[discordianfish]

While I appreciate the transparency, I don't think such large salary differences are reasonable especially with remote work. In the end you compete globally for remote employees and it possible to work remote for SV companies and get somewhat similar salaries than the onsite employees.

...and of course is living much more expensive in SV but I don't see why that should be "subsidized". No harm in people realizing that it's freaking crazy to pay that much rent.

[StavrosK]

Holy hell, you aren't joking. I compared my city with SF in their calculator, and they pay 3,6 times more for someone in SF!

That means I can get a $160k rise just by moving to SF! This seems super duper broken.

[guessmyname]

You will also spend 3,6 times more money while living in San Francisco.

[nothrabannosir]

The price is that high for a reason: sf has a lot to offer. Networking opportunities, job market liquidity (see all the ONSITE SF posts in this very thread), etc. Perhaps not 3.6 more, but it definitely beats a cabin in the Siberian tundra.

By correcting for rent, you give people that advantage for free. That's why it's unfair.

[NonEUCitizen]

The way to deal with their unfairness is to refuse to work for them (unless you're in SF!)

[arihantar]

Trust me on that I am working with GitLab from past 6 months and I have never regretted a day. GitLab is always open for ideas and this is also work in progress. How many companies have you seen declaring their compensation framework :)

[StavrosK]

Not many, but disclosing compensation isn't worth $100k/yr to me.