Real Numbers: US Salaries vs Offshore Rates in 2026 (BLS Data)

Methodology: where the US numbers come from

Every US salary number in this article is sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) program, specifically the May 2024 release, which is the most recent full-year dataset available at the time of publication. The OEWS is the largest and most credible wage dataset for US labor — it covers about 57,000 establishments and produces mean and percentile wage estimates for roughly 800 occupations nationally and by metro area.

For each role in this article, we list the BLS Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code so you can verify the numbers directly at bls.gov/oes. We quote the national mean annual wage as the headline, since that is the most commonly cited and the most conservative for a national average. Metro-specific numbers in the variance section are pulled from the same dataset at the MSA (metropolitan statistical area) level.

The offshore rates are from Remoteria 2026 pricing for full-time managed engagements, which are comparable across clients because they include the same set of services: recruitment, vetting, payroll and contractor compliance, account management, equipment stipend, and replacement guarantee. We use mid-level (3-5 years experience) as the default for comparisons unless otherwise noted, since mid-level is the most common hiring band across all roles.

The "loaded" US cost uses a 1.3x multiplier on the BLS mean wage, which is a standard benchmark for employer-side payroll taxes (roughly 7.65% FICA), health insurance, 401(k) match, paid time off, equipment, and overhead. Actual loading factors in practice range from 1.25x to 1.45x depending on industry and benefits package; 1.3x is a reasonable mid-range figure.

Ten roles compared: the full salary table

Below is the headline comparison. National-mean BLS OEWS 2024 wages for 10 common roles, loaded at 1.3x, compared to 2026 managed offshore rates for the same role at mid-level experience.

How to read the savings number honestly

A 76% savings figure for a software developer looks enormous on a spreadsheet. The important question is whether that savings figure is actually achievable in practice, and the honest answer is "usually yes, but with conditions."

The conditions are: the offshore hire is vetted to a comparable quality bar, the scope of work is defined clearly enough for an offshore hire to execute on, the management overhead is reasonable (4-8 hours per week for a team of 3-5 offshore hires, handled by a US engineering or ops leader), and the company has realistic expectations about ramp time. When those conditions are met, the headline savings is real and sustained.

When they are not met, the savings degrades. A company that hires offshore on the cheapest rate, skips the vetting, gives the hire poorly defined tickets, and provides no management attention will see most of the headline savings evaporate in rework, delay, and eventually attrition. This is not an offshore problem — it is a hiring-process problem that happens to show up more in offshore engagements because the feedback loops are longer.

Metro variance: NYC vs Austin vs Phoenix vs national mean

BLS national mean wages are a useful starting point, but the actual cost of hiring a comparable US worker varies dramatically by metro. Here is how three example metros compare to the national mean for a software developer (SOC 15-1252), using BLS OEWS 2024 MSA data.

What the metro variance means for offshore decisions

The metro variance changes the offshore calculus significantly for companies based in expensive markets. A San Francisco software developer costs $220,831 loaded using 2024 BLS OEWS data; an offshore equivalent at $42,000 per year saves 81%, not 76%. A Phoenix software developer costs $143,819 loaded; the same offshore hire still saves 71%, a meaningful amount but not as dramatic.

The implication is that the savings case for offshore is strongest for companies headquartered in Tier 1 tech metros (SF Bay Area, Seattle, NYC, Boston) and somewhat softer for companies in lower-cost metros. This matches what we see in practice — our strongest client demand for senior engineering roles comes from Bay Area and New York companies, while our strongest demand for support and operations roles is more evenly distributed across metros.

There is another pattern worth noting. For the non-technical roles in our table (EAs, bookkeepers, customer service), metro variance is much smaller than for software developers. An executive assistant in San Francisco costs maybe 15% more than the national mean, not 28% more. That means the offshore savings case for support roles is roughly consistent across metros, while the savings case for technical roles is much more metro-dependent.

Understanding offshore rates: what you are actually buying

The offshore rates in this article are all-inclusive monthly rates through a managed provider. The label "all-inclusive" is important, so let us unpack exactly what that includes and what it does not.

Included in the monthly rate: the developer or specialist's full compensation, employer-side payroll or contractor compliance in their country, recruitment and vetting costs amortized across the engagement, a dedicated account manager, equipment stipend, onboarding support for the first two weeks, and a replacement guarantee if the match does not work out within the first 30 days.

Not included in the monthly rate: software licenses that are specific to the client's stack (e.g., a paid IDE license or a Figma seat), third-party SaaS tools that the hire will use in the client's workflow, and any client-side US management overhead. For most engagements, these add-ons are small — a few hundred dollars a month at most — and they are often already paid for by the client as part of their existing software stack.

Compared to building the offshore function yourself — finding the candidate, negotiating the contract, handling global payroll through a service, managing the relationship — the managed rate is usually within 10-15% of the DIY approach once the hidden costs of DIY (recruitment time, compliance fees, bench risk, replacement costs) are honestly priced. For most companies, especially on their first and second offshore hires, managed is actually cheaper in total cost even though the headline rate is higher.

The savings math for a 5-person team over 12 months

Let us put the numbers together in a realistic scenario. A US-based 20-person company needs to add 5 roles over the next 12 months: one senior software developer, one mid-level bookkeeper, one mid-level executive assistant, one content writer, and one customer service rep. They are deciding between hiring all 5 onshore or all 5 offshore through a managed provider.

A 76% total savings on a 5-person team over 12 months represents about $409,000 of runway recovered. For a 20-person company spending $5-8 million per year, that $409,000 is roughly a month of total burn — a meaningful extension of runway or a meaningful reallocation to marketing, product, or additional hires that would otherwise be unaffordable.

Diminishing returns: where the cheapest markets stop paying off

There is a trap worth naming: chasing the cheapest possible offshore rate often costs more in the first year than paying a mid-range offshore rate. The reason is that the cheapest rates come from the least vetted end of the market, and the cost of hiring the wrong person is high.

Here is the math. Suppose you can hire a junior offshore developer at $1,600 per month from a direct-contract marketplace, versus a vetted $2,800 per month mid-level developer through a managed provider. The headline difference is $1,200 per month or $14,400 per year. If the cheap hire does not work out and you have to replace them after 4 months, you have lost $6,400 of paid time, plus roughly 60-80 hours of your team's management and interview time on the bad hire, plus another cycle of ramp time on the replacement. That is easily $15,000 of hidden cost on a $14,400 headline savings.

The diminishing returns effect is strongest for roles where the cost of a bad hire is high: technical roles, roles that touch customers, and roles with access to sensitive data. It is weaker for roles where the work is easily reversible and the hire is readily replaceable. Even for the latter category, the practical ceiling on savings is around 80-82% of US loaded cost — below that, you are typically trading quality or management overhead for headline rate, and the trade is rarely worth it.

Quality vs price: the curve you should actually model

The honest way to think about offshore pricing is as a curve, not a single point. On the cheap end, you get maximum headline savings but maximum management overhead and quality variance. On the expensive end, you get minimum management overhead and high quality but smaller headline savings. The sweet spot for most companies is in the middle, where the headline savings is 70-78% and the management overhead is low because the talent is already vetted.

Managed providers like Remoteria are priced for that middle of the curve. The rate is not the absolute cheapest available in any region, but it includes the vetting, compliance, and replacement guarantee that push the total-cost-of-ownership below the DIY alternatives. For first-time offshore buyers, that middle of the curve is almost always the right place to start. Once a company has built internal offshore-management muscle, they can optionally move toward DIY on the edges to capture a few more percentage points of savings — but only after the muscle is in place.

The sweet spot is the middle of the curve: 70-78% headline savings with low management overhead. Chasing the last 5% of rate savings usually costs more than it saves in the first year.

Frequently asked questions