Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by machinebun 1768 days ago
> Except that a Google employee moving to someplace with a weaker economy has not reduced their leverage. These are people who have the power to simply move back.

A Google employee that moves away both changes the pool of options that employee has (only companies that offer remote or local ones in his new place of living - versus companies in (SF, NY, whatever)), and the alternative options that the employer has (he is now being compared against a much larger pool of people who can work remotely). That is indeed decreasing leverage.
2 comments
actually_a_dog 1768 days ago
Again, not true. That employee can simply... move. You've ignored that.
link
machinebun 1768 days ago
> Again, not true. That employee can simply... move. You've ignored that.

Well, yes, but we're arguing that they have the same leverage in their new place of residence as they did before the move. If they have to move back in order to exercise that leverage, their leverage is actually location-based, and they will have to choose between their old salary and old location and new salary and new location.

link
actually_a_dog 1768 days ago
Yes, and they exercise their leverage by applying to those SF or NYC companies from wherever they are. If they can exercise that leverage from anywhere, then how is that not having leverage?

These companies are used to this sort of thing. Relocation costs are nothing compared to the cost of hiring. There is effectively no friction on the company's part. Yes, the employee needs to be willing to go through the process of moving, but, provided they're willing to pay those costs, their leverage in the situation is unchanged.

link
machinebun 1768 days ago
Those frictional costs (of moving) are the whole problem. SF salaries are where they are at because of those frictional costs (people choosing not to move to SF, whether by personal choice or by way of visa restrictions etc).

Yes, there is a subset of people that have disproportionate leverage no matter where they are at (by virtue of being really really good devs). But that represents only a minority of SF devs.

link
TulliusCicero 1768 days ago
That's just the thing. Companies know that, at any given point in time, many people will be unwilling to pay those costs.

A family of four enjoying a large house in some suburb for a reasonable price may find the idea of living in a 2br apartment in SF, or paying a truly exorbitant price for a single family home in the bay area, unappealing.

link
jrs235 1768 days ago
You're referring to BATNA: Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement.
link