> 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.
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).