

Ask HN: Salaries for remote depend on location? - curiousnonSF

Anyone know - are remote workers who live in &quot;cheaper&quot; areas paid less because of &quot;cost-of-living&quot; or are they paid same?<p>I&#x27;m especially curious about Bay Area companies who hire remote. Do they pay remote employees who live outside of the Bay Area less than what they pay employees who live in the Bay Area?
======
jasonkester
You get paid what you negotiate for yourself. If you agree to make less
because you live somewhere other then the Bay Area then you make less.

The question is: why would you do that?

Your value to an employer is the same regardless of where you physically do
the work. Keep that in mind when negotiating, and be sure to give a little
chuckle over the phone when they suggest paying you less because you live
where you do. No. But nice try.

~~~
syllogism
If the person you're negotiating with isn't a complete push over, they'll say
"No. But nice try." right back to you.

Your value to the employer might be no different, but your employer's value to
you is much higher. There are fewer remote employment opportunities, and the
employer knows the local ones pay much less. So, you're negotiating from a
worse position, and you'll probably end up with a worse deal.

Of course, that's _their_ case to make, and you shouldn't make it for them.
But, the reality is, your remote work salary is probably going to be
influenced by your local conditions.

~~~
jnbiche
>Your value to the employer might be no different, but your employer's value
to you is much higher.

I'm curious why you would make that assumption. If you're a talented
developer, then you have employers around the world who want to hire you, not
just in your backyard.

I've seen some truly gifted Eastern European developers charging $20/hr while
their contract employers basically giggle at them behind their back, since
they'd easily pay $100/hr for their talents. Some of them probably could have
negotiated $150/hr.

People like that not only screw over their fellow programmers in more
developed countries with high costs of living, since we can't get away with
charging $20/hr and raising a family with a nice lifestyle like they can. They
also -- and more acutely -- screw themselves.

Don't be that developer.

------
loumf
I believe that the benefit of my choice to live in a low-cost area should
accrue to me. If the company really believes in a remote workforce, they
should pay based on value to the company. I am also saving the company on rent
and probably some office-only benefits.

In general, they pay the high-cost-of-living person more because they won't
take the job otherwise -- you could also not take the job otherwise.

You will have a harder time finding this, and it's a lot easier if you have
the skills to back it up. You have to be as productive as an in-office
employee and constantly make sure that is understood.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Lets go one step further - don't tell them where you're (going to) live. Now
what can they do? Guess? Because really its no more your employer's business
than what car you drive or your kids' names.

~~~
maxbrown
Although I agree with the basic premises - equal pay for equal work, employee
should get the benefits of lower cost of living - I think it _is_ the
employer's business in more ways than one. Taxes, time zone, internet
connection - many things could come into play. Not to mention the golden
handcuffs it could create if the employee is drastically overpaid for their
local market.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Ok I'm agreeable to tell the employer what time zone I'm in, but that's about
it. The rest I'll tell HR after I'm hired, so they can fill in their forms.

------
munimkazia
There's no hard and fast rule. It is up to the employer, and how well you can
negotiate.

I work for an American company while staying in India. I am in a senior
position, and they are paying me a little on the lower spectrum of what a
developer like me would make in the US. But it is a lot more than what the
average developer like me would make in India.

Technically, your employer should value your work and pay you regardless of
where you are staying, but during negotiations, they will bring up your local
cost of living (and I don't blame them for that).

~~~
Jacky800
Do you mind telling for which company do you work for ?

------
ChintanGhate
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
You 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.

~~~
jnbiche
This 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.

------
beech
Have a read of [http://open.bufferapp.com/introducing-open-salaries-at-
buffe...](http://open.bufferapp.com/introducing-open-salaries-at-buffer-
including-our-transparent-formula-and-all-individual-salaries/).

Buffer have a base rate and then an additional sum based on location.
Locations are split into 4 categories depending on how expensive they are to
live in. Seems like a fair way of doing it, but obviously depends on the
employer.

~~~
avalaunch
I'm not sure how that's fair. Should they also adjust your salary based on how
expensive your car is? The value you provide to them remains constant despite
where you choose to live. Why should you be punished for living somewhere less
desirable? Presumably part of the reason you would choose to live in a less
expensive location is so you can save more money. This to me seems like
they're pocketing money that should rightfully be the employees.

~~~
loumf
It isn't fair, and people in low-cost areas should not take this deal.

You have to give them credit for the transparency, though. Most places would
pay you less, but not tell you.

~~~
avalaunch
I like the transparency in theory. In practice I don't want my salary to be so
easily determined by a quick web search. It could really inhibit my ability to
negotiate a higher salary at my next job where they'll likely offer something
like 5% higher than my current job. It's hard to justify a 50% pay increase.

I doubt most employers would hide that they're paying you less due to where
you live. Instead I think most would bring it up in negotiations hoping to use
it as a means of keeping your salary low. And honestly, the argument that your
salary should be adjusted based on cost of living would work on a lot of
employees even though it shouldn't.

------
glimcat
Not implicitly, although people are free to use that as a negotiation tactic.

If people try to negotiate you down, you negotiate them right back.

------
laurenstill
I'm the opposite. I live in SF but work for a AZ company, and am kinda getting
the shaft on that. It's something I've accepted (for now) since I really
couldn't ask for a better job.

------
ablerman
Absolutely, that's why I hire someone in the midwest instead of in town.

