Your work was never worth that much. I pay people 1/4 of Bay Area rates who are just as good and live better in a more obscure location. The downside was there aren’t enough people, but remote addresses a lot of that.

The big salaries and localization are about control, especially with investors. Talent follows the jobs, and we are in a consolidation cycle. IBM successfully ran significant technology centers in obscure places like Minnesota, Binghamton, NY and Vermont for decades.

> The downside was there aren’t enough people, but remote addresses a lot of that.

That's a big assumption! Wouldn't that imply there are software engineers who don't work in their field because they can't find work where they live? It's safe to say that most already relocate to where the money or work is.

No one has ever had their salary set by JUST the value they provide for the company. If anything, the value they provide is simply the CEILING for how much an employer would pay them; if they paid them more, they would be losing money and it would be better to not have the employee at all.

Employers pay the least amount they can in order to attract and keep an employee. That pride is set by supply and demand.

Remote work vastly increases the supply of available workers, which will drive down wages. While it also increases the number of companies that need employees, most of the ones that aren't in the major tech centers aren't really competing for those highest salary engineers; they simply don't generate enough value from an engineer to be able to afford those higher salaries.

"your manager has decided that your work is now less valuable "

No - this is supply and demand. There are two sides to the equation, not one.

Someone working where there is no taxes, and low cost of living, will value the employment opportunity differently.

The 'clearing price' for the 'trade' will thus be different, even when all other factors are otherwise the same (i.e. the workers skills and abilities are identical.)

the agency isn't with "your manager" so much as a large fraction of tech salaries were effectively a hedge against you walking down the metaphorical street and finding a different job.

now that that's no longer such a concern, coupled with what i would guess is largely a scarcity mindset brought on by the pandemic, it's not really a surprise that comfortable engineers aren't putting up a huge fight when their salaries are merely 2 standard deviations above the mean of one area or another.

I’d argue remote work means that folks can “walk down the street and find a job” quicker. Remote work means companies like those in say Chattanooga, TN can now source and hire workers from San Francisco. If they’re willing to pay for them and/or compensate/entice them otherwise.

It also means workers can be free to leave San Francisco without affecting their salaries as much. I live in a small city, that’s not a huge tech hub, and I make equivalent salary to someone in SF or in Seattle. I’ve done so for numerous years.

I’d also argue that much of these salary reductions have other means. Such as stock implications in a Covid world, an attempt to curb a runaway burn rate, or even a veiled attempt at reducing the workforce slowly without severance packages or legal issues.

Alternatively its a disguised reduction in workforce. Doesnt impact the stock like a layoff but probably has a non-negligible impact culling some employees from the herd.

When you cut pay are you more likely to lose your best and brightest, or those without better options? Sure, maybe it helps the bottom line now, but lowering wages to reduce head count is the best way to ensure brain drain (in most cases, obviously there are exceptions to everything)

It may be more useful to look at tit from the angle not of "value" but of compensation. For the employer to acquire your services, they have to compete with other companies and part of that competition is going to be on how much you are paid. When you leave to another place with a different COL or different job market, the amount competing companies are willing to pay decreases.

Sorry for rambling.

Well, that's a useful reminder that work by itself does not have an intrinsic value. What matters is an outcome or a perception of it. Sacrificing your lifespan is generally not something that is valued in a corporate life at all, outside of the face value of being visible.

In my experience companies who try to not pay based on location tend to underpay in general (Gitlab would be a prime example).

In the interest of value equivalence, do you believe COL adjustments in the Bay area are unfair?

Engineers are paid according to their scarcity, not so much their KPIs. Remote work changes the supply and demand situation in favour of employers.

I don’t really buy that argument. I doubt that there are lots of skilled engineers out in rural places just waiting to be tapped by remote work. Skilled talent clusters around the jobs.

I suppose there’s the international aspect, but that isn’t what is going on here.

You're going to be shocked when you realize the number of people who don't want to move to San Francisco. There's a smaller but still substantial number of people who don't want to deal with living in any dense metro area. There are even plenty of people who don't want to move very far from their friends and family at all.

Only if the employers are idiots. Good engineers are always scarce.