I'm especially curious about Bay Area companies who hire remote. Do they pay remote employees who live outside of the Bay Area less than what they pay employees who live in the Bay Area?
The question is: why would you do that?
Your value to an employer is the same regardless of where you physically do the work. Keep that in mind when negotiating, and be sure to give a little chuckle over the phone when they suggest paying you less because you live where you do. No. But nice try.
Your value to the employer might be no different, but your employer's value to you is much higher. There are fewer remote employment opportunities, and the employer knows the local ones pay much less. So, you're negotiating from a worse position, and you'll probably end up with a worse deal.
Of course, that's their case to make, and you shouldn't make it for them. But, the reality is, your remote work salary is probably going to be influenced by your local conditions.
I'm curious why you would make that assumption. If you're a talented developer, then you have employers around the world who want to hire you, not just in your backyard.
I've seen some truly gifted Eastern European developers charging $20/hr while their contract employers basically giggle at them behind their back, since they'd easily pay $100/hr for their talents. Some of them probably could have negotiated $150/hr.
People like that not only screw over their fellow programmers in more developed countries with high costs of living, since we can't get away with charging $20/hr and raising a family with a nice lifestyle like they can. They also -- and more acutely -- screw themselves.
Don't be that developer.
In general, they pay the high-cost-of-living person more because they won't take the job otherwise -- you could also not take the job otherwise.
You will have a harder time finding this, and it's a lot easier if you have the skills to back it up. You have to be as productive as an in-office employee and constantly make sure that is understood.
I work for an American company while staying in India. I am in a senior position, and they are paying me a little on the lower spectrum of what a developer like me would make in the US. But it is a lot more than what the average developer like me would make in India.
Technically, your employer should value your work and pay you regardless of where you are staying, but during negotiations, they will bring up your local cost of living (and I don't blame them for that).
Eventually this market should lead to people moving to lower cost of living areas because they are more likely to be hired for a livable wage there.
If you're marketing to someone based on your skills, which are rare and impressive, then you won't have any issues charging a high rate, regardless of your local cost of living. If you bother asking for it.
Buffer have a base rate and then an additional sum based on location. Locations are split into 4 categories depending on how expensive they are to live in. Seems like a fair way of doing it, but obviously depends on the employer.
You have to give them credit for the transparency, though. Most places would pay you less, but not tell you.
I doubt most employers would hide that they're paying you less due to where you live. Instead I think most would bring it up in negotiations hoping to use it as a means of keeping your salary low. And honestly, the argument that your salary should be adjusted based on cost of living would work on a lot of employees even though it shouldn't.
Well said and couldn't agree more.
If people try to negotiate you down, you negotiate them right back.