4 ms·

It’s not surprising given that those who are able to dictate their desired setup (remote work in this case) can command higher salaries. Would be nice to see th

It’s not surprising given that those who are able to dictate their desired setup (remote work in this case) can command higher salaries. Would be nice to see the graph of years of experience + salaries for remote vs onsite workers.

dkdk8283 7y ago
At my employer we have zones and your salary is adjusted based on COL compared to say SF. I’m doing well as a remote worker, but I’ve been browsing job boards and many advertised ranges are about half of what I’m currently earning. It needs to get better.
- foogazi 7y ago
  > At my employer we have zones and your salary is adjusted based on COL compared to say SF. Would be an example of someone not dictating their setup
  - xur17 7y ago
    Agreed. Any remote company that adjusts salaries based on location gets a hard pass from me.
    - mox1 7y ago
      I think its perfectly reasonable to do this. As someone who would love to be a remote worker as long as my total comp package is acceptable to me, I don't really give a crap if they are paying someone in SF 25% more. I would more look at compared to local jobs in my area. For example, my job, my years of experience, in my area (Midwest USA) is roughly $175K on a W2 salary. If that same position is 275k in NYC, but I'm offered it at $175k, sign me up! I'm sure they would pay me the $275k if I moved to New York...but not living in New York is worth $100k a year to me.
      - foogazi 7y ago
        Totally reasonable to do it just not someone dictating salary In your case you don’t want to move out, in my case when I move back I’d like to receive the same pay since I’ll be doing the same work
      - xur17 7y ago
        While true, you're going to miss out on some percentage of applicants that are willing to interview a bit more to get a non-adjusted rate. This might be fine if you have a good hiring funnel, but if you're a scrappy startup, this could be challenging. Also, you will likely end up with a slightly higher churn rate (since smart employees will continue interviewing to see if they can get a higher salary from a place that doesn't adjust based on cost of living). It's a perfectly reasonable approach to take as an employer, and if you can make it work, all the more power to you.
    - _jal 7y ago
      It does have an oddly... socialist flavor for the context ("To each, subject to their needs...").
      - pepper_sauce 7y ago
        Salaries being literally dictated by geographical market rates is the opposite of socialism.
        _jal 7y ago
        You missed both the joke and the point. But that's OK, so did everyone else.
        pepper_sauce 7y ago
        whoosh :-)
- dx87 7y ago
  Yeah, companies that want remote employees really need to drop the COL thing and pay everyone similar rates. At an old job, I was getting $120k doing remote work in a high COL area, and we were looking to hire another team member. Did a bunch of interviews, found someone who was a perfect candidate, and was more qualified than all of us currently on the team. The project manager wouldn't hire him because he lives in Detroit and wanted $125k, and they said that someone living in Detroit doesn't need that much money.

dkdk8283 7y ago

At my employer we have zones and your salary is adjusted based on COL compared to say SF. I’m doing well as a remote worker, but I’ve been browsing job boards and many advertised ranges are about half of what I’m currently earning. It needs to get better.

foogazi 7y ago
> At my employer we have zones and your salary is adjusted based on COL compared to say SF. Would be an example of someone not dictating their setup
- xur17 7y ago
  Agreed. Any remote company that adjusts salaries based on location gets a hard pass from me.
  - mox1 7y ago
    I think its perfectly reasonable to do this. As someone who would love to be a remote worker as long as my total comp package is acceptable to me, I don't really give a crap if they are paying someone in SF 25% more. I would more look at compared to local jobs in my area. For example, my job, my years of experience, in my area (Midwest USA) is roughly $175K on a W2 salary. If that same position is 275k in NYC, but I'm offered it at $175k, sign me up! I'm sure they would pay me the $275k if I moved to New York...but not living in New York is worth $100k a year to me.
    - foogazi 7y ago
      Totally reasonable to do it just not someone dictating salary In your case you don’t want to move out, in my case when I move back I’d like to receive the same pay since I’ll be doing the same work
    - xur17 7y ago
      While true, you're going to miss out on some percentage of applicants that are willing to interview a bit more to get a non-adjusted rate. This might be fine if you have a good hiring funnel, but if you're a scrappy startup, this could be challenging. Also, you will likely end up with a slightly higher churn rate (since smart employees will continue interviewing to see if they can get a higher salary from a place that doesn't adjust based on cost of living). It's a perfectly reasonable approach to take as an employer, and if you can make it work, all the more power to you.
  - _jal 7y ago
    It does have an oddly... socialist flavor for the context ("To each, subject to their needs...").
    - pepper_sauce 7y ago
      Salaries being literally dictated by geographical market rates is the opposite of socialism.
      - _jal 7y ago
        You missed both the joke and the point. But that's OK, so did everyone else.
        pepper_sauce 7y ago
        whoosh :-)
dx87 7y ago
Yeah, companies that want remote employees really need to drop the COL thing and pay everyone similar rates. At an old job, I was getting $120k doing remote work in a high COL area, and we were looking to hire another team member. Did a bunch of interviews, found someone who was a perfect candidate, and was more qualified than all of us currently on the team. The project manager wouldn't hire him because he lives in Detroit and wanted $125k, and they said that someone living in Detroit doesn't need that much money.