See if you can negotiate a remote work position. I work for one of the companies in this report in a fairly senior position and even though they don't advertise it, they do allow some folks to go remote after a lengthy HR process. If not your current company, figure out which companies will allow it and get a different job, then work there for a year or two to establish a great reputation and then ask for a transfer.
Please don't consider commuting daily by plane. The CO2 impact is immense. Heck, even flying 8x or 10x a year or so is a huge impact that requires significant lifestyle adjustment to mitigate.
Harsh remote pay disparity was much more common ~5 years ago, but in my experience it's significantly better these days.
There's definitely a large swath of companies that try to use remote workers to lower costs, and there's usually some hit to package size, but the serious companies make extremely worthwhile offers.
Two anecdotal data points:
I work semi-remote for a non-FAANG enterprise company and my comp is bay area level. I'm in Seattle, which helps negotiation, but my colleagues in rural areas have a quality of life that suggests competitive compensation even in middle america.
A friend in rural NY got a remote job that was within 10k of his bay area salary. ~120K for a non-engineer at a company with ~13M series A.
Do you have any evidence for that claim? I don't have anything broad-based, but I work remotely for one of these companies and make exactly what I would if I worked at HQ. And it's not because I'm some super-awesome negotiator.
Gitlab famously publishes a bizarrely micromanaged & comprehensive policy on how they will reduce your salary based on where you choose to move, and they are a fully remote company.
It never ceases to amaze me how companies try to argue they shouldn’t pay their top wage everywhere, and how workers are willing to accept this. Especially for a remote-only company where your salary should literally not be based on costs in your home region (since the company is not based there, not paying taxes there, etc.).
I've looked at Gitlab's calculator and decided not to apply for a job there as a result. As a potential employee it does feel quite unfair that someone else doing the same job might make twice as much money.
If you put yourself in Gitlab's shoes and imagine hiring people, it does make some sense. A couple years back I remember reading articles about the oil boom in North Dakota. People were flooding into a remote area that was lacking all sort of services, so next thing you know rates shot up, even for mundane stuff like barbers or auto mechanics. Of course, I don't want to pay twice as much for a haircut or oil change just because some folks in a boomtown a thousand miles away are charging those rates.
Of course, my hair can't be cut and my oil can't be changed remotely, but a REST service sure can be implemented from a thousand miles away. It'll be interesting to see if GitLab sticks with their approach long-term, as I do believe (anecdotally) they are missing out on good talent in second-tier cities.
It reads like a textbook case of bike-shedding(seriously the number of words and engineering thought spent on it is asinine) for what ultimately amounts to faux virtue-signaling about how you're going to get paid 20% below market.
I wonder if GitLab's policy is actually more bizarrely micromanaged than most large companies, or if we just get to see it since GitLab defaults to everything being open. I mean, I'm sure Apple has had countless debates about how to pay their people in many different locales, they just aren't open about it. If you get an offer from Apple, you just see that offer, not all of the policy and philosophy that drove why that particular number made it onto your offer letter.
It's kind of interesting to see how the sausage is being made, even if I feel like GitLab would underpay me in my current location.
> Gitlab famously publishes a bizarrely micromanaged & comprehensive policy on how they will reduce your salary based on where you choose to move, and they are a fully remote company.
They literally punish you for working in your own country. Today I work for a company based in the Valley that pays me a great salary, maybe not SV, but also not "median local (Mexico) rates".
When I started looking to opportunities at GitLab, I was surprised at how they punished remote workers based on where they were from.
I could always move to SF or around on a TN1 and earn the full salary, but I am happy where I am.
I think there are actually two issues here: where should companies hire, and what should they pay those they do hire. The answer to the first question is unequivocally "somewhere cheaper" even though the cost in terms of cultural change and coordination cost can be non-zero. I think it's valid to pay differently in different markets. If an increment in salary has negligible effect on recruitment or retention in that market, it's wasted money. I don't even believe in "shareholder returns uber alles" but I'd rather see that money spent on hiring more people rather than the same number at higher salary.
In my case my employer couldn't have gotten me for too much less, because I did make clear that being an only remote with frequent travel was a negative. That concern doesn't apply equally to everyone, though, and tends to decrease for all as companies adjust to having remotes on every team.
Did you start remote? I wonder if there is a difference in experience between people who start off working onsite but then decide they want to live somewhere else and negotiate remote work after proving themselves.
Not right away. My progression in tech was as follows:
* Company 1: Explicitly onsite, no existing remote paradigm
* Company 2: Explicitly onsite, no existing remote paradigm
* Company 3: Explicitly onsite, existing but ad-hoc/unofficial remote paradigm
* Company 4: Explicitly remote, with other onsite employees
* Company 5: Explicitly remote, with other onsite employees
Companies 1 & 2 had no existing remote paradigm, and there was no opportunity to negotiate for it.
Company 3 had an existing remote paradigm, but it was somewhat ad-hoc/unofficial, and dependent on varying levels of political/organizational capital(how influential/liked was your manager, and their manager etc...). I was able to prove myself and negotiate for full remote after a couple of months. Unfortunately, said political situation deteriorated and with the prospect of my contract not being renewed(or renewed exclusively onsite) I sought a different role.
Company 4 had an onsite/physical office space, but my team/role was explicitly remote, and this was an established aspect of the role throughout the interview process.
Company 5 had an onsite/physical office space, but my team/role was explicitly remote, and this was an established aspect of the role throughout the interview process.
Hopefully this is helpful. My anecdotal experience says that you might need to seize an opportunity to negotiate for remote work where it might not be a first-class paradigm, and later pivot this experience to get a 100% remote role with the established infrastructure and organizational frameworks to properly support it.
Please don't consider commuting daily by plane. The CO2 impact is immense. Heck, even flying 8x or 10x a year or so is a huge impact that requires significant lifestyle adjustment to mitigate.