I'm really torn on this issue. On the hand, it seems to make sense to pay people based on the value they deliver for the company, not where they live while delivering it. On the other hand, the reality is that some regions have higher costs of living than others. Somehow, the salary needs to take that into account.
Imagine if all tech companies went fully remote and kept paying about the same salary level as they do now. Employees moving to lower income regions would no doubt upheaval the local economy (e.g., housing).
But then again, this would probably regulate itself in the longer run.
Finally, why would only remote companies be upheld to this standard?
As someone that lives in a HCOL area (and generally likes it) I think I agree.
If I reduced my “quality of life” by eating out less and saving money, my company’s not going to pay me any less. Why should they start paying me less if I reduce my QoL by moving to somewhere I’d enjoy living in less that’s cheaper.
Sure. But if you're working for a non-remote company, you need to live in the area where the company offices are. In that case, your expenses naturally go up.
There is potentially also some premium companies should be willing to pay to employ people who live in locations that have reliable infrastructure, strong legal institutions, and stable government.
Imagine if all tech companies went fully remote and kept paying about the same salary level as they do now. Employees moving to lower income regions would no doubt upheaval the local economy (e.g., housing).
But then again, this would probably regulate itself in the longer run.
Finally, why would only remote companies be upheld to this standard?