[storafrid]

I'm not hearing a counter-argument. The company needs to get good people to work for them. And this is a way of getting someone from a high-cost location to work for them. If the location's higher living expenses aren't covered for, the person would be unable to take the job. I don't know if you mean that the company should adjust their lowest pay according to the world's most expensive location, but that would probably not sustain the business.

[stephenr]

> this is a way of getting someone from a high-cost location to work for them

Why is that a requirement? Do you somehow think the Bay Area has a monopoly on good developers?

[storafrid]

If the company finds a person that they want to recruit, and that person happen to live in a high-cost location, they will need to pay up in order for the recruitment to happen. The only alternative would be to offer relocation to a lower-cost region. It doesn't have anything to do with any requirement. It's just a result from the way the world works.

[stephenr]

Given that most people aren't hired that way, it's more like:

If a person wants to work for the company but their offered salary isn't high enough to sustain a high cost of living environment, the person will need to either move or find another job.

The company has literally the entire world to find staff - that's the whole point of remote workers.

[jospoortvliet]

True. Still, I think most companies will take cost of living in the area where the potential employee lives into account. When thinking about it it seems odd, indeed. I guess it is kind of normal and expected. But entirely rational it is not.