Basecamp doesn’t employ anyone in SF, but now we pay everyone as though all did

But the "bay pay" isn't for your work. It's so you can work - i.e. cover your expenses associated with working at that particular place.

Too much light, sand, and heat to be able to concentrate

Even if you're working in a coastal hut, nothing beats good ergonomics of a real office

What I don’t see is why all companies should follow Bay Area salaries.

All of my local clients accept a compromise; meet in-person once per sprint (every 2-4 weeks). Otherwise all work is done remotely.

My remote employees and contractors are not required to commute or work onsite, therefore the remote rate applies.

Kudos to Basecamp for committing to standard salary levels, but I believe geographic cost-of-living adjustments are more accurately assessed through periodic bonuses.

> As the article so nicely points put, the work you're doing is exactly the same regardless of where you do it from. Charge accordingly.

First of all, a remote employee is not worth the same as one in the office. For 2 engineers of the same capacity, any employer or coworker would rather have the engineer physically near than physically afar. How much that discount is extremely hard to guess, but there should be one in the general case.

Also, being hired as a remote engineer from the get go is not the same commitment as being hired to be in the office. There is no personal or professional relationship yet. This means that being hired as a remote worker, you will generally be assigned remote work, and if they want collaborative, product and team roles, will hire someone to be in the office. The processes of hiring and working relationship are different.

Now, to my personal experiences: I worked remotely my first few years, and then as an in-office employee for a couple of years to a SF startup. After that, I left the US and worked remotely for the same company for 2 years. There was a minimal adjustment to salary: and then I had the incentive to study the finances of what was going on.

The company paid less payroll taxes, and I did not receive any benefits: no 401k matching, no free food, no snacking, no coffee expenditures, etc. The benefits lost my have compensated a chunk of the remote-ness productivity loss in the long run. But there was a cost to productivty and I could compare it solidly between my two periods: it took longer cycles to get some projects finished, and issues of importance sometimes had time-zone differences that made them more inconvenient to resolve.

But then I also saw why talk about cost of living. Working in the same company, I had seldom talked about salary with co-workers (and my personal policy is to disclose mine immediately, even if they dont disclose theirs). But after turning remote I got asked about my salary by a considerable amount of people, even from ex-coworkers! I dont think people have a right to be upset about it, but they do feel upset about such a thing. They perceive it unfair, because the costs are there for them, and maybe their job or their manager wont allow them to be remote.

This is a good way to ensure unhappy employees stick around due to being paid a lot more than what they’d earn otherwise.

But then he counted his money again, bought a house in the hills of Malibu, a couple of mad cars (family car is a Rolls-Royce Phantom), starting being a race car driver (Le Mans),...

Never believe ANYONE who says money isn't the a key to happiness. Not the sole reason, but just take a look at his Insta again.

Kudos.

They do a lot of that by creating satellite offices. But there's always some level of advantage to being closer to customers.

Anecdotally, there's a non-trivial correlation level between people who like the breadth of activities available in the city and level of professional development.

Yes, that's broadly, rapidly occuring in the US (I can't speak to any other markets). It's a trend that will likely result in Silicon Valley getting partially distributed to two dozen cities in the US. Something changed in the last five or so years quite dramatically when it comes to telecommute work. It went from a concept that never seemed to quite live up to its potential, to now delivering. Credit probably goes to the dramatic cost of living increases since the great recession in major cities, ~5x increase in average broadband speeds in ten years + high quality mobile, and companies gradually dipping their toes into the telecommute world and finding value there (constantly reinforcing upward cycle, more companies try it + more people try it, volumes increase, repeat).

I'd consider those near the Chicago offices as the lucky ones. No flights, no hotels, they get to tuck in their kids and sleep in their own beds. So I'm sure they won't feel like they're due anything.

To me, this is a good move. As work becomes more remote, living in the super expensive urban areas is a choice that has a price associated with it. Everyone benefits when that choice isn't constrained by the need to be there so you can commute 2 hours into a cube farm.

It's a trend I see over and over and over.