3 ms·

Fair is not relevant, supply and demand are. Those are geographically different in major ways. Compensation offers follow this including for remote work.

vladvasiliu 6y ago
I agree that fair is irrelevant, but my point is that the supply and demand dynamic is different in the remote situation. Indeed, if all companies went full remote overnight, the demand wouldn't change that much, whereas the supply would be much larger. If the company doesn't expect the employees to be physically present in a given location, the supply of talent is increased since it isn't restricted to a given area anymore. So while I understand that people living in SF wouldn't appreciate having their salaries cut to the level of [low COL city], I don't see how companies would continue to pay SF rates when they can access talent for a lower price just because they live someplace else. And said talent could even be the same exact SF engineer deciding to live someplace else for personal reasons.
- temp667 6y ago
  Companies have found that to hire engineers living in SF, they need to pay more than hiring someone living in Idaho. That is supply and demand. Could those employees move elsewhere? Sure. That may in fact happen. But right now, an engineer in SF has both remote demand and local demand at FAR higher rates than someone in idaho.
  - lnnnn 6y ago
    Why companies care about hiring people in SF? If the company is fully remote, it shouldn’t matter. If it does matter then saying it’s fully remote is a lie. If there’s a need for a specific role to be physically in SF then hire in SF for that role. Also at this day the idea that they are competing against companies hiring locally is ludicrous. That might have been the case 5 years ago, but today most companies are hiring globally for remote positions — that’s your competition. Paying based on where people live is just burning company to subsidize insanely high real estate — and ensure your SF bros can keep their jobs.

vladvasiliu 6y ago

I agree that fair is irrelevant, but my point is that the supply and demand dynamic is different in the remote situation. Indeed, if all companies went full remote overnight, the demand wouldn't change that much, whereas the supply would be much larger. If the company doesn't expect the employees to be physically present in a given location, the supply of talent is increased since it isn't restricted to a given area anymore. So while I understand that people living in SF wouldn't appreciate having their salaries cut to the level of [low COL city], I don't see how companies would continue to pay SF rates when they can access talent for a lower price just because they live someplace else. And said talent could even be the same exact SF engineer deciding to live someplace else for personal reasons.

temp667 6y ago
Companies have found that to hire engineers living in SF, they need to pay more than hiring someone living in Idaho. That is supply and demand. Could those employees move elsewhere? Sure. That may in fact happen. But right now, an engineer in SF has both remote demand and local demand at FAR higher rates than someone in idaho.
- lnnnn 6y ago
  Why companies care about hiring people in SF? If the company is fully remote, it shouldn’t matter. If it does matter then saying it’s fully remote is a lie. If there’s a need for a specific role to be physically in SF then hire in SF for that role. Also at this day the idea that they are competing against companies hiring locally is ludicrous. That might have been the case 5 years ago, but today most companies are hiring globally for remote positions — that’s your competition. Paying based on where people live is just burning company to subsidize insanely high real estate — and ensure your SF bros can keep their jobs.