[koib]

How do these fully remote companies handle salary compensations? is it generally based on market rate for wherever the worker is remote from? Curious because a senior position in the bay area would be 2x+ more than most other locations.

[xonev]

I work at Seeq Corporation, which is also a fully remote company with over 100 employees (not on the list). We compensate everyone the same regardless of their location. The other companies that I've worked remotely for (Groupon and a startup) did not do that, and I think it's great. At Groupon, my compensation was adjusted for "Cost of Labor," not "Cost of Living," which was annoying since the calculation was completely opaque. When I decided to move they misinformed me about how my compensation was going to be adjusted.

Anyway, living in a city doesn't appeal to me, so companies that don't incentivize living in a city do appeal to me.

[etxm]

I think that’s a hotly debated topic.

Personally I think that you should be paid the same wherever you live. Why should someone make more money because they choose to live in SF versus a farm somewhere.

Cost of living is funny. Whose cost? What if I want to live like a king in a big house?

[est31]

> Cost of living is funny. Whose cost? What if I want to live like a king in a big house?

For most people, that's an important metric. Personally I would only relocate to SF (or anywhere else) if the salary difference is big enough for me so that if you factor out the higher cost of living, I'd make more money than the cheaper places. There is nothing in SF that attracts me that bad that I'd pay the premium for. I think it's a reasonable demand.

Even if you disagree that my demand is reasonable, many people hold this view that they want to be paid more in a more expensive place. You asked whose cost of living is important here. It's the cost for the style of living that typical market participants want, not the style of living that you in particular want.

Ultimately, the prices are determined by the market, by the supply and demand curves. If the "people wanting a remote job vs remote offers" ratio looks different than the "people wanting a non-remote job vs non-remote offers" then there will be a difference in salary.

To give an example, lots of programmers want to work in the gamedev industry. Due to this, their salaries are lower and their working conditions worse compared to programmer positions elsewhere. Simply because they are okay to put up with it as they still like building games more than something else.

That being said, there are obviously imperfections in the market. All parties involved are humans instead of perfect market participants. But the rule is still highly relevant.

[etxm]

I’m saying the person in the remote area should be paid the same as in SF not vice versa.