[yongjik]

I'm not sure that the example is similar to the current topic: rent is cheaper than Morgan Hill largely because it takes an hour to drive to lots of workplaces. People are choosing between paying higher rent in Mountain View and paying with their commute time in Morgan Hill.

It's arguably a different scenario from someone attending VC from their $400K, 5-bedroom mansion in Raleigh, NC.

[IggleSniggle]

But that's also sort of the point, isn't it? When you are dealing with a remote worker, the commute time doesn't matter. You don't need to consider paying geographical based salaries, because the location isn't relevant. There is no "paying with commute time."

You just need to pay the amount that enables you to get the workers you need. The "fair" thing to do is to pay people without regard to location and let them decide for themselves whether it is worth it to live in a HCOL area or not.

[yongjik]

Well, in an ideal, completely efficient market for remote workers, of course the "fair" thing to do is to pay for enough salary to hire the best people in Prague or Bangalore. People can decide whether they want to live in San Francisco with that salary. Most people can't, so naturally there will be a diaspora spreading out to low-cost areas, and rent in SF will drop until the area can be "competitive" again.

But this dry description involves a ton of economic/social upheaval, which we (the society) really wouldn't like to deal with, especially right now. (Not to mention a "completely fair market" is an illusion: you can't just fire your entire team on the bay area and hire replacements from Bangalore.) So a compromise is reached, where companies try to keep people they have now at roughly the same price they're paying now, with ugly, stop-gap measures to dissuade people from getting ahead of the equation.

I'm not saying we should thank Facebook - it's behaving completely in its own interest - but people who complain that this isn't "fair" might want to answer what's their position on the logical conclusion of a "fair market" for remote workers.

[IggleSniggle]

You've given voice to exactly what I intended in my comment, but didn't quite have the words to say. Thanks

[cortesoft]

Right, but they know they don't have to pay that remote worker as much to keep them, because that remote worker doesn't have as many options with where to work... or at least, that was the case before EVERYONE became remote workers.

Companies always pay as little as they need to in order to retain the talent pool they feel is required to do the job they want. They aren't going to pay someone more than they HAVE to out of fairness.

If all companies are remote and competing for workers everywhere in the world, you will see geographic salary discrepancies disappear... slowly.

[gridlockd]

> You just need to pay the amount that enables you to get the workers you need.

That depends on where these workers already live or are willing to live. You can't get enough applicants from Silicon Valley if you pay too little, you get way more remote applicants than you need if you pay too much.

> The "fair" thing to do is to pay people without regard to location and let them decide for themselves whether it is worth it to live in a HCOL area or not.

That's just not how pricing works. If I can work from anywhere without even having to commute, I'll be willing to do that for far less money. I don't think that's unfair at all, after all my quality of life will be as good or better.

[akhilcacharya]

lol I grew up in Raleigh NC, and 5 bedroom mansions are not $400k, they're closer to $1mil even on the outskirts of town.