Hacker News Reader

Comment by taurath | Hacker News Reader

I've found that in general you're either looking at a 30% paycut from "mid-level" companies in large cities (IE a 150k salary no stock/RSUs locally would be around $110k remote, with lots of "offers" of lower than that and a tiny amount of equity), AND you have probably 200% more competition. Its pretty competitive unless you're pretty specialized on a domain or new technology.

View on HN

Yeah, I've found this is the case as well. Ever since I've gone remote, I've faced ongoing pay cuts. I used to live and work in San Francisco, where my salary was quite high. If you work for a company that is not based in SF or NYC, you will take a massive pay cut.

Most companies based out of SF will only hire local employees because they want to justify their huge real estate expenses. If they do hire remote, they all try and pay local market rates for where you are based out of.

In the end, the trade-offs in pay are worth it for me since I've gotten significantly better types of work, and significantly better quality of life. It still irks me though, since I know I provide the same or better value as I did while my butt was situated in SF.

Do you still live within a city? I feel like I'd move to a cheaper area if I could find a good fully remote job.

Is not a major part of the reason for the high SF salaries because of the high cost of living? As much as I hate to say it, I might want a SF salary, but unless I'm paying a SF-level of rent, a SF-level salary's probably going to be harder to justify.

If they will pay equally skilled co-workers a SF rate, why shouldn't they pay you the same?

Another way to put that is why should you get paid the "raising a family" money that another co-worker might get if you don't have a s/o and kids?

Because people aren't paid what they are "worth". You are paid what you are willing to accept. It's much easier to find employees willing to accept lower salaries outside of SF or young people with no family.

Just say you live in SF.

Use this: https://www.earthclassmail.com/addresses/ca/san-francisco

Bad thing is that you have to pay California state taxes and abide by California laws. If you like weed but hate guns you'll have a good time. If you like guns and don't use weed, you'll find some firearm laws restricting. Also, to keep up the charade it'd be good to visit once in a while and visit the DMV after you get a couple of utility bills and a lease so you can get a California driver's license.

The authorities probably won't check too hard cause you aren't causing any troubles. You are paying Cali state income tax and not using any services, where you actually live doesn't matter that much.

Unless that $150K included tons of RSUs you would still be better off taking the lower pay and not paying the Bay tax.

If you are not looking in the Bay then you will probably still come out ahead by not spending 2 hours a day commuting.

$75/hr * 2 hours/day * 262 workdays/year = $39K/yr lost commuting. Not including the actual costs of commuting (car, gas, tires, parking, sanity).

So outside the Bay it works out about the same assuming you don't generate any additional revenue in the two hours you would have spent commuting.

Of course, it means you don't have to live in a large city. For a lot of people the reduced cost of living more than makes up the 30% paycut.

If you're already at the top marginal tax rate, saving 20-30 grand a year can be equivalent to earning 40-45 grand a year, and it's not crazy to think living outside the city could save that much.

I bought my house at 27 years of age and my mortgage is ~$1000 per month. That was by working remotely, mostly for Bay Area companies but also others, from a low-cost town in Washington state. I'm sure that it's easier to find new and better jobs when you have a physical presence near a major software hub. The extra difficulty in job-hunting has not outweighed the benefits of affordable housing so far. Living off savings between jobs is easier when you spend under $2000/month on necessities.

I'm investigating similar options at the moment, but having a spouse who isn't remote complicates things a bit. Even so the idea that changing cities (countries, even) wouldn't necessarily mean changing jobs is a relief.

I've found it's a common recruiter tactic to try and wring some sort of concession for you based on your address. In just tell them no. They aren't competing with the gas station down the street from my house they are competing with the Twitter office down the street from theirs.

It's possible my career has taken a hit due to being remote for the last few years but I get paid around $400k and I live in a nice little COL place.

It's remotely possible I could rate 2x that if I was in the valley, but it's by no means guaranteed. I could also make the same or less.

At $400k, you would likely be one of, if not the highest paid remote developer in existence. You must have a very esoteric skill set. And making twice that in the valley would be pretty much unheard of as well unless you are in a big management position or someone with a lot of history, seniority, and/or specific knowledge that is deemed critical to the company and undesirable that you might be hired by a competitor.

It's about differentiating and showing business value. It's not that hard to generate 10x that value for a business if you know how to apply and scale your knowledge. I am absolutely sure that this is not top of market but people aren't calling themselves "remote developer" to get it.

You don't think $400k is top of market for a remote developer?

It's not about showing business value if someone else can show that same value for less. I find it hard to believe there are many developer skill sets that couldn't be retained for less than $400k. (or 4 x $100k remote devs for that matter)

There are tons of employees that generate far more than 10x their salary for the business. But salaries aren't set based on your "value". They are based on market rates.

Holy shit. What do you do exactly?

Don't put too much faith in claims like this made by an anonymous account. Most SF-based software engineers don't make anywhere close to this. And we don't have any details about the breakdown between salary/hourly rate, stock, etc. And we don't have any proof at all really.

I wanna believe, but I'm skeptical & I'll believe it when I see it. Would certainly love details!

Ya, for a remote worker, I don't believe it. If it is true, there is more to the story. They would have to be working on something extremely esoteric and most likely, either have some kind of ownership in the company or just a sweetheart deal from management. The rules of economics apply. And if you are remote, you are competing with an enormous pool of labor and there are very few skills that you have to pay $400k to retain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com