I'm not sure I totally understand what they are trying to say, but it sounds like - if you pay people more money in areas where they don't usually get more money - it is bad for those places?
The more interesting part of the quote from the article for me was this:
"Companies spin this by explaining they are merely paying people based on their cost of living, but this is absurd: do we increase someone’s salary when their spouse loses their job or when their kid goes to college? Do we slash it when they inherit money from their deceased parent or move in with someone? The answer to all of these is no, of course not: we pay people based on their work, not their costs."
My point is that it’s important to recognize the external impact of decisions alongside the internal, particularly if you’re making decisions on principle and evaluating them on that metric.
The more interesting part of the quote from the article for me was this:
"Companies spin this by explaining they are merely paying people based on their cost of living, but this is absurd: do we increase someone’s salary when their spouse loses their job or when their kid goes to college? Do we slash it when they inherit money from their deceased parent or move in with someone? The answer to all of these is no, of course not: we pay people based on their work, not their costs."