I worked for a remote company and I was based in an east coast city. When I mentioned the idea of relocating back to where my family lives in a suburban / rural area of the Midwest, my company said that if I relocated, they’d have to apply a “cost of living adjustment” to my salary and it would be reduced to about 2/3 of the salary I would earn for the same position living in my east coast city.
The salary cut seemed almost perfectly calculated to ensure my personal savings rate could not be any higher in the Midwest than in an urban center.
My job involved no travel or any other aspects that would have been affected by my move, especially since I would be in the same time zone. In fact, I would have lived closer both to most of our customers and to the Chicago office by moving rather than staying on the east coast.
I’ve heard this is actually quite common, and that even for remote workers, companies try hard to price your wage based on where you live rather than what value you add.
Combine this with the huge risk of not being able to find another remote job or nearby on-site job, and living rurally does not actually seem like a good idea to me. You’re one layoff away from a job crisis, whereas in a city or metro area, at least you can quickly find other work.
There's a real risk that a layoff will upend things and there won't be another remote job in the offing, let alone anything local. I recently had that experience and I was fortunate that I have a spouse who works and we put away a savings cushion (which we depleted) for just such an event. I also encountered a prospective employer who dickered over pay scale for remote outside their area vs remote based in one of their metropolitan areas. No thank you, best of luck, I'll commute and work for someone who doesn't discriminate based on my zip code. I also note that a well-known source code control company actually formalizes this practice and offers a calculator to see how hard they intend to screw you, which is at least up front rather than late in the hiring process.
I'm sure it depends on how much the company values you, and how precarious your employment is, but assuming you are valuable to them at your current (well, previous) salary, you should be able to negotiate.
"You aren't paying me for where I live. It's actually quite irrelevant! You pay me for the value I generate. Continue paying me for the value I generate. Done!"
Of course, I've mostly worked for small companies that shit bricks when I leave. I imagine large companies have stupid cough, sorry... inflexible? policies in place that they can't find themselves troubled to work around.
Just say no to salary adjustments. The point of remote is, it doesn't matter where you live. Resist letting it be their decision where your remote base is located.
Push back by saying "No, you find me valuable at this rate, and that doesn't depend on where I live since I'm remote already". You may even have to find another remote job.
Typically, even for the most valuable engineers, the company will just say “see ya” at that point.
Finding another remote job with acceptable pay / benefits / work responsibilities / etc., is very hard and takes a long time.
Honestly, I think you’d have to get another job offer (either also remote or in the location you want) to use as leverage for your existing employer to let you move without decreasing your pay.
I just think almost every employer would force a pay decrease in that case, no matter how unfair or unrelated to your value-add, and unless you already had another offer lined up, you’d never be in a position to give them an ultimatum in which you’ll quit if they decrease your pay.
It’s why this idea of earning a SF or NYC salary while living in some nice Midwestern suburb is still nearly 100% myth.
The salary cut seemed almost perfectly calculated to ensure my personal savings rate could not be any higher in the Midwest than in an urban center.
My job involved no travel or any other aspects that would have been affected by my move, especially since I would be in the same time zone. In fact, I would have lived closer both to most of our customers and to the Chicago office by moving rather than staying on the east coast.
I’ve heard this is actually quite common, and that even for remote workers, companies try hard to price your wage based on where you live rather than what value you add.
Combine this with the huge risk of not being able to find another remote job or nearby on-site job, and living rurally does not actually seem like a good idea to me. You’re one layoff away from a job crisis, whereas in a city or metro area, at least you can quickly find other work.