[Touche]

Thanks, knowing this I would avoid working for Zapier and would tell others not to, as you don't pay based on merit, but based on "what you need" based on cost of living. If a person is not limited to employment within a commuter distance then they have no reason to limit their salary based on the salarys within a commuter's distance.

A remote worker's "market" is the world, so you are competing with other remote companies, not other local-to-me companies.

[WadeF]

We absolutely hire based on merit. People are living in rural areas making a great salary because we pay mostly fixed to Chicago market.

We don't downsize your salary. But sometimes we can't upsize it. There's a few companies we can't compete with on salary like Google. Most of those employers seem to be in the bay area. Sometimes we lose out. A lot of times we don't. The world isn't quite so black and white here.

[Touche]

Yes, you do downsize salaries. Paying Jill less than Bob where Jill is a better worker because she lives in Little Rock Arkansas and Bob lives in NYC is downsizing Jill's salary.

Jill can do better. Hopefully other remote companies seek out the Jills and pay them what they are worth.

[WadeF]

I suppose that is true in the narrow case of SF/NYC. We're working to grow profits to make it so that isn't the case in the couple places that have the highest cost of living in the world.

[tjbiddle]

I read the rest of the comment chain - just responding here.

My 2c: You don't have to accept the job offer if you don't like the salary. Hiring is a 2-way street, if the employee and employer aren't both happy with the salary package - then bail. Plain and simple.

[closeparen]

Do you propose to ignore/lowball compelling candidates who've put down roots in high cost of living areas and intend to stay in them?

Or pay rural/developing world employees more than they demand?

IMO, both are at least a little bit irresponsible.