6 ms·

What is the logic that says over inflated salaries that are required to make hiring possible in a ridiculously expensive place to live are the only measure of “

What is the logic that says over inflated salaries that are required to make hiring possible in a ridiculously expensive place to live are the only measure of “pays well”? You could have a salary substantially less in equivalent dollars and still end up better off if a huge chunk of that income isn’t being spent on putting a roof over your head. Or do you just want the bragging rights “I make 300k” but are sick of spending half of it on rent?

byoung2 6y ago
I don't know about the OP, but I live in Los Angeles so when looking for remote opportunities I need a salary comparable to local onsite jobs. I've got a daughter in school here and my wife has a job with 10 years seniority and a pension at 20 years so it isn't realistic to move to Idaho for the cost of living savings. I've been working remote for 5 years and it has limited my choices to companies that pay LA wages. I've talked to coworkers who live on 5 acres in Texas, a mansion in Iowa, or 20 acres in Arkansas and they think I'm crazy but I can be at the beach or Hollywood in 15 minutes and I don't have to deal with snow or rain.
- detaro 6y ago
  But that's different from what OP asks, since not all remote companies pay the same rate globally.
- stephenr 6y ago
  I guess maybe it's a factor of the US employment/benefits situation but I don't quite understand this scenario. In Australia (where I grew up) if you leave a company, you don't lose your retirement savings from that time, because they're not controlled by the company. Is that what you're suggesting: that if your wife changes her job, she'll lose the money that's been paid into a retirement fund for her? As for kids: changing schools can be a hassle but I'd hardly consider it a reason not to move to a much more liveable location.
  - gbear605 6y ago
    For a lot of jobs in the US, you have a pension where if you retire from the company after X years there (in this case 20 years), then they’ll pay you some fixed sum every month for the rest of your life. There isn’t a “retirement fund for her” that money has been paid into, but rather it’s a single on/off switch. This dates from the 50s-70s when staying at a single company your whole career was the norm. Nowadays, most companies offer a 401k retirement plan that you can take with you, but some older companies or government agencies still offer pensions. As for the kids, I’d say that staying in one school district is a huge plus for them, but it varies depending on the kids and the school district.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > For a lot of jobs in the US, you have a pension where if you retire from the company after X years there (in this case 20 years), then they’ll pay you some fixed sum every month for the rest of your life. Pensions are extremely rare outside of the public sector, and have been for about the length of the average working career.
      - adventured 6y ago
        What do you consider extremely rare? 13% of private sector employees still participate in a pension plan. It does seem very likely a large share of those are older workers and that that percentage will continue to erode over the next 10-20 years. https://www.pensionrights.org/publications/statistic/how-many-american-workers-participate-workplace-retirement-plans https://www.pensionrights.org/publications/statistic/how-man...
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > What do you consider extremely rare? 13% of private sector employees still participate in a pension plan. Down from 18%, ~7 years before, when 39% and growing of those who still had pensions in the private sector had non-traditional pensions that weren't pure specified-benefit plans, but instead were (for the vast majority of non-traditional plans) hybrid cash-balance plans where the actual benefit is determined by investment returns through the point of retirement (basically, a defined contribution plan where the accumulated balance is used to purchase an annuity at retirement.) https://www.epi.org/blog/private-sector-pension-coverage-decline/ https://www.epi.org/blog/private-sector-pension-coverage-dec... IIRC, a big part of the decline being that for many private employers, pensions, especially traditional ones, are legacy plans that haven't been offered to employees for decades, and are only available to employees that have been working with the firm since they were generally available.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  > ... and I don't have to deal with snow or rain. But the smog, the wildfires, and the traffic are, um, not ideal. I admit that the beach in Iowa is somewhat lacking...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - byoung2 6y ago
    Traffic is a nonissue when you work from home. Wildfires are getting bad but the hope is that they can be mitigated over time, unlike snow every winter.
    - stephenr 6y ago
      Hope in one hand and shit in the other, see which fills up first. If you think extreme weather events (droughts, the ensuing wild fires, hurricanes, blizzards, etc) are going to reduce any time soon, you need to pay more attention.
revertcommit 6y ago
You're totally right but I was asking this question because I wanted to know if there are any other companies similar to Basecamp that pays you SF rates no matter where ever you're in the world.
- stephenr 6y ago
  Looking for a remote salaried position in another country seems like a weird situation to me. The headaches of setting up legal entities, complying with tax laws, benefits etc for whatever location the person is in, is not worth it IMO. If you're a freelancer, it's up to you to decide what rate you want, and if you're willing to negotiate on that rate. For reference, I charge clients about 3x more now, living in a relatively small city in Thailand than I did when I left Melbourne (Australia) several years ago, which is ridiculously more expensive.
allendoerfer 6y ago
In case you can manage to keep the same savings-rate, living in an expensive place, you can move to an inexpensive place for retirement and retire earlier. The absolute values count. It is not only about cost of living/salary.

byoung2 6y ago

I don't know about the OP, but I live in Los Angeles so when looking for remote opportunities I need a salary comparable to local onsite jobs. I've got a daughter in school here and my wife has a job with 10 years seniority and a pension at 20 years so it isn't realistic to move to Idaho for the cost of living savings. I've been working remote for 5 years and it has limited my choices to companies that pay LA wages. I've talked to coworkers who live on 5 acres in Texas, a mansion in Iowa, or 20 acres in Arkansas and they think I'm crazy but I can be at the beach or Hollywood in 15 minutes and I don't have to deal with snow or rain.

detaro 6y ago
But that's different from what OP asks, since not all remote companies pay the same rate globally.
stephenr 6y ago
I guess maybe it's a factor of the US employment/benefits situation but I don't quite understand this scenario. In Australia (where I grew up) if you leave a company, you don't lose your retirement savings from that time, because they're not controlled by the company. Is that what you're suggesting: that if your wife changes her job, she'll lose the money that's been paid into a retirement fund for her? As for kids: changing schools can be a hassle but I'd hardly consider it a reason not to move to a much more liveable location.
- gbear605 6y ago
  For a lot of jobs in the US, you have a pension where if you retire from the company after X years there (in this case 20 years), then they’ll pay you some fixed sum every month for the rest of your life. There isn’t a “retirement fund for her” that money has been paid into, but rather it’s a single on/off switch. This dates from the 50s-70s when staying at a single company your whole career was the norm. Nowadays, most companies offer a 401k retirement plan that you can take with you, but some older companies or government agencies still offer pensions. As for the kids, I’d say that staying in one school district is a huge plus for them, but it varies depending on the kids and the school district.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > For a lot of jobs in the US, you have a pension where if you retire from the company after X years there (in this case 20 years), then they’ll pay you some fixed sum every month for the rest of your life. Pensions are extremely rare outside of the public sector, and have been for about the length of the average working career.
    - adventured 6y ago
      What do you consider extremely rare? 13% of private sector employees still participate in a pension plan. It does seem very likely a large share of those are older workers and that that percentage will continue to erode over the next 10-20 years. https://www.pensionrights.org/publications/statistic/how-many-american-workers-participate-workplace-retirement-plans https://www.pensionrights.org/publications/statistic/how-man...
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > What do you consider extremely rare? 13% of private sector employees still participate in a pension plan. Down from 18%, ~7 years before, when 39% and growing of those who still had pensions in the private sector had non-traditional pensions that weren't pure specified-benefit plans, but instead were (for the vast majority of non-traditional plans) hybrid cash-balance plans where the actual benefit is determined by investment returns through the point of retirement (basically, a defined contribution plan where the accumulated balance is used to purchase an annuity at retirement.) https://www.epi.org/blog/private-sector-pension-coverage-decline/ https://www.epi.org/blog/private-sector-pension-coverage-dec... IIRC, a big part of the decline being that for many private employers, pensions, especially traditional ones, are legacy plans that haven't been offered to employees for decades, and are only available to employees that have been working with the firm since they were generally available.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
> ... and I don't have to deal with snow or rain. But the smog, the wildfires, and the traffic are, um, not ideal. I admit that the beach in Iowa is somewhat lacking...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- byoung2 6y ago
  Traffic is a nonissue when you work from home. Wildfires are getting bad but the hope is that they can be mitigated over time, unlike snow every winter.
  - stephenr 6y ago
    Hope in one hand and shit in the other, see which fills up first. If you think extreme weather events (droughts, the ensuing wild fires, hurricanes, blizzards, etc) are going to reduce any time soon, you need to pay more attention.

revertcommit 6y ago

You're totally right but I was asking this question because I wanted to know if there are any other companies similar to Basecamp that pays you SF rates no matter where ever you're in the world.

stephenr 6y ago
Looking for a remote salaried position in another country seems like a weird situation to me. The headaches of setting up legal entities, complying with tax laws, benefits etc for whatever location the person is in, is not worth it IMO. If you're a freelancer, it's up to you to decide what rate you want, and if you're willing to negotiate on that rate. For reference, I charge clients about 3x more now, living in a relatively small city in Thailand than I did when I left Melbourne (Australia) several years ago, which is ridiculously more expensive.

allendoerfer 6y ago

In case you can manage to keep the same savings-rate, living in an expensive place, you can move to an inexpensive place for retirement and retire earlier. The absolute values count. It is not only about cost of living/salary.