Exactly, I hate the policy of paying based on region (I won’t work for those companies)
You’re providing X value, and the company needs to make >X, often by some multiple mX profit so to speak.
My costs are my business, and I shouldn’t be punished for making different life choices.
If remote employees tend to produce a lower multiple, that’s fine. Just provide a salary at the reduced rate. Should be the same everywhere though, imo this is unfair hiring practices
I should add, it’s up to the employee what they’d accept. I had a few awesome job offers from Europe, but they couldn’t even come close on salary. That’s fine, didn’t work out, still respect them as it was the same salary everywhere
It’s about market prices. If you can find someone to overpay market rates to you then more power to you. But I know of 0 companies that do. I’ve worked for remote first companies that specifically didn’t hire in expensive areas so they could find more affordable talent. This is how markets work.
I always approach each conversation the same. I won’t interview until we discuss potential salary range. If it’s within a range I’d accept for the work, we interview. The argument I’ve made in negotiations is always similar - if you’re willing to pay X (regardless of location), it should matter more about what I can offer in return. If you’re penny pinching to try and cut that employee cost 10-20% have at it. I know my worth and can provide significant multiples over that. I guarantee I can provide the same level or more productivity as a remote engineer in New York as I do in the rural south.
It can be in certain cases but not in all. I may have to hire someone with a certain clearance for example. Or, we don't have a business subsidy setup globally. Or we have TZ preferences because of communication issues. As a manager I wouldn't want to hire someone half way across the world because my 1-on-1 time with them would always be awful for one of us. So I don't.
You are of course free to set your own market rate. I think it's great you want to discuss salary expectations up front because there's no point in everyone wasting their time. At a smaller company you'll have a better chance of getting sway with it, but keep in mind they tend to pay below market rate anyways.
At a medium to large company they source data which describes for certain roles what market rate is. We know this because companies participate in giving this anonymized data so we can slice it up by region as well. From this we can calculate a "comp ratio" and your salary will gravitate towards 1.0, which is perfect market price for your role in your region. This is how budgets are set. Every region is put into a bucket (premium, average, bargain for example) and priced by that bucket. We can then open a role in "average or below" regions, for example if we don't want to pay extra. We tend to want to offer below 1.0 so we have room for negotiation and also for merit increases.
> I guarantee I can provide the same level or more productivity as a remote engineer in New York as I do in the rural south.
I don't doubt that but it's not really a surplus value theory thing here. If I could get the same person close to me VS far away for the same money then I'd hire the person close to me, which is almost always in a big city and not the rural south.
The employer is paying the SV premium because either they want the employee physically in SV for job duty reasons, or because other SV companies do, so if you're not in SV then fewer employers are trying to hire you for SV salaries, which reduces your salary offers.
If they truly don't care then why not hire two equally good people in Warsaw? It's because they do care.
SV employees do not want all remote to be equal. They would very much be on the losing side of that bargain.
Because it would be ridiculous to not pay market rates. The market rate for a dev in Nebraska is different than in SV. So what changes is you’re a company that overpays.
This sounds like circular reasoning to me. “You can’t collect an SV-level salary working remotely from the Bay because the company could just hire someone from Nebraska, and the company won’t pay him an SV-level salary because he’s not located in the Bay.”
Do you also find this circular reasoning: “You can’t get paid SF rates for a haircut when your barbershop is in Nebraska because people will find a cheaper option and people getting haircuts in Nebraska won’t pay SF rates because they are not in SF”?
And that's the issue at play here, isn't it? The hiring was done when work was remote, paying SV rates for that, then the company decides to move the goalposts and now there's this weird justification being played to side with the company.
Take off your company-man hat, does it make sense to you as a worker?
AFAIK, the default expectation at most places was that the pandemic wasn't permanent and eventually people would be back in person.
> Take off your company-man hat, does it make sense to you as a worker?
I don't tend to analyze things along "class struggle" lines. Obviously, as a worker, I would prefer to make as much money and have as good of work conditions as possible, but I don't necessarily think any deviation from that is "unfair".
