I like that you guys are being open about this, but the way you calculate compensation leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth. I very much dislike the idea that you, as an employer, are deciding what proportion of their income your employees should be spending on rent. You're also effectively saying that work done by someone who lives in a cheaper location is less valuable to the company than the same work done by someone who lives in a more expensive location. Maybe all employers do this and the only difference is that you guys are being honest about it, but still... yuck.

As someone who works remotely in a company that does take location into account, I can understand their perspective. I think there's a base value for work and then depending on the power of each dollar earned, there are multipliers to that that eventually give you your final salary. So it's "value of work" * location based spending power differences. Value of work stays constant.

That said I do think the factors used to calculate the salary can improve. In general, I love the idea of thinking of quality of life. Can a person in Sri Lanka enjoy a similar quality of life as a person in SF at least in terms of factors that can be controlled (a company can't control the quality of public transport or municipalities for example in a given location but can provide me the opportunity to purchase experiences or work around those matters).

And that matters because although rent in Sri Lanka is lower than Brisbane, buying groceries is actually more expensive. Buying electronics is certainly more expensive because of the enormous markups and taxes. Compared to a location in the US, I pay nearly triple the value of a given electronics item at times just for the cost of shipping it and then paying customs. Even travel becomes more expensive since I have much more lengthy Visa processes to go through. These numbers eventually add up and while I can save huge amounts of money by living frugally, if I wanted to live a good life supporting my wife and child, the number should be ideally 60k USD and above rather than 38k.

Should mention that Software engineers are considered to be some of the lowest level fodder in Sri Lanka and our good salaries can be something like 12-15k per year. Starting salaries would be something ridiculous like 3k USD per year (that was mine). But that's also why so many people are migrating to australia, US, and canada asap if they can.

Doesn't it bother you that you can provide the same value to your employer as someone in Brisbane, but only get paid a fraction as much for it merely because you're in Sri Lanka?

I'm a remote worker too (and I'm very happy with the way my current employer handles it). As long as I'm available at the times and places my employer needs me to be, why should they have any say in where I live or how I spend my money? I want to be able to manage my quality of life myself, not have it decided for me by someone else!

Well, re the value, I don't feel salary has ever been a great representation of value a person brings to the company. It's decent at a basic level but quickly breaks down as your value grows.

But to be honest I feel bothered but about something completely different really. My worry is for the person in Brisbane. I worry that people like myself will be seen as advantageous to hire and if it comes down to a close hire decision between me and someone in Brisbane I wouldn't want to be chosen because I require a lower salary. Gitlab does do this. I don't fault them either for that though. At the end of the day you want to save money. It's a tough conversation really. Quality of life and spending power are real things and value can actually be seen as relative when you look at how much it takes to give people equal opportunities from location to location. But this opens room for abuse and exploitation. I think remote working salaries vs location will be discussed more and more over time because there is definitely many shades of grey towards the "right" path.

> I very much dislike the idea that you, as an employer, are deciding what proportion of their income your employees should be spending on rent.

With rent as a multiplier, it's like they're suggesting 100% of your income goes to rent. It seems like a more reasonable way to take housing into account would be something like:

Salary = Base + Avg Rent

Using that formula, salary might be about $20k more for somebody in NYC than for somebody in Tucson. Using the actual calculator, it's $72k more ($117k vs $45k for senior level and average experience).

We found that rent correlates with market rates, see https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-c... "Perhaps surprisingly, there was a stronger correlation between compensation and rent index than with the more general cost of living index available through Numbeo (or the cost of living with rent index, for that matter); and so we moved ahead with the Rent Index."

It might do you well to check up on the pay scales for the mid-size American cities.

I live in Minneapolis and the rates offered are laughable, really. My last apartment was on the border of St Paul, if I had lived a block away your offer would have been about 10% less.

It seems to not take into account rent diversity within a city (and which level a skilled employee would pick given the opportunity).

GitLab has really gotten my interest over the past year with both trying it myself recently and seeing you interact with folks on HN. I'm currently searching for a new position but seeing the rates make applying a non-starter.