Supply and demand, baby! If a company really likes you, they can always scale up your pay even if you are in a low cost of living place.

As a remote engineer in the Midwest, I still make over double what local rates are, despite the remote adjustment. So it stinks but it still works for me since moving to NY or SF would be much worse (financially at least, they are lovely places)

> Supply and demand, baby! If a company really likes you, they can always scale up your pay even if you are in a low cost of living place.

I don't think it's that easy. When Person A who is living in a high-cost area asks for a raise, they will be perceived right. When Person B who is living in a low-cost area does the same, they will be perceived greedy. If the company thinks that cost-of-living has value, it will.

You need competing offers, then it doesn't matter if they think you are greedy (whatever the f that means in work context), because if they come back with that bs reasoning as to why they won't give you a raise, you can resign on the spot.

In my experience getting competing offers remotely is not easy, but gets easier once you landed a well paying job.

> You need competing offers, then it doesn't matter if they think you are greedy

For sure. I gave the example of asking for a raise, because of the way parent comment was phrased: “If a company really likes you”. When you have competing offers, it's not a matter of liking.

Having a competing offer doesn't make your pay independent of where you live though. If enough companies make your pay a function of cost of living, you will have a tough time reaching Bay Area salaries.

> whatever the f that means in work context

Can't agree more. Having seen spectacular failures from those who are supposed to be business-minded, I've come to appreciate that humans have their biases.

Honestly the best thing you can do is get alternative offers - that is what talks.

In my mind it's easier getting a raise in a lower cost location. If the budget for a role is $200k for SF and $150k for Corntown Iowa, I already have $50k of wiggle room before I even hit the existing budget. But I personally just ask for the SF rate :)

Paying people way more than market rate in their area is a great way to trigger inflation in their area.

If you don’t pay by location, how should you pay? If you pay flat rate and are fully remote, why would you peg your rate to SFBay?

Good question, why would you peg your rate to the bay area? I wouldn't. It's not sustainable, or even rational in a world where money isn't cheap. The argument goes: I have to pay Bay Area salaries, because that's where the best people live, and the best people live near the Bay Area because that's where the money is. But in a world where you can recruit from anywhere, I'm not sure that's true, or that it will be true on a medium to long timeline, as people disperse to decentralized, remote jobs. So, I'd pay the same amount, irrespective of geography, based on the value the employee brings to the company and the difficulty of filling that position with the marginal next employee. That makes most sense to me, would likely select for happier employees (because living the bay area isn't ideal for many), less turnover, and a wider (ultimately better) pool of candidates.

Agree. Also, I live in a “cheap” country… so cheap for food and rent. Expensive for clothes, very expensive for tech, rather expensive to travel, etc. So anyone paying me in relation to the cost of buying food is abusing the asymmetry.

> But in a world where you can recruit from anywhere, I'm not sure that's true, or that it will be true on a medium to long timeline, as people disperse to decentralized, remote jobs.

Enough employers paying by location indicates that they have not bought into your assumptions here. What data do you have to convince them?