I've been mostly reading the WFH debates here on HN and this seems to have come as a shock to many advocates. You know, companies already had offices in different places you could already move out of SF to elsewhere and this was part of the deal. This isn't anything new, there was never the option of taking your Bay Area salary and living it up in Laos.
It was an option to live wherever in the United States though. Every place I've worked remotely based in SV/SF has paid accordingly despite me and the other engineers not living there. Startups & BigCos alike.
The more interesting question is not whether that was your experience but what the aggregate data might say about that.
It seems to me that companies that don't make that adjustment are spending a lot more on labor than they need to, but it may be that for certain types of businesses that it just doesn't make a difference in the overall financial picture.
There are very few businesses/industries that have a revenue/employee (or profit/employee) ratio like high-tech companies. And so fine-tuning employee compensation geographically may just be lost in the noise of their operations.
I doubt that practice is consistent across other business types though and it also suggests that employees at these businesses should be asking for even higher compensation!
You were getting $400k+/yr living in BFE? I'm surprised. How did you manage that? I've never really seen that happen with companies I've interacted with but I've heard of things like it here and there...
