
Ask HN: Are there any remote companies that pays SF rates worldwide remote? - revertcommit
Whenever I search for opportunities online, only companies that hire in SF pays well. Are there any remote companies other than Basecamp (since they rarely hire) that pays SF rates for anyone anywhere?
======
codegeek
I may have a very controversial take on this but I would share it regardless.
The moment you compete with remote developers all around the world, you have
to be really really good to command great salaries. The reason is that the
employers have a very wide pool to select from instead of location specific.
So as an employer, I don't have an incentive to just pay "SF Salary" unless I
find that really exceptional candidate.

So focus on becoming that really really good candidate who can command SF
level salary while living in say Thailand or whatever your choice of stay is.
Otherwise, you are competing with hundreds and thousands of people and if you
are just about as good as them, someone is willing to work for less than SF
salary. Supply/demand ?

Also, a company may be ok with a good enough dev. who costs much less than a
great dev. who costs a lot more.

~~~
one2know
Salary has very little with how "good" you are, and determining "good" is the
essence of this scam industry. Hypothetically, lets say there are devs being
paid $1MM per year who are kicking back $250-500k to their managers who got
them the jobs. They do the same work as everyone else. Are they good?

~~~
asdkhadsj
Oh it entirely does. But I think you're confusing the source for "good".

As the GP said, supply and demand, you're competing with a lot more developers
when you work remote. I think we'd all agree there, right?

So now the company hiring has a large pool they need to sort through. How do
you choose? Well they _could_ just choose the "best", but they get to define
best, or good, right? Some companies may literally want to choose the best
client they can, but many will want to balance all variables. They want a
skilled candidate, who fits their culture, for a price that leaves them with a
good feeling.

A candidate willing to accept less pay is a value in itself. If the candidate
meets or exceeds the minimum skill that the company is desiring, the cheap
price tag is often great.

Now I know this is a complex topic, but as a remote worker and someone who has
hired many remote workers for a company with real, limited non-VC income,
salary matters. Even in just the candidates I've interviewed, if they were all
the same price tag I would have different coworkers today. Which isn't to say
that my coworkers are bad or that we hired poorly, we hired based on variables
at the time, and we made the right decision.

Price has nothing to do with candidate skill, but is still often top tier
variable in choosing a candidate. It is not a scam. It is reality.

~~~
one2know
The labor market is not as efficient as your one data point makes you think.
At big corporations hundreds of millions are thrown around like paper. All you
need is a large corporation, some intense groupthink, and some kickbacks and
the company is going to be paying $1MM for a remote worker barely better than
a recent graduate. With monetary persuasion people are able to make management
buy into calling someone who is nothing a purple squirrel critical to the
company.

~~~
asdkhadsj
What does that matter to the conversation, though? My point was merely that
compensation is merely a variable. As with any variables different companies
will value different things. In your example the company has almost no concern
for compensation amounts.

My reply was to the idea that cost is irrelevant and merely a tool to scam
employees out of money. That is ridiculous. As I mentioned, I personally have
valued the compensation variable heavily. And I _(or rather the group of
people I work with)_ are certainly not some evil masterminds trying to scam
employees out of potential earnings.

------
biermic
I'd focus more on providing enough value to justify a SF like salary. Just
trying to find a company that will throw money at you while you sit in a LOC
area will be tough. Companies are not stupid, and you are competing with the
whole world. There will always be someone who can do the job for a cheaper
price. So figure out what value you provide, that justifies inflated rates.
Another approach is not to be an employee, but a business. But that's not as
comfortable.

------
stephenr
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
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.

~~~
stephenr
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.

~~~
pbk1
The parent is referring to a pension plan, which is generally guaranteed
income for life after a certain amount of service. If you leave or are fired
prior to the service requirement, you could lose all or part of the pension.
Just want to note in the US these are usually offered to public sector workers
- e.g. teachers, firemen, police, military, civil servants. I don't know of a
private company that still offers pensions.

Separately we have retirement savings programs (usually called a 401k) that
are offered by private sector employers, often with a match. Employees can
invest a percentage of their paycheck in the program, and companies will match
that contribution to a certain level to incentivize savings. When you leave
the company you can keep the account or roll it somewhere else. Unfortunately
these contributions are capped by federal law at no more than $19,500 per year
per person. There are tax benefits to the 401k - you can choose to pay tax on
the contribution when you make it and pay no income tax on those funds in
retirement, or not pay tax now and pay income tax in the future. This is a lot
better than investing in a taxable brokerage account, because you get taxed on
the income as well as the securities.

~~~
stephenr
Right. That clarifies things a bit. The only "pension" I've seen in Australia
(and apparently UK, as my father's situation implies) is a fairly minimal
"pension" payment to _all_ retired citizens, and then _huge_ incentives for
people to pay into their own "Super" (short for Superannuation) plan, which is
fairly similar to your 401K it seems - but they actively encourage paying more
into it.

Is the cap on any payment into the 401K or just the employer's contribution?

I've not heard of nor experienced anything similar to the 'pension plan'
concept you have, and my first job was in State Government, from whence I
still have a Super plan... somewhere.

~~~
greenyoda
> a fairly minimal "pension" payment to all retired citizens

The U.S. version of that is "Social Security" (which is funded by a payroll
tax).

> Is the cap on any payment into the 401K or just the employer's contribution?

Yes, the maximum amount an employee can contribute yearly is limited by law.
(You can make additional "catch-up" contributions if you're aged 50 years or
older, which are also limited by law.)

~~~
stephenr
Huh. Australia used to have “social security” (it’s now referred to as the
cryptic “Centrelink”), but I _thought_ it was essentially only
unemployment/disability payments, and specifically not pension payments.

Does the US S/S cover unemployment benefits as well as those who are retired?

Re:401k wow. I cannot fathom a government preventing its citizens from saving
more money for retirement. Seems bonkers to me.

~~~
greenyoda
> Does the US S/S cover unemployment benefits as well as those who are
> retired?

No. Unemployment benefits are a separate program, run by the individual state
governments. (Social Security is run by the Federal government.)

> Re:401k wow. I cannot fathom a government preventing its citizens from
> saving more money for retirement.

You can save as much as you like for retirement outside of your 401k. The
limit on the 401k only puts a cap on how much you can save in tax-deferred
accounts.

------
jamil7
I doubt there are many, why would they pay the SF rates if they don't have to?

------
raztogt21
In my experience is hard. All the remote offers I had always take into
consideration that I live in México.

While the salary is like 5x what the average SE in México is paid, it is never
close to what my peers in California are earning.

------
mech422
Actually - many do... A lot of small companies/startups aren't setup deal with
varying costs of living and what a 'comparable' salary would be, so they just
pay what they would pay in the local market (SF).

 _edit_ : my bad, I missed the 'worldwide' part...I only have experience with
remote work in the U.S.

------
JoeCortopassi
If you want a well paying remote job, you need to avoid companies that
advertise remote work. 99% of the time they are trying to capture great talent
for less money. Instead just apply to well paying places, and prove you are a
worthwhile asset. Even companies that swear they are non-remote will usually
make an exception

Caveats: This usually only works if you're in the same country as the company
(legal/tax complications). Also, while you might get SF salary you will almost
never get SF stock comp, which is almost always worth as much as the salary

------
jppope
Pretty sure Basecamp pegs their salaries on Chicago rates...

~~~
enonevets
It’s top 10% standardized based on SF market rates

Source: [https://basecamp.com/about/jobs](https://basecamp.com/about/jobs)

~~~
jppope
they updated to SF sometime in the last 3 years. My info was based on what
they had previously said.

[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/employee-benefits-basecamp-
co...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/employee-benefits-basecamp-complete-
list-jason-fried)

------
mfalcon
Basecamp does.

~~~
revertcommit
Any companies other than Basecamp? Since Basecamp rarely hires.

