
Remote Employees Shouldn’t Be Paid Less Based on Geography - duck
https://www.helpscout.com/blog/remote-employee-compensation/
======
sdiw
Hot topic nowadays. I have also given it a lot of thought but couldn't come to
any conclusion.

It's true, living in SF/NYC and India, you will have a significant difference
in monthly expenditures. But does it make sense to pay differently to persons
who bring the same value to the company just because they are living in
different locations?

IMO if you are a fully remote company, it shouldn't make any difference.
People can choose to work from wherever they are and should get paid equally.
If you have an office and hire a remote worker, it would make sense if you are
paying lower to remote workers working from countries with lower wages.

~~~
mister_hn
A clear example is GitLab: they proclaim themselves full remote, but they pay
salaries based on location.

Why an Engineer in SF can earn $200K / year, while you'll earn less than half
of you live in Buenos Aires?

What about performance? Is the SF Engineer better than the BA one?

Having this huge paygaps based on location is bogus

~~~
sdiw
Yeah, I had GitLab on my mind when I wrote my comment. I do think it's unfair
for a fully remote company but they have their reasons. Its unfortunate
developers with the same skill set can have a massive gap in salary because
they live in different locations even though they bring same value to the
company.

------
fyrefoxboy12
I'd love to agree, but speaking globally - if they had physical offices in
India and in San Fran, they'd be paid based on the market value for the
location.

So the same probably goes for remote work.

