Trying to negotiate salary based on value provided is one of the biggest misconceptions I see online and with in-person mentoring groups.
Compensation is not about value provided. It’s only about market rate and convincing the person to stay at the company.
I encounter a lot of people, especially juniors, who are disgruntled because they think their employers are getting more value out of their work than is being passed along in their paychecks. I usually ask them if their employer sends them a bill every time they fail to deliver a project or make a mistake that costs the company money. That usually makes the disconnect between value provided and compensation click.
I say this as someone who worked remote and managed remote teams before COVID: The reality is they WFH is a perk and WFH employees require some additional management overhead due to reduced communication efficiency and higher collaboration overhead. As much as I love remote work and my remote teams, it would be dishonest to say that we wouldn’t perform better or faster if we were in-person in the same building. It may not be a popular opinion or what people want to hear, but in my direct experience with mixed WFH/remote teams it’s always true. In-person is just too efficient to replace with Zoom and Slack and e-mail.
The second reality is that once you open the doors to full-time WFH, you’ve opened the doors to full-time remote, which means you’ve opened the doors to a much larger labor market. It becomes easy to replace your $200K Silicon Valley hires with someone a couple states away who is thrilled to do the same job for $180K or even $150K. Then you start expanding your search and find people who live in other countries who deliver the same results for $100K or even $80K.
It’s not surprising that companies don’t want to pay the highest salaries in the country for people who aren’t actually in those areas for work. Losing only 10% of their high salaries honestly seems like a bargain.