Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

2 Out of 3 tech workers would leave SF permanently if they could work remotely

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: 2 Out of 3 tech workers would leave SF permanently if they could work remotely

#21

Post by PNWChris »

noodle wrote: post #2

I feel like there's an implied "and keep their comp". There are a decent number of remote jobs out there right now. They pay well, but certainly not SF TC.

Frankly, I think that implicit assumption by workers is totally fair! The way COL adjustments are done results in a strong incentive to live wherever costs the most. Some time ago I made a comment on this concept that I'll re-post here with minor edits:

--

Say you move to a lower cost of living area, perhaps 6% cheaper, and your employer adjusts your wages down by the same amount as the change in COL.

Now all your expenses are 6% lower, but your money left after expenses is also 6% lower. That means that despite being no worse off in terms of quality of life, your savings went down 6%.

Strictly speaking, if you maintain the same relative ratio of costs to savings, it’s always rational to take the highest income, even if it’s in a higher COL area. This is because costs can be measured as a percentage of income, but savings ought to be measured as an absolute value.

--

The "fix" would be to somehow work out what workers spend, and only adjust that part of their salary by COL. That's invasive and gives an unfair COL-adjusted comp advantage to the highest earners who can save a bigger portion of their income.

I don't have an ideal solution. I guess there could be a standardized single remote COL adjustment (perhaps adjusted by country or something to account different legal frameworks and mandatory benefits), and the remote worker can live wherever without comp adjustments other than local tax.

Re: 2 Out of 3 tech workers would leave SF permanently if they could work remotely

#23

Post by downerending »

PNWChris wrote: post #21
noodle wrote: post #2

I feel like there's an implied "and keep their comp". There are a decent number of remote jobs out there right now. They pay well, but certainly not SF TC.

Frankly, I think that implicit assumption by workers is totally fair! The way COL adjustments are done results in a strong incentive to live wherever costs the most. Some time ago I made a comment on this concept that I'll re-post here with minor edits: -- Say you move to a lower cost of living area, perhaps 6% cheaper, and your employer adjusts your wages down by the same amount as the change in COL. Now all your ex…

> Now all your expenses are 6% lower, but your money left after expenses is also 6% lower.

If so, arguably the COL is being done incorrectly. It should be adjusting just literally the "costs of living", not total comp.

That said, having lived in a very high COL area and a normal area, my total take was higher in the former, but the risk/variance was also higher--a lot higher. It could easily have bankrupted me.

Thinking in risk/reward terms (or like a market investor), I'd actually prefer the lower variance at this point in my life, even if the mean is also lower.

Re: 2 Out of 3 tech workers would leave SF permanently if they could work remotely

#25

Post by goawaysnobs »

downerending wrote: post #24
goawaysnobs wrote: post #22

Honestly nothing better could happen for SF than for all the people who would rather live in rural Utah or Texas to GTFO.

Sounds like a plan. You can keep the street poo, though.

Exactly! And you won't have to fear homeless people (the horrors!) anymore. We'll keep all the beautiful and ugly things about this place.

Re: 2 Out of 3 tech workers would leave SF permanently if they could work remotely

#26

Post by noodle »

PNWChris wrote: post #21
noodle wrote: post #2

I feel like there's an implied "and keep their comp". There are a decent number of remote jobs out there right now. They pay well, but certainly not SF TC.

Frankly, I think that implicit assumption by workers is totally fair! The way COL adjustments are done results in a strong incentive to live wherever costs the most. Some time ago I made a comment on this concept that I'll re-post here with minor edits: -- Say you move to a lower cost of living area, perhaps 6% cheaper, and your employer adjusts your wages down by the same amount as the change in COL. Now all your ex…

This is true but its not linear. Even remote jobs are coalescing around a median salary. If you go from SF to Chang Mai, you probably aren't going to take a 85% pay cut, it will probably hit a local minimum for your role/experience/etc.. Your skillset still has a certain value regardless of location. Below a certain line, your savings rate will go back up again.

Re: 2 Out of 3 tech workers would leave SF permanently if they could work remotely

#27

Post by downerending »

goawaysnobs wrote: post #25
downerending wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a plan. You can keep the street poo, though.

Exactly! And you won't have to fear homeless people (the horrors!) anymore. We'll keep all the beautiful and ugly things about this place.

Despite my joke, the homeless are not in my top 10 reasons not to live in SF. (And sadly, there are plenty where I live.)

Re: 2 Out of 3 tech workers would leave SF permanently if they could work remotely

#28

Post by threatofrain »

outside1234 wrote: post #7

How do companies know you actually live in SF? It seems like there is a real opportunity for near-remote - ala Fort Bragg, Santa Cruz, Sierras without this penalty.

But the reason why FB or any firm would be willing to pay you extra for living in SF is if you can actually show up to an office in SF.

Otherwise you offer no differentiation as a remote worker except for time zone, language, and legal or political nuance.

Re: 2 Out of 3 tech workers would leave SF permanently if they could work remotely

#30

Post by dantheman »

gamblor956 wrote: post #19
biomcgary wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently, I'm hiring for a remote US-based position, but may not consider candidates in CA. My HR department says that having a single remote employee in CA leads to tax claims on a company's overall revenue (and a lot of paperwork). Hopefully, most states will soon realize that having remote workers working for out-of-state employers is actually a very good deal for them (income from out of state, reduced road main…

Your HR department is wrong. California lets companies choose how their income should be allocated to the state. Employees in state is just one of the options. You should speak to a tax lawyer or accounting firm.

Or just avoid California because it's not work the hassle.
Post reply on HN