2
points
As remote work continues to dominate, I’m trying to understand the trends in hiring across the US/Canada (and abroad)
Of newly hired employees, what percent would you say came from a:
- Tier 1 City (ex: NYC/SF) - Tier 2 City (ex: Austin/San Diego) - Tier 3 City (ex: Anywhere not in other tiers) - Overseas (ex: Europe/Latin America/Asia)
Are you noticing that some roles tend to be recruited from certain tiers more than others? (Ex: Software developer - Tier 3 City)
How has this trend changed over time at your company?
Classifying tiers by size alone seems too “metastatic” a measure. Instead of a Tier 1 city, should we instead classify NYC or LA (or SF) as a “Stage 4” city? (Their Econ development people may not appreciate that…suggests they should have DNR tattooed on their chest.). If you mean the largest or densest or fastest growing cities, then just say that and skip the “Tier” nonsense.
Defining tiers based on the Quality of Life experienced in the city seems a more meaningful metric. Tier 1 would have the highest QoL for average residents or new hires or whatever subgroup you want. Tier 2 a little lower, etc.. A single QoL metric should reflect cost of living, hassle factor, scenic beauty, economic opportunities, cultural elements, room-to-move, time tax, climate, etc.. Or perhaps treat as a multiple criteria problem and find the efficient/non-dominated cities under those several criteria and call them Tier 1. Thus acknowledging that one person’s Tier 1 may be another’s Tier 3 or 4 given how you value the individual criterion based on what stage of life you’re in, personal preference, etc..
If you feel they’re arbitrary, How would you define the tiers?
Tiering is a meat axe. Do you want to see your surgeon come at you/your life with a meat axe, or a scalpel?
Surprised low CoL US Senators haven’t pushed for making residing in low CoL city/State an impacted group, making pay discrimination illegal if simply based on where you reside.