Hacker News Reader

Comment by itake | Hacker News Reader

been remote for about 2 years.

career impacts have been:

  - no raises.  When I left SF, they didn't adjust my comp. Because I pay no state and very low federal taxes (FEIE) adding (~$30k after tax) into my pocket at no cost to my employer and because my cost of living is lower, no raises.

  - promotions within this company I think will be limited for me.

  - if your comp isn't adjusted to your city, then it can be more difficult to find another remote position where you live.  Companies tend to price you at the city you live in, not the value you provide.

benefits:

  - co-working spaces mean I can network with other people at other companies.

  - no commute means more time to work on side projects or personal goals.

  - less "water cooler" distractions.  I can turn off Slack and just focus on coding. makes it easier to get things done.

View on HN

> Companies tend to price you at the city you live in, not the value you provide.

People tend to price a glass of water at how expensive drinks around the place are, not the value this glass provides (crucial for life). Do you find this irrational or otherwise wrong?

It would be irrational to pay more for water from France vs water from the tap, if they're the exact same product.

...unless you can't get water from tap and the only thing that seems to fit your criteria at this moment is the water from France, and thus you need to convince the water from France to get to you instead of some local buyer.

or you may think of it as pricing the value you provide at how expensive that value around the place companies are in

It's silly to expect a company to voluntarily pay more when it knows it can pay less for the same service.

It certainly places a bizarre incentive on getting a PO box in SF/NYC/DC, where doing so would not make me anymore productive or valuable.

Do you suppose there are differences between "glass of water" and "human being with skill between marginally and significantly better than average"?

But I agree with you if you are pointing out that it's terrible that developers who aren't in the valley (or similar regions) don't demand higher wages, allowing employers to get away with paying based on location instead of value.

same. I totally understand if a company just doesn't have the budget for an SF engineer, then they shouldn't hire from there.

But if they do have the budget and they still want to price you to your city, then boo on them.

Remote companies frame the comp problem as: we want to be fair to our employees such that our dev in SF doesn't feel "poor" compared to our devs in middle America.

My opinion is living in an expensive city is a life choice. Just like choosing to purchase a BMW or a new home. You should not be paid more because you own a BMW and your co-worker drives a 10 yr old Toyota.

I have been told no by several companies when they found out I live in abroad and make "SF money", because it wouldn't be fair to their existing remote staff despite having the budget if I lived in SF.

If they have the budget, then it's not "wouldn't be fair" so much as it is "is currently not fair." On the other hand these developers don't demand more so maybe it is fair.

Developers abroad selling themselves short on compensation might be fair, but it does make it hard for people who do earn "SF money" to relocate and keep their high salaries. It doesn't seem irrational to complain about that situation.

That kind of policy is stupid. Is it fair to pay people for more experience in coding if the younger person has more experience in that literal language? Life isn't about being fair it's about making sure everyone has the same opportunity to succeed. If they aren't willing or able to negotiate that is on them. I negotiated/job hopped my way from below 30k to six figures within 5 years. What your compensation is shouldn't matter to what someone else is being comped. What about all the snacks, parties, etc you're not invited to? Do they factor that in?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com