| We're a remote-first company and went through this same discussion when we began hiring people in different cities, not just in the USA but all around the world. What we found is that any approach to setting salaries has to balance the following factors: * Pay people enough to live comfortably * Pay people enough that they accept our offer vs competition * Pay people in a way that feels fair * Pay people in a way that is transparent * Pay people in a way the company can afford it * Pay people in a way that there isn't a risk of huge fluctuations (e.g. currency fluctuations) Without a doubt the best solution is to pay every employee as if they live in San Francisco, what we call "single-city." That gives high marks on every dimension above...except that it's extremely expensive for the company. Basecamp.com can afford this but I doubt most companies can. We ultimately went with a formula where we look up the average salary for your title in NYC (the USA's most expensive city), multiply it by some multiplier (to make sure we pay systematically above market), and discount it by the cost of living in your city compared the cost of living in NYC. When we can afford it, we'll move to a single-city model based on San Francisco. |
I don't really know what city it is, but we pay people with the same experience doing the same work the same pay regardless of where they live.
I understand that this means that I probably can't afford someone in SF, but I also know that there is no way I was poaching from FAANG anyway, and there is plenty of good talent not in SF.
So I get high marks on all the criteria, as long as they don't live in an expensive city. It's a tradeoff I'm willing to make.
As we get more successful, I can move everyone up to match the more expensive cities.