The limit is based on what the Census bureau dictates the metropolitan statistical area to be. Certain MSAs with Google offices correspond to a special rate; otherwise it's based on the state you're in.

If you're in Sacramento, you're definitely not in the same MSA as either San Jose or SF. Pleasanton on the other hand is part of Alameda County, which is part of SF's MSA.

Meanwhile, if you opted to be in Santa Cruz, "just" 32 miles south of San Jose, you'd be SOL.

Interesting. I live in a big MSA (Atlanta, which includes a lot of mostly rural counties). I've considered a role at Google, but currently work in a suburb and live further out from there. 1 hour to Atlanta proper without traffic, but still in the MSA according to the census. And I could move further out and still be in the MSA (like Heard County or Jasper County if you want to look at some examples).

Atlanta is still going to be a significantly lower pay band than premium plus (Bay Area/NYC), though. Tech salaries there aren't as high. The ideal play is to be far out in the boonies of a premium plus MSA, e.g. something like Dutchess County in upstate New York. The cost of living there is quite low but you'll still make the highest salary possible.

Interestingly, Seattle is only in the premium price tier, not the premium price tier. This is because there's no state income tax in Washington, so a lower salary goes a longer way. So it ends up being a wash even factoring in NY/CA state taxes. Because CA taxes are higher than NY (but not NYC taxes), your best bet is living in upstate NY (Long Island is outside of NYC too but it's eliminated because CoL is higher there).

There was an internal tool that simulated your pay change when you move. For example, if your office is in Santa Clara county but you move to Santa Cruz county the pay will drop by a lot. But if you move from Santa Clara county to San Mateo county there's no change at all.

That's terrible (specifically, for the people driving to the office over 17 with their reduced paychecks). What a slap in the face.

Getting paid less for doing the exact same job, just a few miles away. :) Isn't that wonderful? But at least the corporate real estate market is happy.

Oh no, I would bet some money that the C level execs at these companies own a lot of residential property near their campuses. Likely purchased before they announced building said campus! It's just good business sense.

If the employees move away rent goes down, so does demand for their properties.. so yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Yeah. Someone could have lived there long term, had a Job, and now are suddenly getting a pay cut?

... if they are charging from being in the office from 5 days a week (before times) to 0 days a week (now) rather than 3 days a week in office and 2 from home.

5 -> 0 is a pay cut based on where you live.

5 -> 3 is not a pay cut as you're still working out of the same office.

Ah, OK I thought anybody who lived in Santa Cruz and reported to the office 5 days a week would take a pay cut. This is just if you're fully remote, I guess. Still seems like a slap, Santa Cruz ain't cheap even if it's slightly better than San Mateo or Mountain View.

So I'm a "super commuter"; I can take the Metro North from the end of the line to NYC, although I usually go for Amtrak for several reasons.

If I were to go fully remote, I would take a pay cut ... but it would be almost identical to my commuting costs, once you account for rail fair, parking, vehicle mileage, taxes, snacks, etc.

I don't know how representative my case is, but the pay cut ends up being a non-factor in my decision whether or not to apply for full remote.

The above seems to put the lie to the argument I've often heard that the justification for these cost-of-living adjustments is that in-person employees deliver more value than remote employees.

If this were indeed the reason for the salary adjustment, it wouldn't matter whether an employee was moving to Santa Cruz, San Mateo, or San Salvador. Either way they're remote, and unless one city has markedly different internet bandwidth, the value that a given employee delivers from any remote location should be the same.

Next time I hear someone making this argument, I'm calling BS. It's a bald-faced attempt for the company to capture value which rightfully belongs to the employee.

> The above seems to put the lie to the argument I've often heard that the justification for these cost-of-living adjustments is that in-person employees deliver more value than remote employees.

Only the horribly uninformed would ever make such a bad faith argument. You've never been paid based on your "value" but rather what it takes to keep you as an employee. The company only wants to pay you enough to keep you and if you move some place cheap well they don't need to offer as much.

> The company only wants to pay you enough to keep you and if you move some place cheap well they don't need to offer as much.

I think that depends what your other options are. It might work if everyone in the industry offers you less based on where you live, which is almost collusion in my opinion.

> Only the horribly uninformed would ever make such a bad faith argument.

Nevertheless, it's one that I've heard repeated quite often.

It's all based off the CoL in county of your primary residence. Has nothing to do with the proximity to an office.

Not true. If it were based on cost of living, then Google would pay more for you to work from Hawaii than from Alabama. (Spoilers: it doesn't, they're both in the same salary band.)

It's slightly more true that it's based on the local cost of labor, but even more so that it's just based on the state, with carveouts for MSAs (which are defined based on county) surrounding certain offices commanding higher salaries.

You'd make just as much working remotely in Matamoras, PA as you would working out of the NYC office in Manhattan.

I'm wondering what's stopping a cottage industry popping up of 'synthetic residence' in high CoL areas.

E.g. I live in a low-CoL area, but I pay you, someone living a high-CoL area, $100 to nominally be your "flatmate".

There's nothing particularly clever about that, it's just straight up textbook employee fraud.

You would think that Mountain View based Google, being registered as a Delaware Corp, would understand the benefits of legal residence being different than practical residence.

And it's not fraud for an employer to arbitrarily control pay based on someones location? Is their revenue similarly confined by that employees contributions because of location?

No? You may not like it but it's very obviously not fraud by any definition.

Neither is the inverse.

If company can pick arbitrary locations around the world to be their HQ, or Trump can use Mar-a-Lago as his residence, then so too can every other citizen following the law and paying their taxes.

One is legal the other isn't.... This isn't hard you would be committing fraud no questions. Also depending on how you've lied you'd also be on the hook for tax issues to the government rather then just and issue with your company.

Did you miss?

> every other citizen following the law

For criminal fraud to happen, there has to be a defrauded party. If I follow my local tax laws and negotiate a better salary with a corporation based on Location A, while potentially living elsewhere at Location B/C/D for prolong periods of time with lower costs of living, that is not fraud.

Getting the company to enter into a contract under false pretenses is fraud. "intent to deceive" is alone enough. This isn't some kind of gotcha where your technically ok if you do X and Y. Intent matters!

Two parties entered a contract with the understand you would live in location A if you don't that's fraud objectively.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-contr...

https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/business-laws-and-regu...

https://www.upcounsel.com/intent-to-deceive-contract-law#:~:....

The only thing that matters is the legal definition of residence for the location I'm paying taxes.

Maybe you are right, but that's a lot less obvious to me.

As individuals, we're much more sensitive to the idea of breaking the law than a corporation well-protected by legal counsel and indemnity.

Well no, that’s not fraud. I’m not using “fraud” to mean “bad.” I’m talking about actual fraud.

No, it's not tax fraud. Tax is between you and the government, not you and your employer. The U.S. even allows you to ask your employer not to deduct tax so you can deal with it personally.

If you follow whatever local and state laws apply to your situation, you're perfectly in your right.

The topic is not tax fraud though?

I didn't bring up taxes, I'm just responding to it.

The topic is whether a global corporation with access to a global workforce should be allowed arbitrary salary negation privileges because of the circumstances of a candidates geographical circumstances, while robbing the candidate of the same privilege.

Just sounds like another way to exploit labor at a time of record profit windfalls for corporations.

A dev in Mountain View has many more high-paying opportunities than the same guy in Weed, CA (pop. 2,862). Google pays him more because that’s what it takes to retain him.

Someday if most employers switch to remote-first, this won’t matter and salaries will be equal everywhere (a lot lower than we’ve seen in tight labor markets, and probably the first world in general).

No that's obviously not fraud. Words have meanings.

Fraud is defined as wrongful or criminal deception that results in financial or personal gain.

A company telling me my worth is based on where I live at that exact moment definitely feels like wrongful deception intended for financial gain.

Well it's not. Don't know what to tell you bud.

The law doesn't care how you feel pal.

Is it really that different from companies registering all of their trucks in Indiana because they have the cheapest commercial insurance?

How is it fraud?

A company can be registered in a tax haven but have its main office in the US.

So where's the line. Let's say I split my time 50/50 between a high CoL area and a low CoL area. Am I obligated to declare the lower?

People do that with car insurance and jobs with residency requirements.

I used to drink with a bunch of fireman who lived about 300 miles away - they had to live in the city or adjacent county. They’d have a flophouse in the hood shared by like 20 guys and crash there once in awhile when they pulled overtime as well as get mail.

Travel scams are similar too. If a company will reimburse travel if you’re 50 miles from home, people will “move” so they can bill the mileage tolls.

It works great until it doesn’t. If you want to give up your cushy Google gig for a few thousand bucks, good luck.

Well for starters you're gonna have all applicable state and local taxes withheld from wherever you're fraudulently claiming to be living, as that is going to be where you are ACTUALLY living as far as all relevant taxation authorities are concerned.

I think a more non-fraud tactic would be to find the cheapest area in a high cost of living area and minmax on that dimension. Especially if it’s by county, then there are likely unfavorable areas within that county.

But if there is anywhere in the county that has escaped full IT gentrification because of poor commuter access, those prices are going to explode if they haven't already. Since median house price is a huge fraction of CoL calculations (and a frequent complaint among some economists), staying in county gets you a raise, if your friends do it too.

> those prices are going to explode if they haven't already

That ship has sailed, and it’s got a nice tail wind as well.

Yeah, last time I looked at rents in my hometown, the cheapest options there were comparable to the cheapest options in San Francisco. They're probably a bit ahead of the curve; most the empty land around is either federal or LADWP, so there's limited room for new development, but it's a major shot up from pre-pandemic prices where renting a full house was cheaper than an SF bedroom.

Not at Google. When you go remote you're paid based the same as if you were onsite at the nearest office to your residence, limits are roughly CSA (combined statistical area) in the US—not cost of living.

Curious if companies pay differently based on county of primary residence if you commute to the office.

Exactly. If someone who lives in say, Tracy, who has always commuted into the office, and continues to do so. Would they get their pay cut?

Does that mean you would get paid less for living in Queens County instead of New York County?

> Can you go remote within commute distance of the office and keep your salary?

Yes. I know somebody working remotely about 10m driving from the office.

To keep your salary you'd need to stay in the SF bay area, which is defined according to country lines.

_county_ lines? How far does it go?

I don't know the boundary of the SF Bay Area region. It is based on some US designation. Once you leave the region around an office you become a part of some general state-wide designation.

This has some failure cases, with some weird places being included in regions like NYC while some other places where people really do commute to NYC (though it is extremely far) are excluded. I don't actually know anybody who has been impacted by this, but clever Googlers made a pretty compete map of all of counties in the US and their pay region once the tool for getting salary information for proposed moves was available.