Jon is a self-taught programmer, started in video games but now does web development. He follows principles, argues for scientific software development, and does not like writing in the 3rd person.
But by your logic I should move to SF first, get hired, then immediately move back to the suburbs. To take advantage of the higher pay that won’t get normalised. Having to renegotiate every time I move leads to all kinds of weird situations, when nothing about my relationship with the employer has changed.
Instead if the solution is to pay people what they’re worth to the company it’s kept simple: It doesn’t matter where you live, go to countryside to be rich if you’d like it’s your choice.
Well I get why you may think so, but that was not my intention, so I'll try to make myself clearer - there should be no salary gap between a metropolitan area and the surrounding suburbs. Heck - there should be no salary gap if you move from SF to NY (I am not from the US so I can't compare cost of living, but I assume it's similar).
However, when we're talking about different countries or even continents I think my original point still stands - cost of living plays a big role in overall compensations.
The problem it's that if I live in a poor country and can't afford to go into a rich country. I'll be tied to my salary forever, the quality of life also changes, for example: In Brazil, earning $5k it's really rich, whatever, I don't have the freedom to do this because of the problem that the country has with security, I don't have the same buying power that I could have in a rich country.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
But by your logic I should move to SF first, get hired, then immediately move back to the suburbs. To take advantage of the higher pay that won’t get normalised. Having to renegotiate every time I move leads to all kinds of weird situations, when nothing about my relationship with the employer has changed.
Instead if the solution is to pay people what they’re worth to the company it’s kept simple: It doesn’t matter where you live, go to countryside to be rich if you’d like it’s your choice.
Well I get why you may think so, but that was not my intention, so I'll try to make myself clearer - there should be no salary gap between a metropolitan area and the surrounding suburbs. Heck - there should be no salary gap if you move from SF to NY (I am not from the US so I can't compare cost of living, but I assume it's similar).
However, when we're talking about different countries or even continents I think my original point still stands - cost of living plays a big role in overall compensations.
The problem it's that if I live in a poor country and can't afford to go into a rich country. I'll be tied to my salary forever, the quality of life also changes, for example: In Brazil, earning $5k it's really rich, whatever, I don't have the freedom to do this because of the problem that the country has with security, I don't have the same buying power that I could have in a rich country.