I always find that a very naive point of view, of course I would want to earn a US tech salary while living somewhere in the country side, who wouldn't. But I'm also aware that this is not how the world works in reality, there's different tax systems, different expense costs and we don't live in a global one-market world.
I find the strategy of defining different "zones", like most of the remote first / salary transparency companies much more realistic.
It's not about what you want, it's about knowing your value. If your work is worth a SF salary then that's what you should be getting.
Moving from Idaho to SF doesn't magically make you more productive. The company knows it's still getting more value from you than what you're being paid. They just want to keep more of that value for themselves whenever possible.
Have some respect for yourself and know your worth
If your entire world consists of staying home and interacting remotely with a company, then you are correct: Location doesn't change anything.
However, moving to a high-energy city with a high density of experienced engineers and tech companies can increase your rate of learning, career advancement, and experience much more rapidly than living in a smaller city. You have to actually branch out and interact with local companies and people, but it does happen.
But this is all beside the point. Hiring is a labor market. Developers who live in SF have more high-paid job options to choose from than someone living in Idaho. As a result, you need to bid more to get them into your company. Hence, the higher salary.
The discussion about cost of living misses this point. The real reason developers from places like SF get paid more is because if you don't pay them wages that are competitive with their local companies, they're just going to walk away and take any number of higher paying jobs they have access to.
Well the co-founders live in the Silicon Valley area, with their physical HQ being in Emeryville:
How much salary do you think should allocate to base and how much toward any location adjustments, in general?
Nevertheless, I agree everyone looks at this problem from their own POV, however it should not be the norm to provide equal compensation for equal work.
In slightly more detail
https://elsajohansson.wordpress.com/2017/09/13/what-does-a-w...
https://elsajohansson.wordpress.com/2022/09/16/the-wage-gap-...
In the case of everyone making the same salary, you could certainly still sabotage someone's success but I don't see how having the same salary makes this type of mentality _more_ likely than at a company with a more typical salary distribution.
My concern with everyone having the same salaries is that, potentially, employees have less motivation to excel in their individual work and are more likely to do the minimum to just stay in good standing with their employer and not get fired. Maybe a company can offset the lack of direct financial motivation with more of a team motivation that the financial success of the company as a whole results in financial reward for the individual or some other way of recognizing individual success inside the company.
I am doubtful this flat salary structure will result in a more successful company overall but I do think it's good to try new things. And yes this has probably been tried a number of times before but maybe not exactly like this. Or maybe some other external variables have changed w.r.t. other attempts in the past and this time it works. The typical salary structures we see in US companies today are the result of a large number of trials and errors and learning.
I totally understand why companies want to pay less though. It's massive cost savings and it makes sense for them to hire for less money.
I wouldn’t. I like cities and center of culture and human activity. And the stats generally show cities growing globally, so I’m not the only one.
While you argue it's naive and cite different tax systems and costs, companies are successfully adopting this approach even in high-cost areas like the Valley. It might be hard to argue that the world doesn't work like that in reality, given that it’s already happening.
While it may not be widespread, it doesn’t mean it’s without merit or unrealistic. After all, remember that today's 'unrealistic' could be tomorrow's norm! It's tempting to think that people in less expensive areas would be the main proponents of a uniform salary, but the reality is nuanced. Preferences are likely influenced by a variety of factors, not just cost of living.
Your later points about the differences between compensation at different company stages are well taken, however it could be difficult to assert how much this dynamic affects preferences given the practice is not limited to early stage companies and equity vests often fail to yield returns.
In addition, your suggestion that only people in poor places want egalitarian salaries, could be seen as disrespectful of other people, because it seems to ignores the totality of an individual while preferring to try to reduce them to simplistic motivations. In that way, it’s also considered abusive. And can also be seen as disrespectful of others experience, and maybe arrogant: "Only people in poor areas want such naive, unrealistic salaries."
Looking deeper, this aspect of your comment, combined with its narrow focus on a single explanation, might be interpreted as your attempt to express your personal frustrations at your own salary performance, or justify and rationalize why you may not be making more. This might occur because you may find it easier to view something you don't have as unrealistic and naive, rather than the result of choices you could change.
In short, while you mention that egalitarian salaries and enthusiastic support of them is naive and unrealistic, it could be argued that the view espoused in your comment is naive and unrealistic because: it lack awareness of complex dynamics; ignores the totality of an individual while preferring to try to reduce them to simplistic motivations, and dismisses real practices as unrealistic, which might also be seen as out of touch. Overall, your views unfortunately could be interpreted as narrow and an expression of personal frustration, instead of a reflection of underlying real dynamics.
To conclude, while it's likely there's some truth to the correlation you propose, it's also likely true that even if some correlation exists, location is not the only factor at play. People may have various salary preferences, independent of their location, just as the value they provide is also independent. Finally, indeed, your view could be expressed more respectfully of others.
Anywho, it's understandable you may have that perspective, given what your background might be. Yet it's always good to remember that you can adapt your view over time, can grow and can include more data to expand that awareness of reality which you value! :)
