On: I employed a California resident, so now I’m subje...

[whimsicalism]

So you do business in California and are somehow surprised when California regulations apply to you?

$800 of fees in order to be able to hire a software engineer remote from California shouldn't really be a major factor for any tech company looking to hire remotely.

[gadrev → whimsicalism]

It was a one-employee "company" (besides the founder). I don't think that qualifies as "any tech company". Just try to put yourself in the owner's shoes.

[whimsicalism → gadrev]

If they are paying tech company wages, then $800 to be able to hire as many employees as you want in California is a drop in the bucket.

[avmich → whimsicalism]

My friend, who was trying to raise a startup, didn't get payments for the product (too early), didn't have VC funding (yet), had to close the California presence because of such expenses.

[whimsicalism → avmich]

your friend was somehow hiring engineers in California and an $800 expense was the blocker? sure.

[avmich → whimsicalism]

No, he didn't hire, but had a registered presence. This fee applies anyway, and for him it was too much to justify.

[avmich → whimsicalism]

> So you do business in California and are somehow surprised when California regulations apply to you?

The surprise - a part of - was that hiring a person in California means doing business in California. On one hand, yes, it's a business-related relationship. On the other, doing business has some other well-established definitions - that is, selling products.

[whimsicalism → avmich]

Where your employees are based has obvious relevance as to where you are doing business. This is not a California-thing.

[avmich → whimsicalism]

I doubt with all the globalization and outsourcing that was happening last decades everybody was assuming this was the case. I think for many smaller companies hiring somebody externally didn't mean they needed to apply that place's regulations.