3 ms·

There’s no “in Topeka” for remote developers, though. If you could materialize a drink from a distant bar in your kitchen, and the drink from the dive bar was

There’s no “in Topeka” for remote developers, though. If you could materialize a drink from a distant bar in your kitchen, and the drink from the dive bar was identical to the one from the fancy restaurant, would you pay more for the one from the fancy restaurant? Consider a real-world example. You go to the grocery store and buy some strawberries. Some of the boxes are from a place where they’re cheaper to grow, and some are from a place where they’re more expensive to grow. Would you pay more for the latter? This sort of intermingling is common, and every time I’ve seen it, the prices are the same. The store doesn’t even consider them to be separate products. They have the same bar code and ring up identically. Barring difficulties with international borders or time zones, there is only one market for remote workers. It doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference if the remote employee is in Topeka or Manhattan. Why pay more for the latter?

joshuamorton 8y ago
But remote developers aren't the only kind of developers, and people do pay more for strawberries grown locally. The remote developer market is a piece of the developer market, and the developer market pays more for developers in SF than in Topeka, same as remote strawberries cost less (often because cost of labor is lower). As a remote dev, you're competing with other remote devs who can out price you. If I can offer someone else 10k less for the same product, why wouldn't I?
- mikeash 8y ago
  People who want local strawberries pay more for them. People who just want strawberries and don’t care where they came from won’t pay more. We’re specifically talking about remote workers here. The fact that some companies pay more for non-remote people doesn’t really come into it. If you’re hiring remotely, it makes no sense to pay more for an equivalent employee who lives in a more expensive area.
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    Price discrimination often makes sense. If you have two offers, otherwise equal, and one pays more, will you refuse it because that offer is less than what you would have been paid in another location? If you're a remote dev with skill x, unless you want to take less money, you're going to compete with the many more remote devs with skill x in other more expensive locations. So you accept less money because you can afford to, and that's better than no offer at all (because it went to a different person).
    - mikeash 8y ago
      As long as skilled, unemployed remote workers exist in cheap areas, I’d expect the salary to be lower than that of non-remote workers in expensive areas, and I’d expect remote workers in expensive areas to be unable to compete. Once you run out of remote workers in cheap areas, I’d expect salaries to rise enough to start attracting the ones in more expensive areas. But salaries would naturally rise for all of them, because they’re all ultimately in the same market.

joshuamorton 8y ago

But remote developers aren't the only kind of developers, and people do pay more for strawberries grown locally. The remote developer market is a piece of the developer market, and the developer market pays more for developers in SF than in Topeka, same as remote strawberries cost less (often because cost of labor is lower). As a remote dev, you're competing with other remote devs who can out price you. If I can offer someone else 10k less for the same product, why wouldn't I?

mikeash 8y ago
People who want local strawberries pay more for them. People who just want strawberries and don’t care where they came from won’t pay more. We’re specifically talking about remote workers here. The fact that some companies pay more for non-remote people doesn’t really come into it. If you’re hiring remotely, it makes no sense to pay more for an equivalent employee who lives in a more expensive area.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  Price discrimination often makes sense. If you have two offers, otherwise equal, and one pays more, will you refuse it because that offer is less than what you would have been paid in another location? If you're a remote dev with skill x, unless you want to take less money, you're going to compete with the many more remote devs with skill x in other more expensive locations. So you accept less money because you can afford to, and that's better than no offer at all (because it went to a different person).
  - mikeash 8y ago
    As long as skilled, unemployed remote workers exist in cheap areas, I’d expect the salary to be lower than that of non-remote workers in expensive areas, and I’d expect remote workers in expensive areas to be unable to compete. Once you run out of remote workers in cheap areas, I’d expect salaries to rise enough to start attracting the ones in more expensive areas. But salaries would naturally rise for all of them, because they’re all ultimately in the same market.