Hacker News Reader

Comment by sschueller | Hacker News Reader

I don't think adding a location factor for anything that is less than 100% of the companies core location is fair. You are doing the exact same job and have the same skill level, you should be paid the same. If you decide to move somewhere where living is cheaper then that is up to you and should not affect your earnings.

This is how you keep poor countries / states poor. Instead of paying people the same which would result in larger taxes paid and more spent in those locations you are keeping status quo.

View on HN

Location is a factor though. If you live in the middle of nowhere, your chances of finding another job are low. If you live in SF, your chances of finding another job are high (because most jobs are still in person jobs). That is why location matters.

It has nothing to do with your value and everything to do with what the company has to pay to get the talent it wants.

Then let it be enforced via competition and market forces - rather than just using location to lowball somebody.

If lots of people are applying from a low-cost country, the employer is free to choose and thus, would be able to offer a lower salary. But from my understanding, employers want the same level of quality as they would get from the bay area, but insists on paying 3rd world wages if the remote is at a low cost of living location, even though there are very few other candidates suitable!

Well, it is enforced by competition. Not every market player is going to be rational, though. And it was rational for the CEO to try to pay lower than SFBay pay, but maybe not to bail on the negotiation entirely.

> Location is a factor though. If you live in the middle of nowhere, your chances of finding another job are low. If you live in SF, your chances of finding another job are high (because most jobs are still in person jobs). That is why location matters.

This is only true as long as remote jobs are so rare that the candidate is unlikely to find an employer who will pay non-location-adjusted compensation (even if that comp is midway between Bay Area-adjusted and Asia-adjusted comp), or more directly, to pay based on value added.

And… that statement is already not true for great (top 20th percentile?) candidates, and trending towards not true for candidates in the middle of the Bell curve. That is, a person with known skills and a good network can obtain offers from multiple remote-first/remote-friendly companies today. There's already a location-ignorant market for their skills.

As more remote jobs are available, more people will get multiple remote offers, that is, they'll find a location-ignorant market for their skills. The clearing price for their skills will trend towards the value they're perceived to add, even if it takes 5 or 10 years to get there. That perceived value isn't location-adjusted, particularly for remote-first companies trying to hire the best candidates or to hire as many great candidates as they can find (rather than to save compensation expense).

I agree completely. As there are more remote jobs, this will apply less and less. At which point I suspect you'll see a bimodal distribution, much like you see with in person jobs today.

There will be the "location independent" companies that pay top dollar, and then everyone else who pays a "global market average". Top candidates will get the top pay, and everyone else, even if they live in the Bay Area, will have to fight for the "global market" rate jobs, meaning it won't be feasible to be a programmer in the Bay Area anymore (barring a solution to the California housing crisis).

> It has nothing to do with your value and everything to do with what the company has to pay to get the talent it wants.

Hmmm... this sounds very strange.

Getting a job is dependent on you proving how much value you'll bring to the company, but your pay has nothing to do with "your value".

Sounds like someone wants their cake and to eat it, too.

In the case of a US remote worker for a California company, to which state does that worker pay state income taxes? If they're paying California taxes, they should get California money.

I know quite a few people doing remote work for California companies making California salaries, paying localized taxes. It's worth noting that they don't get California benefits either...

California taxes aren't higher because the average pay is higher... Someone making minimum wage pays the same for fuel as anyone else there. The taxes are higher because there are more social programs and generally it all costs more. the real estate in large parts of california are higher based on market desire. That creates side effects of people asking for and getting more money to work there, and it circles around.

Taxation as a percent of income is entirely down to effective spending. And often corruption. Maybe start charging Nestle fair value for all the water they remove from the state.

I agree with you, something needs to be done in order to solve the world inequity. But when a price is negotiated, it's all about how much the seller can get, or how much the buyer has to pay. The quality of work has a relative small impact on price, it's all about how much it would cost to hire someone else, or how much you would earn working at another company. We are in a good trend though, with world globalization - with the help of the Internet.

> You are doing the exact same job and have the same skill level, you should be paid the same.

Colocated employees at the same skill level performing the same job aren't paid the same - employers and employees negotiate compensation individually.

There is no "core location", and also you can't demand remote companies to implement completely equal salaries while in-situ jobs (and rents) vary wildly. It's a double standard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com