[dragonwriter]

> In reality it has nothing to do with fairness

Well, yes, when I argued against the idea it was fair without also arguing against the clear fact that it occurs, I was rather clearly saying that the fact that it occurs has nothing to do with fairness.

> it's a result of real market conditions

Yes, specifically, the absence of robust competition for remote labor of the precise kinds Gitlab is buying is the “real market condition” that allows them to do this kind of segmentation.

Ironically, the more attention (and copycats) all-remote firms like Gitlab get, the less viable this cost-saving tactic will be, provided that they don't involve in illegal (in many jurisdictions) joint cooperation to limit wages of the type that, unfortunately, tech firms have engaged in in local markets in the past.

[meowface]

Starting a remote company is a cost-saving tactic, and the ability to often not have to pay SF salaries can be a motivating factor, especially in the early stages of the company.

[dragonwriter]

Sure, if you make a cost-optimization rather than fairness argument for Gitlab’s policy—that it's simply a way of paying every employee the minimum they can get away with—I won’t argue against that.

[meowface]

Well, it's both cost saving and fairness, I think. It just seems like common sense to me. If one employee by default has to subtract something like $4000 from their monthly income to cover living expenses, and another has to subtract something like $700, then the employee who subtracts less is taking home way more money if they're getting the same salary. The other employee is being punished for where they live.