[Nerevarine76]

Why would it not be? It's a mutual transaction. If an developer in kansas is willing to accept less than the bay area worker, whose living expenses are twice as much, who is anyone to say that's not allowed? If you forced them to be paid the same then one of them will not be working for you even if they want to; either because you can't afford to hire them both or the bay area engineer can't live on the salary.

[lordfoom]

>Why would it not be?

Because they did the same work?

>who is anyone to say that's not allowed?

I didn't say it's not allowed. I think it's poor business practice, and poor for society, incentivizing devs to stay in expensive areas instead of moving out to cheaper remote areas.

>If you forced them to be paid the same then one of them will not be working for you even if they want to; either because you can't afford to hire them both or the bay area engineer can't live on the salary.

That is speculation and I speculate you are wrong.

[Nerevarine76]

It's not speculation, it's economics. If you have to pay a higher wage the number of available jobs decrease. It's supply and demand. There's not an infinite amount of money in a company's budget.

It's also not a company's job to incentivize where it's employees live.

I understand where you're coming from but there's nothing inherently wrong with paying different wages for the same work if it's a consensual agreement. If one worker is satisfied with his salary, and is being paid well for his area, the only reason to complain about a worker in a costlier area being paid more is envy/jealousy.