| > Workers in a lower-cost area simply get more for their salary, independent of their life choices. I would argue that where you live is about as much of a life choice as whether you have a child. Is "I live in oakland vs downtown SF" a life choice, or is that independent of life choices? That seems like it has the same tradeoff more or less as living in SF vs NC, but doesn't have a change in pay because it's "close enough" to SF still. > different areas simply have different purchasing power outside of that. I agree that avocado toast is $15 in SF and $8 in NC, so you do have different purchasing power. This applies less and less to stuff though. The latest PS5 or a month of a c5.xlarge AWS instance for your side project or month of netflix all cost the same no matter where you live. Why do we care about the cost of living wrt location though, and not wrt any other factors? I choose to live in NC, so things cost less. Why pay me less? I didn't choose to have some illness that maxes out my deductible each year, but I get paid the same total amount as my coworker without this illness, and thus my effective salary is lower. My cost of living is higher because of this immutable characteristic (a health problem), which is far less a lifestyle choice than where I live. There are many factors that change the effective value of a dollar to a worker, and it seems quite weird to care about location only, and nothing else, from the perspective of "fairness". To be clear about my opinion as to why this happens: I don't think this is actually about CoL or financial fairness, as you seem to espouse. IMO, it's entirely about competing with other companies for the same talent pool, and those other companies currently being either local, or also doing CoL adjustment. That's the only thing that makes sense (that it's done because everyone does it). This also neatly explains the Oakland/SF split being different than the SF/NC split. |