[jariel]

It's not Canadian companies that are 'keeping salaries' low, it's Valley Companies (and to some extent, American companies) that are paying a lot.

Also - the USD varies at 1 to 1.5 CDN that has tremendous comparable effects.

The 'reason' is that a vastly disproportionate amount of the surpluses go to the winners.

'2cnd place is for chumps' - at least in the context of 'winner takes all' games.

Everywhere outside of the Valley is 'second place' and it's going to be hard to compete otherwise.

Another way of looking at it:

The market does not want Canada to be 1st place.

Canada is literally designing itself in every way to be a 'suburb' (i.e. as 'second place' country) - no specific identity (i.e. Post-Nation-Nation), high basic standard of living, high levels of material consumption, but no innovation, leadership or otherwise. The 'town square' is a shopping mall full of products and services designed elsewhere.

In crude market terms it's 'more efficient' to close the local coffee shop, put up a Starbucks and have workers take marching orders from Seattle where they can concentrate Product Innovation and R&D.

Canada used to have a few automakers - but with 'consolidation' they were all bought by US firms - which in raw market terms, makes some sense.

The same would happen to all protected industries: Bell/Telus, CTV/Global, CIBC/BMO - all of it them be snapped up instantly if they were not protected.

It doesn't matter if AT&T/Verizon are 'well managed' or 'poorly managed' relative to Bell/Telus - the fact is they are 15x bigger and that's that. 'Headquarters' will be in Virginia, not Toronto. And that's where the surpluses will go.

Canada brings in tons of 'educated workers' and then sends the best and brightest of them right away to the US (I've seen this happen time and time again). Who can blame anyone with 'no ties' to Canada moving on for 2x salary? So Canada gets 'good workers' ... and the US gets 'the talent'.

An Ontario MP, trying to attract Cisco to Toronto indicated that Canadians work for less salary than Americans and that he would do everything within his power to keep it that way.

So there you have literally the leadership trying to do what they can to keep salaries low, to keep the system firmly in '2cnd place', by design.

This is the Canadian National Strategy.

If you want to do something exceptional, go to specific places in the US where systems are designed for that.

The theory being that it's better than being in a left out US state like Arkansas, West Virginia etc..

In some ways, it's commendable, because Canada relative to the world has a really high standard of living, stable 'everything', good basic rights etc.. But of course, there is not a lot meaningful to do. That's the deal.

[danlugo92]

>Who can blame anyone with 'no ties' to Canada moving on for 2x salary?

Does that salary increase make up for the lost gov benefits (free healthcate etc?)

[jariel]

It depends on one's situation.

'Gainfully Employed' people are generally better off in the US. The healthcare there is great - when you are covered.

The risk comes for those unfortunate/unforeseen situations, and of course, when one doesn't have coverage.

Overall - it's one of those factors that goes into the equation - but for a young, single talented person, usually it's not a priority - or - it factors favourably.

It's a good point because for the 'elite economy' - US healthcare is just fine. Good in fact.

For the 'everyone economy' it's arguable that Canadian style (or something like that is better).

The H/C equation kind of reinforces what I am saying: exceptionalism vs. the commons + stability.

[dismalpedigree]

When the new employer is likely footing 90%+ of the bill (pretty standard in skilled professional jobs) then the answer is a clear yes. 100k CAD = ~$78k. Somebody making 100k CAD is likely commanding 110-120k USD at a minimum in the US. CAD equivalent is 140-153k CAD. Knock off $2k for healthcare out of pocket. Don’t forget the significantly lower tax burden. The worker cones out significantly ahead.

[DeRock]

> Don’t forget the significantly lower tax burden

Very dependent on where you work. High tech salaries are concentrated in California, where the tax burden at your numbers will be higher than most provinces. I remember doing a comparison of BC to California, and the cross over point was about $250k USD (where taxes become more favorable in California).

[dismalpedigree]

I’m referring to Middle America salaries in most mid sized cities. If those same people went to NYC or SF it would be another story. Likely 2x at least.

[gabbo]

Yes. Absolutely. It so much more than makes up for lost government benefits.

Health insurance working for a decent US tech company generally requires some out of pocket, but the amounts are really quite modest. Premiums are typically mostly paid by the employer and not considered part of your compensation. If you're single you'll probably pay nothing for insurance premiums and potentially up to a few thousand out of pocket if you're a heavy user of health care, and maybe $5k in the absolute worst case (and the out of pocket is often tax free). If you've got a family, you might pay a couple thousand per year in premiums and $10k in out of pocket maximum. These numbers are honestly chump change for people who are earning $50k-250k more, with better career prospects and more high paying employers to choose from if a particular job doesn't work out.

[bregma]

Yes, when you're young, healthy, and unencumbered by family. Like anyone who is mobile enough to make the move.

It's like the old bait-and-switch swindle.