I just took a remote job that indexed to Bay
Salaries and does not take into account where I live.
Maybe that won’t last forever, but it exists.
I think if tech work really all becomes super distributed , the companies will still be competing no matter where you live.
So you won’t get Bay Area FAANG salary for working remote from some smaller Midwestern city at a FAANG, but you will get a lot more than you would at the tech jobs headquartered in your city. Kind of a win win for employee and tech company
I have never had a company adjust me down, based on where I live!
I mean, wtf is it to them if I choose to commute 2hrs each way to and from work to save money? Why should they dock me for how I spend money that I earn?
> wtf is it to them if I choose to commute 2hrs each way to and from work
No one is docking people for living farther away and commuting into the office. The salary adjustments are for people who live in areas with different costs of living.
Your salary is roughly equal to what you're willing to take to perform the role. If you move between cities with different costs of living, that number may change.
Don't think of it as "adjusting down" (since it goes both ways). Think of it as a different supply/demand curve. At least they're transparent about it, although I suspect some ICs get bumped up or down based on their performance.
If you're a remote working who has been living and contributing from NYC for 5 years, what is the justification for a company giving you a pay cut because you move to Kansas? Your contributions remain the same. The responsibilities remain the same. The costs incurred by the company remain the same. You may even keep the same hours by adjusting your working hours in the new time zone.
I don't see a justifiable reason for it either direction. Living in an expensive city is a choice, now more than ever with more and more tech-focused companies moving their devs fully remote.
It's not about costs, it's about supply and demand. If you move to a lower cost/tax region the amount of money you're willing to take to do the same job is lower.
You can say "no" to a paycut. And they can say "no" to keeping you employed at the same rate. Eventually you'll settle on an equilibrium - the intersection of the supply/demand curves.
It’s not about supply and demand - that makes no sense. That only makes sense if the company’s alternative is to hire a new employee at the Kansas City wage rate - but that option was never on the table. The choice is between retaining an existing employee that you’ve been happy to pay a current NYC wage.
If you could have hired a Kansas City employee to do the same job for less pay, that would have already been reflected in the previous salary negotiations when you instead decided it was worth it to pay more to hire the NYC person.
That person choosing to live in a different location has no effect on anything - everything that led you to the original choice to pay them a higher wage remains true.
People are generally talking about working in different time zones, but proximity to work is one of the best predictors for job satisfaction and turnover.
Where someone is located in the world is irrelevant to the value they are producing for the company, so what justification does a company have to adjust a remote employee's salary if they move?
I just gave a reason. Turnover and job satisfaction is good enough of a reason for some companies to pay proximity-based subsidies for rent. When we start talking about different time zones, then the reasons start piling up.
Forcing salary adjustment for relocation after the employee works for you is totally different. There’s no “market wage” at that point - there’s no such thing as “another candidate already with X years of internal experience” working at your current wage. The person’s current wage is, by definition, the market wage. Reducing it to match a competitive rate for new hires in that geographical region does not make sense, you’re telling someone paid market wage (for them, for the value they currently provide you, which is not a function of their location) to suddenly take a pay cut because a theoretical new hire from that region (who is not a substitutable alternative for this person) might take a lower wage.
Salaries are not often a function of an individual’s alternative opportunities. For example, salaries are extremely durable even in economic downturns. A person might have children and become “locked in” to a job because of sudden family financial obligations, decreasing their ability to job search, pass interviews, or take a risky move. Yet that doesn’t lead their employer to suddenly cut their salary because an external life factor such as family status (which is no different in kind from geo location) changes the landscape of opportunities they could consider.
What you are describing is a part of what is sometimes called "wage stickiness". It is, as is pretty obvious today, frequent but not 100% universal phenomenon.
