[toomanyrichies]

The above seems to put the lie to the argument I've often heard that the justification for these cost-of-living adjustments is that in-person employees deliver more value than remote employees.

If this were indeed the reason for the salary adjustment, it wouldn't matter whether an employee was moving to Santa Cruz, San Mateo, or San Salvador. Either way they're remote, and unless one city has markedly different internet bandwidth, the value that a given employee delivers from any remote location should be the same.

Next time I hear someone making this argument, I'm calling BS. It's a bald-faced attempt for the company to capture value which rightfully belongs to the employee.

[tick_tock_tick]

> The above seems to put the lie to the argument I've often heard that the justification for these cost-of-living adjustments is that in-person employees deliver more value than remote employees.

Only the horribly uninformed would ever make such a bad faith argument. You've never been paid based on your "value" but rather what it takes to keep you as an employee. The company only wants to pay you enough to keep you and if you move some place cheap well they don't need to offer as much.

[bo1024]

> The company only wants to pay you enough to keep you and if you move some place cheap well they don't need to offer as much.

I think that depends what your other options are. It might work if everyone in the industry offers you less based on where you live, which is almost collusion in my opinion.

[toomanyrichies]

> Only the horribly uninformed would ever make such a bad faith argument.

Nevertheless, it's one that I've heard repeated quite often.