3 ms·

Just up the beach from my $6/night bungalow in Thailand there was a resort that costs $1,500/night. The work I'd do from there would be functionally equivalent

Just up the beach from my $6/night bungalow in Thailand there was a resort that costs $1,500/night. The work I'd do from there would be functionally equivalent from my employers' perspective. So as long as we're covering expenses, I'd prefer they cover mine at that second place. The fact that I might actually be living cheaper is none of their concern.

rplnt 9y ago
If there's an equally qualified dev willing to take $1494/day less, employer would take that one. But if the only available people live in resorts, then the employer has no choice.
- jasonkester 9y ago
  Indeed. The key is to never be that developer who leaves all that money on the table. The company you're negotiating against will be happy to take it.
  - rplnt 9y ago
    The thing is, willing to live in a bungalow might be a competitive advantage, all other things being equal (and maybe even if they are not, sadly).
    - saalweachter 9y ago
      Lower living expenses is a stupid reason to charge lower rates. I am not a contractor, but I can only imagine lowering my rates (if I were) if I was consistently underbid and not getting enough work or if I were doing charity work for a nonprofit doing important work. If my living expenses were far below my rate, I'd save my money happily against the possibility my living expenses would go up or my income would go down in the future, and would not lower my rates. If I occasionally lost a bid but still got enough work, I would not lower my rates. As a worker, lowering your rates unnecessarily screws other workers, and future-you is another worker getting screwed.
- throwaway2016a 9y ago
  As I hiring manager I can say that is a huge if. You get what you pay for. Eventually people who are really good wise up and up their rates (as they should) even though their cost of living is lower. I have met Indian developers living in India making just about as much as they would in the US and they were always busy.

rplnt 9y ago

If there's an equally qualified dev willing to take $1494/day less, employer would take that one. But if the only available people live in resorts, then the employer has no choice.

jasonkester 9y ago
Indeed. The key is to never be that developer who leaves all that money on the table. The company you're negotiating against will be happy to take it.
- rplnt 9y ago
  The thing is, willing to live in a bungalow might be a competitive advantage, all other things being equal (and maybe even if they are not, sadly).
  - saalweachter 9y ago
    Lower living expenses is a stupid reason to charge lower rates. I am not a contractor, but I can only imagine lowering my rates (if I were) if I was consistently underbid and not getting enough work or if I were doing charity work for a nonprofit doing important work. If my living expenses were far below my rate, I'd save my money happily against the possibility my living expenses would go up or my income would go down in the future, and would not lower my rates. If I occasionally lost a bid but still got enough work, I would not lower my rates. As a worker, lowering your rates unnecessarily screws other workers, and future-you is another worker getting screwed.
throwaway2016a 9y ago
As I hiring manager I can say that is a huge if. You get what you pay for. Eventually people who are really good wise up and up their rates (as they should) even though their cost of living is lower. I have met Indian developers living in India making just about as much as they would in the US and they were always busy.