I have a friend whose employer let her be remote, so she and her husband moved to Austin and bought a gorgeous house, dependent on her bay area salary. 8 months go by, employer changed their mind, didn't want remote workers any more. Gave her the option to come back, she was pregnant and they liked their big house, so they said no, thinking she would have no problem finding remote work.

6 months later she's still unemployed, considering giving up her career and just being a stay at home mom. They'll sell their austin house and downsize.

Point is: remote workers are always the first to get let go, and the income is not dependable.

I think it's fair to say that it's riskier to depend on a remote job than it is to depend on an on-site job.

That really sucks for your friend, by the way.

Your point is painted in awfully broad strokes given you have exactly one example of it.

Try getting one :) Remote job listing also means that there is an entire world of competition out there, much of which makes less than half of SFBA dev wages.

Just quit my job and I'm on it. In Eastern Europe I don't need the full SF package, half sounds fantastic.

I get that for US workers it might be looking for a different set of tradeoffs.

The parent said at SF Bay Area pay. The easiest way to get that is start in Bay Area, do a great job and then move. Once you've moved and want a new remote job with that salary it's much harder.

And full of people applying for them.

Like all other jobs?

There are a lot fewer people applying for jobs local to me than there applying to jobs that will let me work remote. By a factor of over 100.