
2 Out of 3 tech workers would leave SF permanently if they could work remotely - aritraghosh007
https://www.sfgate.com/living-in-sf/article/2-out-of-3-tech-workers-would-leave-SF-15289316.php
======
noodle
I feel like there's an implied "and keep their comp". There are a decent
number of remote jobs out there right now. They pay well, but certainly not SF
TC.

~~~
PNWChris
Frankly, I think that implicit assumption by workers is totally fair! The way
COL adjustments are done results in a strong incentive to live wherever costs
the most. Some time ago I made a comment on this concept that I'll re-post
here with minor edits:

\--

Say you move to a lower cost of living area, perhaps 6% cheaper, and your
employer adjusts your wages down by the same amount as the change in COL.

Now all your expenses are 6% lower, but your money left after expenses is also
6% lower. That means that despite being no worse off in terms of quality of
life, your savings went down 6%.

Strictly speaking, if you maintain the same relative ratio of costs to
savings, it’s always rational to take the highest income, even if it’s in a
higher COL area. This is because costs can be measured as a percentage of
income, but savings ought to be measured as an absolute value.

\--

The "fix" would be to somehow work out what workers spend, and only adjust
that part of their salary by COL. That's invasive and gives an unfair COL-
adjusted comp advantage to the highest earners who can save a bigger portion
of their income.

I don't have an ideal solution. I guess there could be a standardized single
remote COL adjustment (perhaps adjusted by country or something to account
different legal frameworks and mandatory benefits), and the remote worker can
live wherever without comp adjustments other than local tax.

~~~
downerending
> Now all your expenses are 6% lower, but your money left after expenses is
> also 6% lower.

If so, arguably the COL is being done incorrectly. It should be adjusting just
literally the "costs of living", not total comp.

That said, having lived in a very high COL area and a normal area, my total
take was higher in the former, but the risk/variance was also higher--a lot
higher. It could easily have bankrupted me.

Thinking in risk/reward terms (or like a market investor), I'd actually prefer
the lower variance at this point in my life, even if the mean is also lower.

------
aripickar
It's a survey from blind. I trust basically nothing on that app.

------
tracer4201
> An anonymous survey of 4400 tech workers, conducted by Blind

Is it a scientific survey or just an online poll? The SFGate article links to
Business Insider as the source but I’m merely seeing a paywall.

In any case, I’m sure some number of folks are happy to move to a lower COL
area or due to family reasons. This article just feels very clickbaity to me.
Show the data - there’s no substance here.

------
outside1234
How do companies know you actually live in SF?

It seems like there is a real opportunity for near-remote - ala Fort Bragg,
Santa Cruz, Sierras without this penalty.

~~~
threatofrain
But the reason why FB or any firm would be willing to pay you extra for living
in SF is if you can actually show up to an office in SF.

Otherwise you offer no differentiation as a remote worker except for time
zone, language, and legal or political nuance.

------
option
How much of its tax base will CA loose to other states/countries over the next
10 years if WFH does become a thing?

CA should really think super hard about incentivizing those leaving SF/Bay
Area to settle elsewhere in CA. That will be a net benefit for California.

~~~
virmundi
Probably none. They will sue saying you left to avoid taxes. The California
courts will agree with the State. Now you get to pay taxes in both localities.

~~~
option
Nope, if I move to, say, Bellevue, WA permanently to avoid CA income tax, I
will not pay any CA income tax on work done after I relocated permanently from
CA.

Edit: Source - done that before when relocating (and having the same employer,
which has offices in both states)

~~~
virmundi
They do this. [https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-
state/third-t...](https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-state/third-
time-the-charm-for-california-in-tax-fight-with-inventor)

------
dev12341
Only start counting once people start moving.

Surveys (especially anonymous ones) don't tell you much – clicking an option
in an app doesn't take any effort. Managing a move to a new city is a bit more
difficult.

------
jshaqaw
I don’t live in SF but for all the angst ridden articles about it, the Bay
Area seems to have been the most fertile source of business wealth creation in
history. That can’t be purely accidental. I suppose coders can sort of live
anywhere but there will always be agglomeration benefits for business creators
to concentrate and cross pollinate in person.

------
ian-g
Anecdotally it's more than that among non-tech workers.

The bay is beautiful, but right now its best features are the weather and the
fact that you can get to mountains, desert, snow, and beach in a day.

That's available elsewhere

------
dmode
FYI, this is a survey of 4400 Blind users. Which basically means this is a
garbage survey.

------
gnzoidberg
bs

