So focus on becoming that really really good candidate who can command SF level salary while living in say Thailand or whatever your choice of stay is. Otherwise, you are competing with hundreds and thousands of people and if you are just about as good as them, someone is willing to work for less than SF salary. Supply/demand ?
Also, a company may be ok with a good enough dev. who costs much less than a great dev. who costs a lot more.
In tech, more experience in a niche field generally = even more money.
It’s not that different than paying for regular items.
There is supply and demand at play (hence niche roles will often pay higher) and the basic concept of “you get what you pay for”. Generally a more experienced developer will be more productive. Generally that means they’ll be compensated more.
SF salaries are pushing the supply and demand part heavily: without sufficient salary the candidates can’t afford to live where the job is because it’s so over populated.
As the GP said, supply and demand, you're competing with a lot more developers when you work remote. I think we'd all agree there, right?
So now the company hiring has a large pool they need to sort through. How do you choose? Well they _could_ just choose the "best", but they get to define best, or good, right? Some companies may literally want to choose the best client they can, but many will want to balance all variables. They want a skilled candidate, who fits their culture, for a price that leaves them with a good feeling.
A candidate willing to accept less pay is a value in itself. If the candidate meets or exceeds the minimum skill that the company is desiring, the cheap price tag is often great.
Now I know this is a complex topic, but as a remote worker and someone who has hired many remote workers for a company with real, limited non-VC income, salary matters. Even in just the candidates I've interviewed, if they were all the same price tag I would have different coworkers today. Which isn't to say that my coworkers are bad or that we hired poorly, we hired based on variables at the time, and we made the right decision.
Price has nothing to do with candidate skill, but is still often top tier variable in choosing a candidate. It is not a scam. It is reality.
My reply was to the idea that cost is irrelevant and merely a tool to scam employees out of money. That is ridiculous. As I mentioned, I personally have valued the compensation variable heavily. And I (or rather the group of people I work with) are certainly not some evil masterminds trying to scam employees out of potential earnings.
OP is right because the differences can be so abysmal that even just 1 month of "SF Salary" can be much greater that 1+ years of salary in other countries for basically the same job. So it would be an obvious choice that if companies can get a remote developer that's just as productive for 20k/year it would make no sense to pay >120k..150k/year (which seems to be the average for a software engineer according to payscale).
But my point is that it DOES matter as there are other factors involved and not just location. Lets say that I find a great developer who wants SF salary vs a good enough developer who wants 1/5th of the SF salary, I may not need that great dev. at that cost. The "good enough" developer will be, well good enough and worth it. A lot of developers (and don't get me wrong, I am one too) tend to overestimate their abilities and expect high salaries just because devs get paid high salaries in general.
You could have a salary substantially less in equivalent dollars and still end up better off if a huge chunk of that income isn’t being spent on putting a roof over your head.
Or do you just want the bragging rights “I make 300k” but are sick of spending half of it on rent?
In Australia (where I grew up) if you leave a company, you don't lose your retirement savings from that time, because they're not controlled by the company.
Is that what you're suggesting: that if your wife changes her job, she'll lose the money that's been paid into a retirement fund for her?
As for kids: changing schools can be a hassle but I'd hardly consider it a reason not to move to a much more liveable location.
As for the kids, I’d say that staying in one school district is a huge plus for them, but it varies depending on the kids and the school district.
Pensions are extremely rare outside of the public sector, and have been for about the length of the average working career.
It does seem very likely a large share of those are older workers and that that percentage will continue to erode over the next 10-20 years.
https://www.pensionrights.org/publications/statistic/how-man...
Down from 18%, ~7 years before, when 39% and growing of those who still had pensions in the private sector had non-traditional pensions that weren't pure specified-benefit plans, but instead were (for the vast majority of non-traditional plans) hybrid cash-balance plans where the actual benefit is determined by investment returns through the point of retirement (basically, a defined contribution plan where the accumulated balance is used to purchase an annuity at retirement.)
https://www.epi.org/blog/private-sector-pension-coverage-dec...
IIRC, a big part of the decline being that for many private employers, pensions, especially traditional ones, are legacy plans that haven't been offered to employees for decades, and are only available to employees that have been working with the firm since they were generally available.
Separately we have retirement savings programs (usually called a 401k) that are offered by private sector employers, often with a match. Employees can invest a percentage of their paycheck in the program, and companies will match that contribution to a certain level to incentivize savings. When you leave the company you can keep the account or roll it somewhere else. Unfortunately these contributions are capped by federal law at no more than $19,500 per year per person. There are tax benefits to the 401k - you can choose to pay tax on the contribution when you make it and pay no income tax on those funds in retirement, or not pay tax now and pay income tax in the future. This is a lot better than investing in a taxable brokerage account, because you get taxed on the income as well as the securities.
Is the cap on any payment into the 401K or just the employer's contribution?
I've not heard of nor experienced anything similar to the 'pension plan' concept you have, and my first job was in State Government, from whence I still have a Super plan... somewhere.
The U.S. version of that is "Social Security" (which is funded by a payroll tax).
> Is the cap on any payment into the 401K or just the employer's contribution?
Yes, the maximum amount an employee can contribute yearly is limited by law. (You can make additional "catch-up" contributions if you're aged 50 years or older, which are also limited by law.)
Does the US S/S cover unemployment benefits as well as those who are retired?
Re:401k wow. I cannot fathom a government preventing its citizens from saving more money for retirement. Seems bonkers to me.
No. Unemployment benefits are a separate program, run by the individual state governments. (Social Security is run by the Federal government.)
> Re:401k wow. I cannot fathom a government preventing its citizens from saving more money for retirement.
You can save as much as you like for retirement outside of your 401k. The limit on the 401k only puts a cap on how much you can save in tax-deferred accounts.
I'm not sure how it is in Australia, but the US is very racially/culturally diverse on the coasts (where it is expensive), and more homogeneous in the interior (where it is cheap). My daughter is in a great school with a diverse student body that would be difficult to find in other places.
But the smog, the wildfires, and the traffic are, um, not ideal.
I admit that the beach in Iowa is somewhat lacking...
If you think extreme weather events (droughts, the ensuing wild fires, hurricanes, blizzards, etc) are going to reduce any time soon, you need to pay more attention.
If you're a freelancer, it's up to you to decide what rate you want, and if you're willing to negotiate on that rate.
For reference, I charge clients about 3x more now, living in a relatively small city in Thailand than I did when I left Melbourne (Australia) several years ago, which is ridiculously more expensive.
While the salary is like 5x what the average SE in México is paid, it is never close to what my peers in California are earning.
edit: my bad, I missed the 'worldwide' part...I only have experience with remote work in the U.S.
Caveats: This usually only works if you're in the same country as the company (legal/tax complications). Also, while you might get SF salary you will almost never get SF stock comp, which is almost always worth as much as the salary
Source: https://basecamp.com/about/jobs
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/employee-benefits-basecamp-co...