5 ms·

Since when does remote mean a lower salary? I work remotely in the US and I expect (and receive) a market rate salary that's not based on my location. Offering

by phd514 10y ago

Since when does remote mean a lower salary? I work remotely in the US and I expect (and receive) a market rate salary that's not based on my location. Offering me a lower salary because I've chosen to live in a lower cost-of-living city will ensure that I don't consider working for you. It's not always an employee's market, but while it is, I intend to take full advantage of it.

psyc 10y ago
There's no reason it ought to mean a lower salary. However, I would very happily work at half-price for a fully remote job I actually want. But even with that concession, the vast majority of companies I'd like to work for still don't offer the option.
sshrinivasan 10y ago
I don't think you understood what he said. He was saying that one of the attractions of a startup, which couldn't pay the $350k salary like Google, was that remote work would be possible, and some developers would like that flexibility. He wasn't claiming that startups pay remote workers less than in house ones. In my experience that is an incorrect argument to begin with: many large tech companies seem to have more flexible work hours and remote working capabilities just like startups. I would rather focus on work-life balance, working on products that matter, having equity in the company, being able to experiment with technologies and be part of the decision making process rather than a cog in the machinery as reasons to prefer a start-up.
etergri 10y ago
I wish I lived in a country which allowed that logic at all..
bradleyjg 10y ago
Of course it means a lower salary. There are some number of jobs out there and most of them don't want remote workers. Job applicants that are willing to take jobs that forbid remote work can also apply to those that permit remote work, while workers that will only look at jobs that allow remote work can only apply to the small subset that allow it. It's straightforward micro-economic exercise to see that the when you hold all other things equal the market clearing rate for a particular employee is higher if he is willing to take on-site work than if he is not. It'd be the same thing if an employee was only willing to work at companies whose names started with a-m.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  "Of course it means a lower salary." Why? How does the value of the work I provide change based on where I'm located? Is an if statement somehow different if done in the Bay Area vs the Midwest?
  - tutufan 10y ago
    What does the value of your work have to do with your salary, though?
    - kudokatz 10y ago
      > What does the value of your work have to do with your salary, though? Delivering more value can justify more compensation. But unless you're on contract for a percentage of the take, you don't necessarily get compensated based on output. Most software people get paid based on market rates which can be a lot lower than the actual value they deliver on the high-end--they're paid their "replacement cost" rather than per value added.
- fulafel 10y ago
  It works both ways. Even in this "perfect market" model, the remote salary will be higher if there is lower labour supply in the empolyer's local labour market than the global remote labour market. I don't think there is more aversion to remote work on the employer side than on the employee side, so that effect should not turn the tables.

by phd514 10y ago

psyc 10y ago

There's no reason it ought to mean a lower salary. However, I would very happily work at half-price for a fully remote job I actually want. But even with that concession, the vast majority of companies I'd like to work for still don't offer the option.

sshrinivasan 10y ago

I don't think you understood what he said. He was saying that one of the attractions of a startup, which couldn't pay the $350k salary like Google, was that remote work would be possible, and some developers would like that flexibility. He wasn't claiming that startups pay remote workers less than in house ones. In my experience that is an incorrect argument to begin with: many large tech companies seem to have more flexible work hours and remote working capabilities just like startups. I would rather focus on work-life balance, working on products that matter, having equity in the company, being able to experiment with technologies and be part of the decision making process rather than a cog in the machinery as reasons to prefer a start-up.

etergri 10y ago

I wish I lived in a country which allowed that logic at all..

bradleyjg 10y ago

Of course it means a lower salary. There are some number of jobs out there and most of them don't want remote workers. Job applicants that are willing to take jobs that forbid remote work can also apply to those that permit remote work, while workers that will only look at jobs that allow remote work can only apply to the small subset that allow it. It's straightforward micro-economic exercise to see that the when you hold all other things equal the market clearing rate for a particular employee is higher if he is willing to take on-site work than if he is not. It'd be the same thing if an employee was only willing to work at companies whose names started with a-m.

st3v3r 10y ago
"Of course it means a lower salary." Why? How does the value of the work I provide change based on where I'm located? Is an if statement somehow different if done in the Bay Area vs the Midwest?
- tutufan 10y ago
  What does the value of your work have to do with your salary, though?
  - kudokatz 10y ago
    > What does the value of your work have to do with your salary, though? Delivering more value can justify more compensation. But unless you're on contract for a percentage of the take, you don't necessarily get compensated based on output. Most software people get paid based on market rates which can be a lot lower than the actual value they deliver on the high-end--they're paid their "replacement cost" rather than per value added.
fulafel 10y ago
It works both ways. Even in this "perfect market" model, the remote salary will be higher if there is lower labour supply in the empolyer's local labour market than the global remote labour market. I don't think there is more aversion to remote work on the employer side than on the employee side, so that effect should not turn the tables.