2 ms·
Generally it's harder to effectively manage a remote team than a colocated one. Most employers, if there were the same pool of talent, available at the same pr
by cameldrv 7y ago
Generally it's harder to effectively manage a remote team than a colocated one. Most employers, if there were the same pool of talent, available at the same price locally as remotely, would choose to to have a local team.
In order for remote to be attractive to employers, remote employees simply have to charge less than the local alternative.
Yes, ultimately you're paid for the value you provide. If you want to work from the beach in Thailand from your laptop, fine, but I'm not going to pay as much, because I have to deal with you not being available on the same schedule as me, that you have a crappy internet connection that makes video calls more difficult, that it's harder to pay you, and that it costs more to fly you to the office periodically.
- dpc_pw 7y agoObviously remote vs local is different. But Thailand vs Paris, for a company that is based in San Diego, is not that different - both are remote. So why would you pay differently? Anyone can pay as much/little as they want, and get paid as much/little as they are willing to accept, obviously. But IMO it is worth remembering that ultimately what matters is the value added. If you live in a cheap location, negotiate hard, because you're adding as much value as someone that lives in an expensive location.
- mantap 7y agoIt comes down to who wants it more. If you have some kind of rare special experience that would be hard for them to find locally, then your location doesn't matter because they will be happy to have you on board. If you are replaceable then expect to be paid accordingly.