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.
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.
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?
> 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.
Nor1 | Santa Clara | Backend Engineer | full time / Onsite
https://stackoverflow.com/jobs/311302/back-end-software-engi...
Nor1 delivers industry leading upsell products and solutions all built on a core platform that combines a machine learning based decision engine with an optimized operational process. This enables hotels to enhance the guest stay and generate greater revenue throughout the entire reservation life cycle.
We are looking for a back-end Software Engineer to help us build the next generation of our upsell decisions platform. You will join the Nor1 Tech team, who are a collaborative group of engineers, product managers, and data scientists. Rather quickly, we will look to your technical expertise to create reliable, scalable, and high-performance components.
This is a very good idea if it works reliably. However, from my experiences with sleeper trains in Sweden (via SJ), it's quite inconsistent.
Just the other month, I took a sleeper from Stockholm to Kiruna and it was delayed by 9+ hours! Good thing this was an unplanned vacation so I had time. The customer service was excellent though, they were attentive and reimbursed me for the train tickets, hotels, food and car rental.
I can't imagine myself using the sleeper trains for any business purposes though as I've had many delays with them.
Yes, I'm all for sleeper trains, but Sweden has the worst maintained infrastructure. They are trying to catch up after decades of neglect, but are open about expecting continuing disturbances for years to come. It is not only a nuisance, reimbursements or not; it's outright risky and a damn shame because we really need trains now
The "new economy" made popular round the turn of the millennium didn't deliver on it's promise of solving everything imaginable, just by turning maintenance of public assets over to lowest bidder private entrepreneurs. Go figure.
