[aogl]

I agree. It's not really remote if you have replaced the office with some other office that others expect you to be in all the time.

The main reason I still don't work remote is because all the remote roles seem to pay so much less than my non-remote role(s).

Is that common? Anyone else find that?

[sethhochberg]

I've seen 3 general schools of thought on remote pay:

- its a global talent pool, so in raw dollars everyone should be on a level playing field (ie, compete for SF Bay wages no matter where you are in the world since that is generally the top wage market)

- market rate for your current location (ie, whenever you choose to reside, you get paid an amount that provides a comfortable standard of living there, somewhat influenced by what local wages for your role would be - we won't round down if you're in a place where dev salaries are unusually low relative to other industries, but we will round up a bit to be competitive if you're in a market where they're high)

- "remote is a perk" so take less pay in exchange for the freedom

Personally, I currently work at a shop who is doing the second version and everyone seems happy enough with it. I'd never work somewhere who was trying to pitch remoteness as part of the comp package, and I think there are only a handful of companies out there who peg their wages to the most expensive markets in the world (I generally see this kind of position pushed by self-branded "expats" who want to metaphorically live like kings in cheap areas).

Unfortunately there are a lot of companies who have decided they're going to go remote as a cost-savings measure, and that cost-savings mentality permeates everything about the business - including trying to sell being remote as a perk with value and lower wages to go with it.

[aogl]

Well said. I think you're right on the mark with many companies trying to pitch the "remote is a perk" thing and then paying less.

[ticmasta]

Remote as a cost-cutting measure is the same as offshore, with the same poor results. There is no emphasis on quality; you've traded that dimension for some balance of cost & functionality.

As soon as you move beyond trivial software projects the true effort is in the domain which depends on visibility and communication. You can do this with remote but I think it actually costs more outside of all but the highest tier labour markets.

We really need to work to define remote as a supply sourcing solution and kill the notion of a cost control solution, otherwise we'll never be able to build fully integrated delivery teams out of globally-distributed people.

[weq]

As a dev who has worked in lucrative markets (defence contractor, tech-citys) for 10+ years, ive just taken a paycut (30%) to go remote only.

Everyone trades things off differently. I couldnt be more happier. When i was making more money; i had more debt and less time. That equation only gets higher as you get more senior. So yeh, i couldnt care less a google grad is making more then me - i dont work for an evil company, i can work flexibly, i can do overtime without having to travel, i can literly get in my car, travel 1000miles, setup my 4g next to a beach, and goto work. When i have a children i dont have to be an absent parent.

Money / Time / Happiness. Pick 2.

[sethhochberg]

For sure - if you make all of the same mistakes with remote teams that companies are so prone to making with offshoring companies (little to no integration into the rest of the business, little vetting of individual contributors, using metrics to incentivize all of the wrong kinds of behavior, chasing low costs instead of skill and business value) you'll get all of the same typically-horrible results.

[weq]

My company offshores, has remote only roles, has an in-house office, and wework offices across captial cities. They also pay their workers based on where the company headquaters is, not their locale.

Work of the future will need to be flexible. I envisage the rat race of the future being for unskilled labour.

[planetburgess]

Some countries are just cheaper to employ in. That dooes not mean that people there are any less talented.