[Use of the term "telecommuting" seems like another common giveaway, where and when it appears.]

The teams I've worked with have never had difficulty with communicating and collaborating, meeting deadlines and "innovating," and I highly doubt that we're all ninjas (because surely I am not).

Typical was my last position: I never clocked in from 9-5, usually from the early morning hours until late at night, to provide time zone coverage and purely out of interest and the desire to be a contributing member of the team, with several breaks included for meals, exercise, etc. Flexibility meant I was more likely to contribute, rather than less. (So many entities fail to understand this basic human dynamic. Instead create a prison, and watch how the inmates adapt and behave.)

I'm mostly able to control my environment, which means a quiet space in which to work, free from the distractions of my cube-dwelling days (though at least those had walls).

It's simply natural to work together remotely at this point, and I frequently notice how it provides companies with other tangible benefits, which I think some fail to consider.

I'd say some are trapped in a twentieth century mindset, but perhaps we're stuck here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_system.

"Agile Build Factory"

They're literally telling us we're factory workers to them. My objections to this name were met with blinks and hand waves.

Love it. Management probably thinks it is "cool, hip and edgy"

Meanwhile, the rest of our deliverables that didn't involve this engineer and his team have shipped 90% ahead of time. That 10% was one deliverable that wasn't shipped ahead of time, it was shipped on time.

And my dept. is 100% remote.

I like your arguments though, working remotely sacrifices a lot that you would otherwise get by being chained to a desk, and the idea that you should take LESS money because of it is offensive.

- dizzystar would enjoy working remote

- it would be hard for dizzystar to find other remote-working opportunities

- hence, dizzystar would be willing to work for a discounted rate, in order to be remote

In their perspective, there is no "right or wrong". It's purely a matter of negotiation leverage. You have a couple options here:

- admit they are right, and accept a discounted rate

- claim that your rates are final and not negotiable

- claim that you don't value remote working, but because you value them as a client, you're willing to negotiate on your rate

Option 2 is more likely to get you a higher rate, but also more likely to drive them away. Option 3 involves accepting some discount, but at least you minimise the leverage they think they have over you.

This discussion over semantics is not helping anyone. Just treat it as a negotiation game, and play it the way you would any other negotiation scenario.

If it matters, I've only worked on site for one job. I've always been remote otherwise. I probably should have mentioned it in my OP, but really was wondering more about the general perspective on remote.

If I were you, I would follow up on your thoughts with something like:

"I don't think it's appropriate for us to make remote or in-office location related to salary. You're hiring me to get things done. I incur higher costs by maintaining a higher office. What recompense do you offer for costs of running a remote office since your office costs are deferred?"

Or maybe softer, but that should take the idea off the table for them.

If for some reason that doesn't work out, you've discovered that the company values you less based on your zip code which is something you definitely want to find out before you're relying on them for your livelyhood.

It is a perk... for the company.

Imagine not having to pay for office space? The company doesn't have to buy a desk and chair, or pay electricity to run your computer, or stock the coffee and snacks. And there is the added benefit that the work hours are completely blurred. There is no such thing as "work stops when you leave the office" when you live at the office.

Sure it has its benefits to you too. Easier to spend time with friends and family, less money spent on gas, etc but the company is saving way more money.

I'm personally extroverted (rare for a software engineer but we exist) so working home aline drives me crazy and I consider mandatory remote work a negative. I actually rent space in a co-working space (an added expense for me) in order to be productive. Some people use coffee shops for this purpose.

um...I dunno about _you_ but it sure as hell applies to me. I leave my home office for the day and work stops. Emergency fires that affect customers are the only exception and i would help with those even if i didn't work at home. Being able to set boundaries like that when you work from home is _critical_ to maintaining mental health and minimizing stress.

Work Remotely. Salary. Benefits. Software Stack. Chill Boss. That is what matters.

Just about anything else the startups have to offer is categorized as "meta". Not helping things ship.

Devs don't care about "culture". What does that mean? Mandatory stand-ups, weekly 2-hour meetings, signalling "values", and these group photos where everybody forces a smile? (You haven't exited. What is there to celebrate about?)

They don't want the politics. Colleagues trying to justify why they're there, instead of being in a conscience frame of mind to better the company. Anything else not helping the product to market (shipping), gaining users, and retaining them.

The requirement of "on-site", unless there's a legit reason, has become a red flag that invokes an image of a boss in a suit, reclining in their Aeron chair, that's an insecure, yapping, "expert beginner" micro manager who won't heed technical advice; a bozo.

So what makes a "Chill Boss" for programmers? A correlation worth testing is greater software development experience than employees. As opposed to just having a history going straight into management soon as possible.

Working “remotely” actually puts the entire burden of managing an office and managing deadlines squarely on your shoulders.

EDIT: I mean managing your own deadlines of course

I work remote full-time because it's something that I negotiated up front my with employer, but most of my team members are required to come into the office every day (or at least most days). If they work from home too often their manager will notice and "have a chat" with them eventually.

So from that perspective it definitely feels like a perk, and something that I am fine negotiating over as part of a larger compensation package.

The funny thing about that is, many times they will probably be offering to pay for relocation costs, and a full SF salary when you do relocate.

In my mind, if they are willing to pay for relocation, and a full salary AND the real estate costs of having you sitting in the office, then they should be willing to pay you the salary you expect.

They aren't going to save much by having a remote worker, right? Yes office space but chances are a company leases an entire floor, used or not. The amount of electricity a laptop uses over a year can't be much either. A single person drinking coffee can't cost them that much either.

I would almost want to ask how they come to the conclusion that remote should pay less? Or a slightly different wording like how are pay ranges determined for <insert title here> position across the company? Does this also come into play with promotions, raises, bonuses, etc?

There of course also is an objective negotiation angle to this. You could calculate your personal cost of commuting to their office every day and add that on top of your usual rate. Then you could go down by that amount when asked that question during negotiations.

This is especially true in the bay area!

Indeed, traffic is a major aspect of this. Remote work is the key to solving the traffic problems in large cities around the world.

Non-remote work also incurs ridiculously high costs both in terms of necessary public (railways, roads, parking space) and private (office buildings) infrastructure costs and hidden costs such as those caused by health issues and opportunity costs caused by the huge amount of wasted human lifetime.

I agree that "remote work" is a skill into itself, but no matter how much I value that, I don't see how it's costing my employer anything.

If anything they ought to pay me more because they don't ave to provide my office and coffee and whatnot.

So then you're saying that you will work for less to work remote, because you value it as a perk.

I mean, I'd work with a live band playing in the room if you'd pay me enough and give me ear plugs, so I suppose "no live music at work" is a perk? I dunno?

* Less commute time and cost (I save 8-10 hours a week, plus a few hundred a month in parking, fuel, and insurance)

* More freedom and flexibility (not every gig offers this, but many do)

* A bunch of focus time

* Communications (oddly) are greatly normalized as everyone has the same handicap. I find a fully remote team easier to manage than a mixed one, as no one has an advantage over another (as happens when part of a team shares the same office).

On the other hand, you're maintaining your office space and much of your setup (internet, wifi, heating, desk, chairs). Again, some jobs offer some compensation here, but some of it will be on the employee to maintain.

You're also more isolated, and team culture takes a bit more work to create and maintain.

Personally, I value the option to work remote as a net gain. I love my home office, I save time and money on the commute, and I have more time to focus than in the office. I understand the company benefits too, as they pay less rent, own fewer fixtures, and get more of my time. But I still see it as a net win for me.

They introduced it a while back at my workplace, and tbh, I would not take a job these days where remote work isn't atleast partially on the table.

Saves me between 1 and 3 hours of commute (depending ont he location).

If you'd expect me to come to the office every day... either it has to be somewhere where commuting to is really easy, or pays significantly more. And I'm not even sure I'm willing to compromise on the remote work part.

There are extremes and exceptions, of course, but the base assumption seems reasonable to me.

Sometimes when people negotiate they say "can you do x because y" where y is just a plausible way to ask for x.

It is often more graceful than just saying "we don't want to pay that much."

This is a common negotiation tactic. If you give someone _any_ reason when making a request, they are more likely to comply, even if that reason doesn't make sense.

Small example, at a coffee shop: "Can I cut in line?" might get a negative response, but "can I cut in line, I am late to pick up my son from school" is much more likely to get a positive response. I don't have a link, but there have been studies to show that even nonsensical justifications are more likely to get positive responses. "Can I cut in line, my grandmother is watching TV" is more effective than no justification at all.

In this case, by connecting the salary reduction to a feature of the job (remote), it makes it more acceptable to comply with the request than if it didn't have a reason attached.

^ This is basically the rationale I imagine when people pay the same worker less money just because of where they live. They obviously could hire someone local and would pay them more money. But they want to hire you. But they also think they can get away with screwing you on compensation, because you're remote. They save money and they get an employee. It's a win-win for them.

Fuck. That. Especially because they said "Can you consider ...". Uh, no, Mr. I Just Lost All My Negotiating Power By Asking Someone To Think About My Request Rather Than Insisting On It.

Remote is not a benefit. If they had a million qualified local candidates banging down their door, they wouldn't be negotiating with you. Tell them to put up or shut up.

It's not for everybody. Some people need the social interaction at the office.

But I love not having a commute to work, the convenience of having the extra time, saving on gas, meals, etc.

For me, it's become the primary perk of the job.

It's also hard to overstate the freedom it gives you - you can literally live anywhere in the US you please. It's not for everyone but I don't think I could go back at this point.

Ultimately, you decide if the offer is what you wanted.

I personally hate working remotely. Most people don't though so it is viewed as a perk. I've interviewed people before who applied solely because we offered remote. Some of them even lived within a pretty easy commute to the office.

And along the same lines, it's not a great idea to respond to "why are you interested in working with us?" with "because it's remote" even if you really love remote work.

That said, in a salary negotiation, I don't think I would let that slip. As you have pointed out, remote work is a mutually beneficial situation, and just as I save money, so does the company. It makes sense to share the savings, and charge about the same rate one normally would in the region in which one lives.

In office work = free coffee, work laptop, social interaction, and sometimes free food. Pretty sure that greatly outweighs $1200.

And it's not like you're going to get the time you spent commuting back. Likely their expectation would be that you work through those hours. So. Nope.

You are right: working remotely effectively requires a different skill set. Most of all, a remote worker has to be really good at self-motivation, focus and communication. I have been working remotely for a decade now and consider myself an expert in those areas, so no, I would not accept lower pay.

It's a perk in the sense that you're not paying bay area rents. If you're in a high CoL area and want to say, applying to remote positions is an uphill battle, as the chief reason most companies want to look remote is to expand their recruiting reach without raising wages, and hoping to lower them.

https://m.signalvnoise.com/basecamp-doesnt-employ-anyone-in-...

So remote work is definitely a perk/benefit.

But I think the question here is that it's also a perk to the company; they don't need to pay for office space and all those other things. And there are less people who can fit the remote worker requirements.

So I would say that remote work should pay roughly the same.

Personally, I would take a big hit to pay to work remote, but this is only because on site benefits here don't include computers and comfortable seating.

You bring up very good points about working 100% remote, though. It should not constitute a decreased salary unless you’re not working full time remote.

If I were you I’d try to negotiate for the employer to pay for gigabit internet and buy you a nice new PC, then just take those things off the total compensation. Nice thing being that those things are now pretty much tax-free income for you. You’ll be saving on commuting costs, too. Also calculate what you can write off for a home office.

Why do you think this?

Ultimately, it comes down to this. Do they view you as a someone special, a person who can really deliver value in a unique way, or do they view you as a commodity?

If they view you as a commodity, they'll try to pull all sorts of stunts like this one. But if there's a special bond, they will respect your rates and try harder to get you onboard.

So perhaps if you are getting asked this question, it's because they're too lazy to learn more about you and haven't really figured out that special thing you bring to the table. There isn't enough of a relationship yet.

[1] https://www.mruniversity.com/courses/principles-economics-mi...

The cost of living of where you live is not the employer's concern. Everything comes down to supply and demand.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiat...

Why do you even care then?

> My thinking is that it's difficult to find the type of people who has the focus and skills (focus overrides skill, I think) to really do remote work well.

Are you basing that on anything other than wild fantasy? Have you heard of eastern Europe, where tons of people will work remote for far less money?

> In return, I give full-on focused work with no cruft.

All employees are expected to give that, remote or not, whatever "with no cruft" really means.

When faced with a request of the form 'can you please do X because of justification Y', people are by default more willing to do X than if there was no stated justification. If they refuse, they feel compelled to explain why justification Y doesn't apply.

But there's no need.

If the rate you've quoted is reasonable given the market, then just say so.

If you live in Hollywood and the job you want is in Santa Monica, then you would add some time for that. If the remote ob is just as good, you could save some time and not go to Santa Monica.

If your ideal job is already down the street from where you live, then remote doesn't offer much commute advantage.

Too hard to get anything done when others you need to collaborate with are not there.

1. the employee either genuinely enjoys the work or genuinely cares about the company

2. the employee has not become cynical about the company, even if (1) was originally true.

In most lines of work these are unlikely to be true for most people. However, software engineering can, if you're lucky, have an addictive quality and be intellectually enjoyable and intellectually meaningful. If that coincides with a decent company with decent people, then weirdly, remote working can result in people working hard away from the office. In my case, getting much more done away from the office because personally I can get nothing done in an open plan office with frequent meetings.