[heelix]

I live about six miles or so from the office. I'm so much more productive (and end up working far longer) at home than in the cattle car hotel configuration. I dislike the idea that they might try to pitch things as 'pay less' if I'm more productive. If I'm in the office, I've lost the day. WFH should not be a reason to make less - it should be considered a benefit like a gym membership. If folks use it, the company comes out ahead in the end.

[lolinder]

Pure WFH will naturally tend to translate to making less if you're currently living in a high CoL area, because there are lots of us living in low CoL areas for whom 75% of a Bay Area salary would be a huge raise.

If a remote-first company can give someone in a nearby time zone with the same language and cultural background and the same skillset a tempting offer while saving themselves 25% of their salary band, they're going to do it. It's not because they think you're less productive, it's because they're now looking in a wider job market with more competition from people who need less money to live.

The converse is also true: if you're living in a low CoL area, WFH can actually bring you a huge pay increase, because salaries balance out somewhere in the middle.

(I'll add that I strongly believe that where you live should not impact your income if you're in a remote company, for the reasons you list: if you're in the same country as everyone else, your location of residency has no impact on your value to the company.)