It is proven that is more cost efficient to let your workers not work more than 40 hours but instead use two people
Work done per hour goes way up, if work hour per week is low
Meaning in the end you pay less for the same work and get it faster
Stupid CEO…
Fuck that guy
That’s only ~17 hours a day if you take a weekend, or a breezy 12 hour day if you choose not to take off.
I wish we could make these assholes work the shifts they want to make others work.
Sweatshop, it’s called a sweatshop. You can dress it up however you want, at the end of the day, it’s still a sweatshop ran by Mr Gupta, who probably thinks reading LinkedIn on your couch counts as working…
And when the company folds in 16 months you’ll have achieved nothing…
Fuck that, I’m happy with my 32-hr workweek. Wouldn’t even want to do 40 again…
Dev in Europe with a comfortable life.
Software engineers at the company can expect to make $120,000 to $200,000 per year, according to job postings on Greptile’s website.
So that’s the equivalent of 60k-100k at a job where you can work normal hours. I could see this maybe if he was paying more than twice the market rate for more than twice the normal amount of work, but he’s not. Not even close.
Its also San Fran, where you’ll lose all that money on COL.
Thats below market for a 40hr week in San Francisco for a software dev. From levels.fyi, which allows people to confirm their employment anonymously:
The average Software Engineer salary range in San Francisco Bay Area, CA is from $195,000 to $350,000. Last updated: 12/3/2024
Town is wildly overpriced, and hes paying about 1/4th what he should be for 84 hrs/week.
And people wonder why I don’t move to work at these big tech hubs. I have lots of tech jobs in my area and most of them expect normal hours. As it turns out, I rarely work more than 40 hours, and most weeks I’m around 35.
This isn’t the only guy hiring in SF. By and large the pay seems really good for below average effort.
Cost of living is insane though, and there’s way too much traffic for my liking, which would really impact my quality of life.
I make around what the OP is talking about, work less than half as much, and my COL is way lower. I’ll just travel to CA if I feel like it, but I’m not interested in moving.
That’s a larger equation, and it sounds like it totally makes sense for you. I’ve been working remote to SF for 15 years and made the same choice you did. That experience has also let me see that the comp to effort ratio there is very very good.
How’s the remote pay? I was under the impression that you get your pay adjusted based on where you live, so you wouldn’t make SF money of you live elsewhere.
I did the math a while ago and I could probably make $100k or so more if I move there, but that would go almost entirely to COL and taxes, and I’d have to put up with SF traffic as well. And I have kids, so I’m unwilling to commute there (e.g. fly there for the weekdays).
I’ve worked on site there (my company partnered with Facebook for a project, so I hung out with one of their teams), and I really didn’t like it. But I’ve heard a lot of people like it, so do what works I guess. My in-laws keep trying to convince me to move to SoCal, but that’s worse than SF to me.
So he’s proud to be a slaver.
May he drop dead of a heart attack at age 25, alone, umloved, and unmourned.
I’ve worked 84+ hour weeks for extended periods and they are rough. On the body and on the mind. Your social life also suffers. People really shouldn’t work like that.
He can San Fransuck on deez nuts!
Slavery is where such a work contract isn’t outright illegal.
