You're probably in the Bay Area -- and if you don't want remote developers you're shutting yourself off from all of us who wouldn't move there no matter how high the compensation.
Point taken though, we should consider taking in remote workers. My only "fear" is that it will be hard to build a good company culture without a "core" team sitting in the same location. We have some remote consultants working on our gui right now, and even though they do a fantastic job, it adds quite a lot of overhead in management and I'm not really satisfied with the knowledge sharing between the remote and the on-site teams. I guess there is a lot of room for improvements on our part here though.
Even a Big Enterprise Company, suffers from "us vs them" in the same city but different building blocks, now imagine how "we" see "them" in another country and they us. Hell, Ive been in this "safe" big enterprize for more than 2-3 years now, and the people on the floor above and below are more strangers than you here on HN.
So, remote work, consider it different.
However, you mentioned finance, Ive turned down a very lucrative offering from a finance company just because they bragged that their investors are Saudi Arabians, its just personal, but no thanks, they can keep their blood/oil money.
I would consider an after tax salary of €2,500 not high, for example. But that salary might already cost the company €5,000-8,000 per month
For me to feel like a job offer to Copenhagen is attractive, the take-home pay needs to be similar to what it would be in Boston in the US ... so mid to high 100k USD range of gross pay, say something close to 100k USD take-home pay, which roughly corresponds to a take-home pay of 688k Danish krone per year. With high taxes there, I'm guessing this means a salary of greater than 1MM krone/year to be roughly equal to a competitive offer in a mid-cost urban area in the US. And if it is in the finance industry as the OP suggested in another comment, then there should be some opportunity for profit sharing as well.
Cost of living doesn't factor into this so much, though cost of living in Scandinavian cities is pretty high. There is career risk and visa / tax hassle to worry about, relocation and housing costs, and the usual start-up risk. It's not at all the same as taking on a risk in the Bay area, where there are many jobs to switch to if your company doesn't work out.
I think a lot of start-ups don't consider these things, and often they don't have to consider them because there's a line of schmucks down the street waiting to work for them.
But if you are a thoughtful person and you consider visa risk, tax risk, career risk, relocation risk, regular start-up failure risk, etc., then for a job like this you might even expect a significant premium when compared to US-based jobs in the same field. A lot of European start-ups, I find, don't fundamentally think this way, and they expect that American workers should be happy to accept "European" salaries, which are then taxed at a higher rate, all while you're bearing many additional risks.
Unless your personal preference function puts a huge, huge premium on the status of "living in Europe" then it's probably a bad deal in terms of net life happiness.
I personally know of several awesome EU engineers working remotely for bay area startups, earning bay area salaries. Now THAT is attractive. Usually it means they're self employed, but they're easily making €8,000 after tax (+ they can tax deduct all their tech goodies!)
Now, why would I take that €40,000 gross/year job again? (this doesn't just apply to startups, btw, it applies to most tech jobs in Europe)
Some of those people choose to move to the US, but surely many great engineers choose to remain there for cultural or family reasons.
As someone interested in the efficient allocation of talent across the whole planet to help for the overall betterment of the world, it's upsetting to me that their random family associations or random cultural ties means they get paid significantly less money than lesser skilled people who just so happen to be near a lucky geographic spot.
European salaries are low, and it is unreasonable that they are low. It would be great if more American companies began hiring remote workers from Europe to arbitrage away this silly wage differential and put pressure on European capital to grow up a little and start being competitive.
Second to that is that a lot of established, larger companies don’t realise this either. I’ve happen to have had talks with the CEO of a €1bn revenue apparel company, and they have trouble hiring talent. I told them to start with a small team of highly skilled people (+ paying them really well) and build their digital capabilities around that. The CTO, who was in charge of this, basically laughed my idea out of the room and said they needed to hire 150+ new technical people to become a digital leader. In the next year. Why? ‘Cause more developers will solve the problem.. :)
Realistically, they needed 15-20 great people to support the digital side of that entire business, at most.
I wonder how much of this is related to status effects. I used to work in a quant finance shop that cared desperately about the way their tech team looked on paper. The credentials and degrees each hire possessed were often much more important than practical skill -- even though technical problems were hugely business critical to the firm, and it wound up that a small number of competent engineers handled the majority of important work.
But, whenever the firm was entertaining new prospective clients and they could walk them through a big cubicle bank full of fancy Ivy grads furiously typing, the status effect translated into real money for the firm's higher level management and senior executives.
I can't say they were being irrational -- I guess the burden falls to the customers being irrational in their impressions of what engineering is supposed to look like?
In defence of the CEO, in most cases, more people means faster and/or better production. He was extremely capable (I was impressed, he really knew his stuff), and he knew what he wanted to achieve when it came to the company’s digital presence. With proper BigCo resources, not all that hard to achieve I think.
Second, it also probably had to do with the fact that the CTO was just unable to agree with me. It’s a family business (I’m friends with someone of the family), and if he agreed with what I said, he would’ve basically been admitting he couldn’t do the job. So in that regard he probably thought I was posing a significant risk to his continued employment. The CEO was someone of the family + a significant shareholder.
I'd add that extrapolating from consultants to employees is fraught with hazard [the same is true for extrapolating from employee to consultant]. The context for the relationship is different. Anyway, reducing management overhead should not be a goal...managing people is a full time job. Probably one of the hardest ones out there when done well.
Think about it this way: somehow the company leadership views people doing a fantastic job as unsatisfactory. Despite needing to ramp up staffing. Is that an attractive culture to potential hires?
Good luck.
As you pointed out thought, remote or local, doesn't say much, there are other things that are more important.
How can I send you a CV?
Here's a secret - culture isn't that important to employees. It's nice, but nowhere near their top priorities when job hunting. I'd say order of preference for a lot of people (not all) would probably go something like:
-Salary/Compensation -How interesting the problems are you're working on -Flexibility to work remote, good vacation and sick options, etc. -A million other things -Culture
If your goal is to get the best, you should keep what their priorities might be in mind. If I had the choice between a good "company culture", and getting to work entirely remotely, I'm going to choose remotely every time.
A flat payment of even $8000 is not reasonable for someone to move across the country, even if they are moving alone and seeking small, affordable apartments.
A minimum relocation package should include having the company handle the arrangements for a full-service moving company who will pack your things in boxes and unpack them in the new place, flight and hotel for 1 or 2 visits to the new city for housing search, cover all up-front costs with renting a new place (fees, deposit, first month rent), and still leave you with a few thousand dollars on top of that for incidental expenses, unplanned costs after you've moved in, etc. And if they need you to relocate from an area with accessible public transit to an area where a car is required, then a sign-on bonus that covers most or all of the cost of a reasonable quality car should also be standard.
This is not luxury stuff, this is just the basic human cost of moving across the country. If you take the risk of a new job in SF and move all the way there and it doesn't work out, well you don't get a refund on your moving expenses and you don't get compensation for any personal time you took (e.g. if you moved yourself with a UHaul).
And what if you injure your back while carrying furniture down the stairs? Will your new company cover the medical bills? What if the moving company you hired damages your stuff or loses it? Will the new company reimburse you?
This is why it's so necessary that the company assumes the risk of these things. The company is funded and/or profitable (or else shouldn't be considering hiring someone who requires relocation). They can afford to bear the relocation costs and the risks. A lone individual may or may not be able to, and can't risk their livelihood on their ability to handle the relocation risks.
But it's all too common that a start-up offers $2500 to a recent college grad who has been eating ramen for the last week. It sounds great, and they don't know enough about career status and so forth to realize that if you admit you are willing to physically haul your own stuff around, it already paints you as a low-status subordinate. These folks unblinkingly accept precarious and unreasonable relocation scenarios, and then the company can hide behind a claim of "well, no one else complained about our relocation assistance" when negotiating.