[graerg]

>I can't see how one could reasonably rationalize that one worker is delivering less value to the company simply because they live somewhere different than the other.

I can definitely _see_ how one could make that argument. In some cases there is absolutely value that comes from in-person interaction. I'd argue it's far less than the salary difference between someone in Little Rock, AR and the Bay Area, though.

If an employer wants to make the case that there's value to in-person interaction, I don't think that's particularly outlandish, and it forces them to put a number on how much they value those interactions, which can then be benchmarked and tested.

[SketchySeaBeast]

You're right - there could be value in a local worker - but I'm assuming we're comparing two remote workers.