3 ms·

You conveniently left off cost of living. Does Louisville have a better cost of living than any other big city (DC, NYC, SF, Boston)? As of 2006-2010, media

You conveniently left off cost of living. Does Louisville have a better cost of living than any other big city (DC, NYC, SF, Boston)? As of 2006-2010, median price of a house in Louisville is $48,300. The median sales price for homes in San Francisco CA for Sep 12 to Nov 12 was $750,000. So, lets say a factor of 15.

acgourley 14y ago
And the average house isn't as nice, doesn't have year around nice weather, and isn't in a walkable neighborhood. I'm not arguing the cost isn't an issue, but the OP's standard of living numbers made a lot more sense here (2x)
ChuckMcM 14y ago
Well housing costs are just one part of cost of living but sure, it costs less to live elsewhere. Generally salaries in the SF Bay Area are higher in part of offset that cost. Wikipedia [1] claims Louisville has a median salary of $36,484. So a question; "If you wish to work at a remote location, are you willing to take a salary that is commensurate with the median salary at that remote location?" I find people are somewhat split on that question. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisville,_Kentucky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisville,_Kentucky
- randomdata 14y ago
  It is really the other way around. Costs in the valley are high because people generally have more money to spend, not because there is an intrinsic reason why it costs more to live there. > are you willing to take a salary that is commensurate with the median salary at that remote location? Salary is just a function of supply and demand. If a bunch of people with amazing talents in Louisville are willing to do it for $36K, then that will push down the wages in California too. The only thing that has really kept SF developer prices as high as they are is that even the skilled people of Louisville want $100K+ to do the job.
- m0nastic 14y ago
  I've never actually encountered an employer who set job offer salaries to reflect where remote candidates live. People point that out as a benefit to companies hiring remote employees (it'll save them money!), but does that actually happen? At my previous job, after acquiring a company that had a mostly-remote workforce, everyone eventually moved away from our home area (DC) to cheaper parts of the country. No one took a pay cut to reflect the fact that they now were living somewhere cheaper (and everyone new we hired was in the same range regardless of where they lived). Also, having lived and worked in Boston, the Bay Area, and now the Beltway, I was surprised to find that salaries weren't any lower or higher in any of those places, despite the costs of living being all over the place. It's possible that my particular corner of the industry (infosec) is just less geographically-dependent.
  - ghaff 14y ago
    Generally, there are some differences but the differences for a given job don't usually reflect the magnitude of cost of living deltas between high-cost and low-cost areas. All three of the areas you mention are fairly high cost (although somewhat dependent on where in those areas). So, all other things being equal, people will usually be able to, most notably, buy/rent more house/apartment in a cheaper area than a more expensive one. From the company perspective, limiting discussion to US only, the benefit of remote workers is much more about hiring talent rather than being able to save a few dollars.
  - ihaveajob 14y ago
    Not to nitpick, but Intel does have a 10% salary supplement for California employees, to offset the cost of living (or at least the difference in taxation) wrt OR, AZ and NM employees.
    - m0nastic 14y ago
      You're not nitpicking at all, that's a good counter example of what I'm talking about!
  - Fishkins 14y ago
    Another example is http://blogs.balsamiq.com/team/2011/09/12/salary/ http://blogs.balsamiq.com/team/2011/09/12/salary/

acgourley 14y ago

And the average house isn't as nice, doesn't have year around nice weather, and isn't in a walkable neighborhood. I'm not arguing the cost isn't an issue, but the OP's standard of living numbers made a lot more sense here (2x)

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Well housing costs are just one part of cost of living but sure, it costs less to live elsewhere. Generally salaries in the SF Bay Area are higher in part of offset that cost. Wikipedia [1] claims Louisville has a median salary of $36,484. So a question; "If you wish to work at a remote location, are you willing to take a salary that is commensurate with the median salary at that remote location?" I find people are somewhat split on that question. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisville,_Kentucky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisville,_Kentucky

randomdata 14y ago
It is really the other way around. Costs in the valley are high because people generally have more money to spend, not because there is an intrinsic reason why it costs more to live there. > are you willing to take a salary that is commensurate with the median salary at that remote location? Salary is just a function of supply and demand. If a bunch of people with amazing talents in Louisville are willing to do it for $36K, then that will push down the wages in California too. The only thing that has really kept SF developer prices as high as they are is that even the skilled people of Louisville want $100K+ to do the job.
m0nastic 14y ago
I've never actually encountered an employer who set job offer salaries to reflect where remote candidates live. People point that out as a benefit to companies hiring remote employees (it'll save them money!), but does that actually happen? At my previous job, after acquiring a company that had a mostly-remote workforce, everyone eventually moved away from our home area (DC) to cheaper parts of the country. No one took a pay cut to reflect the fact that they now were living somewhere cheaper (and everyone new we hired was in the same range regardless of where they lived). Also, having lived and worked in Boston, the Bay Area, and now the Beltway, I was surprised to find that salaries weren't any lower or higher in any of those places, despite the costs of living being all over the place. It's possible that my particular corner of the industry (infosec) is just less geographically-dependent.
- ghaff 14y ago
  Generally, there are some differences but the differences for a given job don't usually reflect the magnitude of cost of living deltas between high-cost and low-cost areas. All three of the areas you mention are fairly high cost (although somewhat dependent on where in those areas). So, all other things being equal, people will usually be able to, most notably, buy/rent more house/apartment in a cheaper area than a more expensive one. From the company perspective, limiting discussion to US only, the benefit of remote workers is much more about hiring talent rather than being able to save a few dollars.
- ihaveajob 14y ago
  Not to nitpick, but Intel does have a 10% salary supplement for California employees, to offset the cost of living (or at least the difference in taxation) wrt OR, AZ and NM employees.
  - m0nastic 14y ago
    You're not nitpicking at all, that's a good counter example of what I'm talking about!
- Fishkins 14y ago
  Another example is http://blogs.balsamiq.com/team/2011/09/12/salary/ http://blogs.balsamiq.com/team/2011/09/12/salary/