7 ms·

Great idea, but do remote employees get paid the same? Say 100k+ for an SF based company?

taway_1212 9y ago
My experience is that yes, there are companies paying 100k+ for remotes. I think they're just happy to get someone qualified for low six figures, whereas in SF they would probably pay twice that amount (I'm a foreign contractor, so they don't pay for any benefits, health care, social security etc.).
jaboutboul 9y ago
In my experience, yes. Any good company will not want to lose the right person because of location or pay.
EduardoBautista 9y ago
Lol I had to negotiate to get about a quarter of that salary. I know Travis CI limits your pay to your region. GitLab as well. Difference from Mexico to San Francisco is about 4x.
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  That's messed up. Unless there's a separate component like local-cost-of-living-adjustment where you get extra for living in a high-rent area.
  - fragmede 9y ago
    ...yes? Cost of living between Mexico to San Francisco probably in the neighborhood of 4x, depending on which part of Mexico. 500000 MXN rounds to $25k, which is 1/4 of $100k.
    - viljar 9y ago
      Cost of surviving(food, shelter, boose) - yes. What about cost of having trip around the world for vacation, building your retirement fund, price of the iphone, car?
      - jldugger 9y ago
        Well, the retirement fund might be more CoL adjusted, if you intend to retire to the same region you currently reside.
        MichaelGG 9y ago
        You shouldn't have to decide that up front. Plus someone living in a high-rent area then gets a huge retirement bonus and allows them the option to move somewhere else. Someone in a low-rent area doesn't get that option at all.
        jldugger 9y ago
        All true, and yet I imagine a lot of people think in different terms about retirement.
      - EduardoBautista 9y ago
        iPhones and car loans are more expensive here in Mexico.
  - foobarbazetc 9y ago
    it's not messed up. Otherwise you're overpaying by 4x compared to local positions. Which means the person will probably never leave if they're unhappy etc.
    - MichaelGG 9y ago
      If it's more than just a cost-of-living bonus for high-rent areas, then yes it is. You're saying "Hey engineer A, you're just as good as B, but we're going to pay you less because people that live near you aren't getting paid as much. If you'd like a raise, move somewhere where engineers get more money." Again, if it's just the cost-of-living bonus (like, all our engineers get $80K, plus $X/month where X is average rent and groceries, plus Y% for taxes) then it's fine. Otherwise it's valuing someone less purely on their geographical location. Edit: Also, really, overpaying so they might be unhappy? "We're giving you less money for your own good!" Presumably if they're a world-class engineer and can work remotely at one place, they can find another remote job, too...
      - rlpb 9y ago
        > "Hey engineer A, you're just as good as B, but we're going to pay you less..." Let's face it. As an employee, you want to earn as much as you can. As a company, you want to make as much profit as you can, which means that you base your target pay on market rate (be it above or below market rate). Market rate is set by the competition. Really it's "we're going to pay you enough that you don't leave to work for someone else", and that's it. If an employer gives you a cost-of-living bonus for high-rent areas, the reason is that they're competing for you against other companies who do the same thing. The same applies to any pay difference based on locality, whether local or remote. It simply depends on who they're competing with for your services. This isn't evil. It's how the market works.
        MichaelGG 9y ago
        Don't think I said it's evil, just wrong. Obviously it's how the market works, and I've taken advantage of this myself. Just saying that, aside from "well, we can get away with it", it's not that defensible.
  - eloisant 9y ago
    It's not messed up, it's supply and demand. Someone living in SF will have many high-paid opportunities so they have to match that. On the other hand they know someone not willing to relocate won't have the same opportunities locally or with remote jobs, so they can afford to pay them less.
    - MichaelGG 9y ago
      That doesn't make it right. You can get away with ("afford") lots of things that aren't correct to do.
  - bbcbasic 9y ago
    Easily hacked. As long as you stay in the timezone, start off in expensive city, then quietly move to cheap city.
taternuts 9y ago
No. Not unless you get lucky or are incredible and in demand from other SF companies they know. Remote work is fantastic for people who don't care about living in a place with a higher cost of living. I personally think it's a huge perk that companies are willing to pay your rent if you move to a beautiful place, but then again I've come to dislike a fully remote job after doing it for a couple years.
scalesolved 9y ago
Yes it happens, I work for a remote company and location has nothing to do with the offered salary. (USA based company).
remoteEmp80 9y ago
Yes, I work for a very large Bay Area company and make $170k total comp as a 100% remote employee. I however live in a somewhat expensive COL city with other tech jobs, so that helped in negotiations.
bowlich 9y ago
My employer is not SF based, but they do pay the same to all employees regardless of location based on the market rate for their base city. Lots of folks taking advantage of that to live in cheaper environments. Although there are a couple oddballs who use it to live in SF and not get the local rate for there.

My experience is that yes, there are companies paying 100k+ for remotes. I think they're just happy to get someone qualified for low six figures, whereas in SF they would probably pay twice that amount (I'm a foreign contractor, so they don't pay for any benefits, health care, social security etc.).

jaboutboul 9y ago

In my experience, yes. Any good company will not want to lose the right person because of location or pay.

EduardoBautista 9y ago

Lol I had to negotiate to get about a quarter of that salary. I know Travis CI limits your pay to your region. GitLab as well. Difference from Mexico to San Francisco is about 4x.

MichaelGG 9y ago
That's messed up. Unless there's a separate component like local-cost-of-living-adjustment where you get extra for living in a high-rent area.
- fragmede 9y ago
  ...yes? Cost of living between Mexico to San Francisco probably in the neighborhood of 4x, depending on which part of Mexico. 500000 MXN rounds to $25k, which is 1/4 of $100k.
  - viljar 9y ago
    Cost of surviving(food, shelter, boose) - yes. What about cost of having trip around the world for vacation, building your retirement fund, price of the iphone, car?
    - jldugger 9y ago
      Well, the retirement fund might be more CoL adjusted, if you intend to retire to the same region you currently reside.
      - MichaelGG 9y ago
        You shouldn't have to decide that up front. Plus someone living in a high-rent area then gets a huge retirement bonus and allows them the option to move somewhere else. Someone in a low-rent area doesn't get that option at all.
        jldugger 9y ago
        All true, and yet I imagine a lot of people think in different terms about retirement.
    - EduardoBautista 9y ago
      iPhones and car loans are more expensive here in Mexico.
- foobarbazetc 9y ago
  it's not messed up. Otherwise you're overpaying by 4x compared to local positions. Which means the person will probably never leave if they're unhappy etc.
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    If it's more than just a cost-of-living bonus for high-rent areas, then yes it is. You're saying "Hey engineer A, you're just as good as B, but we're going to pay you less because people that live near you aren't getting paid as much. If you'd like a raise, move somewhere where engineers get more money." Again, if it's just the cost-of-living bonus (like, all our engineers get $80K, plus $X/month where X is average rent and groceries, plus Y% for taxes) then it's fine. Otherwise it's valuing someone less purely on their geographical location. Edit: Also, really, overpaying so they might be unhappy? "We're giving you less money for your own good!" Presumably if they're a world-class engineer and can work remotely at one place, they can find another remote job, too...
    - rlpb 9y ago
      > "Hey engineer A, you're just as good as B, but we're going to pay you less..." Let's face it. As an employee, you want to earn as much as you can. As a company, you want to make as much profit as you can, which means that you base your target pay on market rate (be it above or below market rate). Market rate is set by the competition. Really it's "we're going to pay you enough that you don't leave to work for someone else", and that's it. If an employer gives you a cost-of-living bonus for high-rent areas, the reason is that they're competing for you against other companies who do the same thing. The same applies to any pay difference based on locality, whether local or remote. It simply depends on who they're competing with for your services. This isn't evil. It's how the market works.
      - MichaelGG 9y ago
        Don't think I said it's evil, just wrong. Obviously it's how the market works, and I've taken advantage of this myself. Just saying that, aside from "well, we can get away with it", it's not that defensible.
- eloisant 9y ago
  It's not messed up, it's supply and demand. Someone living in SF will have many high-paid opportunities so they have to match that. On the other hand they know someone not willing to relocate won't have the same opportunities locally or with remote jobs, so they can afford to pay them less.
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    That doesn't make it right. You can get away with ("afford") lots of things that aren't correct to do.
- bbcbasic 9y ago
  Easily hacked. As long as you stay in the timezone, start off in expensive city, then quietly move to cheap city.

taternuts 9y ago

No. Not unless you get lucky or are incredible and in demand from other SF companies they know. Remote work is fantastic for people who don't care about living in a place with a higher cost of living. I personally think it's a huge perk that companies are willing to pay your rent if you move to a beautiful place, but then again I've come to dislike a fully remote job after doing it for a couple years.

scalesolved 9y ago

Yes it happens, I work for a remote company and location has nothing to do with the offered salary. (USA based company).

remoteEmp80 9y ago

Yes, I work for a very large Bay Area company and make $170k total comp as a 100% remote employee. I however live in a somewhat expensive COL city with other tech jobs, so that helped in negotiations.

bowlich 9y ago

My employer is not SF based, but they do pay the same to all employees regardless of location based on the market rate for their base city. Lots of folks taking advantage of that to live in cheaper environments. Although there are a couple oddballs who use it to live in SF and not get the local rate for there.