You get paid what you negotiate for yourself. If you agree to make less because you live somewhere other then the Bay Area then you make less.

The question is: why would you do that?

Your value to an employer is the same regardless of where you physically do the work. Keep that in mind when negotiating, and be sure to give a little chuckle over the phone when they suggest paying you less because you live where you do. No. But nice try.

If the person you're negotiating with isn't a complete push over, they'll say "No. But nice try." right back to you.

Your value to the employer might be no different, but your employer's value to you is much higher. There are fewer remote employment opportunities, and the employer knows the local ones pay much less. So, you're negotiating from a worse position, and you'll probably end up with a worse deal.

Of course, that's their case to make, and you shouldn't make it for them. But, the reality is, your remote work salary is probably going to be influenced by your local conditions.

>Your value to the employer might be no different, but your employer's value to you is much higher.

I'm curious why you would make that assumption. If you're a talented developer, then you have employers around the world who want to hire you, not just in your backyard.

I've seen some truly gifted Eastern European developers charging $20/hr while their contract employers basically giggle at them behind their back, since they'd easily pay $100/hr for their talents. Some of them probably could have negotiated $150/hr.

People like that not only screw over their fellow programmers in more developed countries with high costs of living, since we can't get away with charging $20/hr and raising a family with a nice lifestyle like they can. They also -- and more acutely -- screw themselves.

Don't be that developer.

I believe that the benefit of my choice to live in a low-cost area should accrue to me. If the company really believes in a remote workforce, they should pay based on value to the company. I am also saving the company on rent and probably some office-only benefits.

In general, they pay the high-cost-of-living person more because they won't take the job otherwise -- you could also not take the job otherwise.

You will have a harder time finding this, and it's a lot easier if you have the skills to back it up. You have to be as productive as an in-office employee and constantly make sure that is understood.

Lets go one step further - don't tell them where you're (going to) live. Now what can they do? Guess? Because really its no more your employer's business than what car you drive or your kids' names.

Although I agree with the basic premises - equal pay for equal work, employee should get the benefits of lower cost of living - I think it is the employer's business in more ways than one. Taxes, time zone, internet connection - many things could come into play. Not to mention the golden handcuffs it could create if the employee is drastically overpaid for their local market.

Ok I'm agreeable to tell the employer what time zone I'm in, but that's about it. The rest I'll tell HR after I'm hired, so they can fill in their forms.

There's no hard and fast rule. It is up to the employer, and how well you can negotiate.

I work for an American company while staying in India. I am in a senior position, and they are paying me a little on the lower spectrum of what a developer like me would make in the US. But it is a lot more than what the average developer like me would make in India.

Technically, your employer should value your work and pay you regardless of where you are staying, but during negotiations, they will bring up your local cost of living (and I don't blame them for that).

Do you mind telling for which company do you work for ?

That might sound like a convincing argument while a negotiation, but IMHO, remote or not, salaries should be negotiated based on skills of the worker and not the cost of living of his/her location. Ultimately, you get what you negotiate for.

You may view your value based on your skills alone, but the employer is likely trying to hire you for the lowest rate possible that will keep you happy and make you likely to stay. The local cost of living does play into that partially because someone in the bay area can find a local job with higher pay while someone in the mid west will find remote work to be the most profitable.

Eventually this market should lead to people moving to lower cost of living areas because they are more likely to be hired for a livable wage there.

I agree that the instinct of an employer is to hire employee for the lowest rate possible. But given a choice to hire between local employee and a remote employee who are negotiating for the same salary and possess the same level of skills, won't the company hire the remote one as the CTC involved will be less? So if the company's expenses are already going down by hiring a remote employee, they shouldn't make the cost of living of remote employee's area an issue.

This really depends on what clientele you're marketing to (and what skill you have). If you're marketing to cheap contract employers who just want someone to hack up a mobile app for them, then you're right.

If you're marketing to someone based on your skills, which are rare and impressive, then you won't have any issues charging a high rate, regardless of your local cost of living. If you bother asking for it.

Have a read of http://open.bufferapp.com/introducing-open-salaries-at-buffe....

Buffer have a base rate and then an additional sum based on location. Locations are split into 4 categories depending on how expensive they are to live in. Seems like a fair way of doing it, but obviously depends on the employer.

I'm not sure how that's fair. Should they also adjust your salary based on how expensive your car is? The value you provide to them remains constant despite where you choose to live. Why should you be punished for living somewhere less desirable? Presumably part of the reason you would choose to live in a less expensive location is so you can save more money. This to me seems like they're pocketing money that should rightfully be the employees.

It isn't fair, and people in low-cost areas should not take this deal.

You have to give them credit for the transparency, though. Most places would pay you less, but not tell you.

I like the transparency in theory. In practice I don't want my salary to be so easily determined by a quick web search. It could really inhibit my ability to negotiate a higher salary at my next job where they'll likely offer something like 5% higher than my current job. It's hard to justify a 50% pay increase.

I doubt most employers would hide that they're paying you less due to where you live. Instead I think most would bring it up in negotiations hoping to use it as a means of keeping your salary low. And honestly, the argument that your salary should be adjusted based on cost of living would work on a lot of employees even though it shouldn't.

"I'm not sure how that's fair. Should they also adjust your salary based on how expensive your car is? The value you provide to them remains constant despite where you choose to live. Why should you be punished for living somewhere less desirable?"

Well said and couldn't agree more.

Not implicitly, although people are free to use that as a negotiation tactic.

If people try to negotiate you down, you negotiate them right back.

Absolutely, that's why I hire someone in the midwest instead of in town.

I'm the opposite. I live in SF but work for a AZ company, and am kinda getting the shaft on that. It's something I've accepted (for now) since I really couldn't ask for a better job.