undefined | Better HN

0 pointsChuckMcM13y ago0 comments

Well housing costs are just one part of cost of living but sure, it costs less to live elsewhere. Generally salaries in the SF Bay Area are higher in part of offset that cost. Wikipedia [1] claims Louisville has a median salary of $36,484.

So a question; "If you wish to work at a remote location, are you willing to take a salary that is commensurate with the median salary at that remote location?"

I find people are somewhat split on that question.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisville,_Kentucky

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

m0nastic13y ago· 4 in thread

I've never actually encountered an employer who set job offer salaries to reflect where remote candidates live. People point that out as a benefit to companies hiring remote employees (it'll save them money!), but does that actually happen?

At my previous job, after acquiring a company that had a mostly-remote workforce, everyone eventually moved away from our home area (DC) to cheaper parts of the country. No one took a pay cut to reflect the fact that they now were living somewhere cheaper (and everyone new we hired was in the same range regardless of where they lived).

Also, having lived and worked in Boston, the Bay Area, and now the Beltway, I was surprised to find that salaries weren't any lower or higher in any of those places, despite the costs of living being all over the place. It's possible that my particular corner of the industry (infosec) is just less geographically-dependent.

ihaveajob13y ago

Not to nitpick, but Intel does have a 10% salary supplement for California employees, to offset the cost of living (or at least the difference in taxation) wrt OR, AZ and NM employees.

m0nastic13y ago

You're not nitpicking at all, that's a good counter example of what I'm talking about!

ghaff13y ago

Generally, there are some differences but the differences for a given job don't usually reflect the magnitude of cost of living deltas between high-cost and low-cost areas. All three of the areas you mention are fairly high cost (although somewhat dependent on where in those areas). So, all other things being equal, people will usually be able to, most notably, buy/rent more house/apartment in a cheaper area than a more expensive one.

From the company perspective, limiting discussion to US only, the benefit of remote workers is much more about hiring talent rather than being able to save a few dollars.

Fishkins13y ago

Another example is http://blogs.balsamiq.com/team/2011/09/12/salary/

randomdata13y ago

It is really the other way around. Costs in the valley are high because people generally have more money to spend, not because there is an intrinsic reason why it costs more to live there.

> are you willing to take a salary that is commensurate with the median salary at that remote location?

Salary is just a function of supply and demand. If a bunch of people with amazing talents in Louisville are willing to do it for $36K, then that will push down the wages in California too. The only thing that has really kept SF developer prices as high as they are is that even the skilled people of Louisville want $100K+ to do the job.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse