5 ms·
That might sound like a convincing argument while a negotiation, but IMHO, remote or not, salaries should be negotiated based on skills of the worker and not th
by ChintanGhate 12y ago
That might sound like a convincing argument while a negotiation, but IMHO, remote or not, salaries should be negotiated based on skills of the worker and not the cost of living of his/her location. Ultimately, you get what you negotiate for.
- chrisBob 12y agoYou may view your value based on your skills alone, but the employer is likely trying to hire you for the lowest rate possible that will keep you happy and make you likely to stay. The local cost of living does play into that partially because someone in the bay area can find a local job with higher pay while someone in the mid west will find remote work to be the most profitable. Eventually this market should lead to people moving to lower cost of living areas because they are more likely to be hired for a livable wage there.
- ChintanGhate 12y agoI agree that the instinct of an employer is to hire employee for the lowest rate possible. But given a choice to hire between local employee and a remote employee who are negotiating for the same salary and possess the same level of skills, won't the company hire the remote one as the CTC involved will be less? So if the company's expenses are already going down by hiring a remote employee, they shouldn't make the cost of living of remote employee's area an issue.
- jnbiche 12y agoThis really depends on what clientele you're marketing to (and what skill you have). If you're marketing to cheap contract employers who just want someone to hack up a mobile app for them, then you're right. If you're marketing to someone based on your skills, which are rare and impressive, then you won't have any issues charging a high rate, regardless of your local cost of living. If you bother asking for it.