|
|
|
|
|
|
by etxm
2376 days ago
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
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.