[rtlfe]

> You can't expect an employer to pay way above the local market rate for a position.

This would certainly be true for a business where all the employees and clients are local, but doesn't have to true for a global company with fully remote jobs. If I'm providing as much value as an SF-based employee and demand a raise to 80% of SF pay, the company would be foolish to let me leave.

[ZephyrBlu]

> the company would be foolish to let me leave

One thing I've learned is that companies are extremely foolish when it comes to compensation and attrition.

[extragood]

Is your cost of living anywhere close to what it would be in SF?

The average 1 bedroom apartment costs $3,060/month [1] or $36,720/year. The tax rate is high, and depending on where in the world you are, there are additional expenses such as healthcare that need to be factored in as well.

If we're only concerned with fairness in compensation, cost of living must be a factor.

[1] https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/san-francisco-ca

[rtlfe]

> If we're only concerned with fairness in compensation, cost of living must be a factor.

No. The most fair thing a for-profit company can do is pay people proportional to how much value they add to the company. If it's a lot of value you can choose to live in an expensive city. If not, you have to live somewhere cheaper.

[PurpleRamen]

Or they just take someone who is as good as you, but cheaper.

Companies are not social services, they don't aim to offer some welfare. It's a harsh reality, but their competition is not doing them a social service either. So everyone is doing their best to find the best balance which bring them the best outcome.

[WheelsAtLarge]

"the company would be foolish to let me leave"

Fundamentally, if they can find a replacement at a lower cost, they will. Businesses are about the bottom line. No matter what their size is. Fighting that truism will only lead you to frustration.

[rtlfe]

> if they can find a replacement at a lower cost, they will

If that was easy for them, they wouldn't have SF-based employees in that role.

[Friday0722]

This is not about the SF-based employees, this is about the roles the company has chosen to source in lower-cost regions. For whatever reason, they've decided that they are getting a lot of value out of local resources in SF, and some of that will be about being American, some of it about responsibility, some of it about liability and local laws that they can hold the employee to. When it comes to those roles they've based overseas, they've done for the sole reason of cheaper labor. If you stop being that cheap labor, they'll just hire someone else who is. If there is no cheap labor, then they'll hire a local in SF instead. It's really that simple, and I agree it's not fair - life isn't fair.

[jcheng]

50% of SP is not OK, but 80% is OK? Honest question. I can think of principled arguments for equal pay and for fully COL-adjusted pay, but I can't think of any for equal-ish pay.