order to be comfortable.

[gwright]

> Are you stating that cost of living impacts your skill level?

Not at all. If all things are equal except the cost of living difference then a company can get X units of value at a discount by hiring the person with the lower cost of living at a lower salary. The discount is equal to the cost-of-living difference.

Of course in the real world things are rarely "equal" except for cost-of-living and so the effect is only going to be seen in the aggregate.

[throwawaythekey]

> company can get X units of value at a discount by hiring the person with the lower cost of living at a lower salary.

So the hiring process should favour low salaries rather than cost of living?

If that is the case then you can easily replace cost of living adjustments with candidate salary expectation.

[gwright]

"market rate" is a metric that incorporates candidate salary expectations and geographic cost of living adjustments as well as many other things such as tax considerations?

[Barrin92]

Your salary isn't based (at least directly) on your value to the company. It's based on how little they can get away to pay you for the service they want you to provide.

If you move somewhere with a lower cost of living, then chances are you're willing to accept a lower salary. If you truly provide some unique value you may have enough negotiating power to keep your salary, otherwise they'd look for a replacement.