This is a more useful summary than the headline: > once I control for various observable factors (including age, experience, hours worked, size of employer, pr

This is a more useful summary than the headline: > once I control for various observable factors (including age, experience, hours worked, size of employer, programming languages, and more), fully-remote software developers earn 9.4% more than developers who never or only rarely work remotely. I wouldn't get too attached to any theories of causality or why, but as an experienced remote worker, I'll speculate, FWIW: * Generally (not always, just generally), employers tend to be hesitant and uncomfortable with remote workers. So the people that get and keep those arrangements tend to be those that have proven to be more trusted, capable, and indispensable. (Which all help with higher pay too, of course.) This, BTW, describes my anecdotal experience at my company. Over the years we've collected a decent sized group of people who work remotely, even though the company doesn't generally allow it. The specifics of various cases have been different, but generally something happens that would force the issue (often an office move -- don't know why we need to do that so much), and some people either need to leave the company or work remotely. In those cases, accommodations were usually eventually made for people seen as indispensable while others were let go (in one way or another). This is across various management regimes. One time there was a hard-line stance, "move or be laid off". There was a months long game of chicken, but in the end it was the management that was replaced. (Not necessarily for that -- they made various counter-productive decisions.) * I think another reason for the higher pay may be that (IMO) you really do need to be a better communicator as a remote employee. I think most people working remotely become significantly better communicators, over time, and that translates to more senior positions and pay.