According to most employers I've talked to, cheaper salaries is usually not high on the reasons why remote. It's usually more access to more talents, etc.
Remote positions often (not always) pay less because many more people are competing for the same job, and some of those people have suburban or rural costs of living.
There is visibly less competition for remote workers because fewer companies hire that way, so yeah, that could explain lower salaries at least in part.
I think that it's cause and effect issue. Developers who've proven themselves to be reliable and experienced can 'force' their preferences onto employers. And they happen to cost more as well. I don't believe that going remote magically makes you able command higher salary.
Pure speculation, but maybe you have to look around or negotiate to find remote work? Those who tend to do that probably also get better salaries than those that stick with one job for very long or don't compare much when looking for jobs.
I've found remote employees (truly remote, not an office job with telecommute option) often accept lower salaries than they could get otherwise in exchange for the flexibility of the position. Until remote work is more widely practiced, the good remote jobs will be in demand and they don't have to compete dollar for dollar with office jobs.
Your salary is only partially based on "the value created by employee" - most of it is the market forces of supply and demand. When you're remote, you're competing with a much larger number of people for the same positions.
the problem is that remote is seen as a benefit (which it is), and so naturally must be priced as part of the salary.
The fact that being remote requires some discipline, and this discipline makes for a better employee doesn't play into it - because a employer would already expect such discipline, whether it actually exists or not.
But if you're from the US, remote could mean you're competing with prospective employees from all over the world, who will often be cheaper. So equal pay would be getting lowballed even more, I'd think?
The dynamic is not that simple. Remote companies do offer a lower salary than they would in person - as you don't have to pay for commute, and you can live in Wyoming.
But not all remote companies are interested in a race to the bottom. If they were, they'd only hire from LatAm, Africa, and South Asia.
I had that perception from friends who work remotely, yet, it seems counter intuitive... I would think that if a company is open to fill a position with someone remote than the supply-side is much bigger lowering the bargaining power of someone filling that position.
Plus as others have mentioned, remote-position is seen as a perk so I expected it to put more downward pressure on salary
There are other advantages of being a cheaper remote worker, cheaper than 'market rates'. One is that since you are cheaper, there may be less pressure on you to deliver at a certain speed. Which, in turn actually may allow you to work more carefully and over time deliver your work at a higher level of quality. This combination can lead to you being happier in the job and wanting to remain at it for longer and since you are cheaper your position is less at risk when your employer is going through restructuring.
I've hired for a few remote positions. The calibur of candidates, and number of applicants is higher than for a position in only one city. Also, typically you get people applying from much lower cost of living areas, so they can be happier with a lower salary.
Yep, this. You don't hire interns, grads, and juniors for remote work. So automatically the average salary is higher for remote work when you limit it to mid level and above.
reply