> I expect make a San Francisco salary working remotely from other countries
I don't even making a San Francisco salary working not remotely in the US. It should be illegal to pay people different wages based on where they live, but it's not. Companies pay the market value of labor in a given region.
Why should it be illegal? Framed from the other side, people are willing to take less salary if they live somewhere more affordable. My mortgage is half the price of my last apartment in the Bay Area, and while I won't take half the salary of my Bay Area job I'm not going to cry over the 15% difference between what companies are paying for locals out there and working remote out here (which is competitive with local companies). In some ways it makes me more marketable as a candidate.
There are many things about employment that should be illegal (at-will employment, enforceable non competes, ownership over IP, etc) but taking away the ability of either company or candidate to determine their compensation is a terrible idea that makes outcomes worse. It's as bad as banded salaries or any other kind of standardized pay scales.
Or perhaps you could argue living in a cheap place in the middle of nowhere allows a more spacious and comfortable work environment which is more productive and thus produces better work, so someone living like that should get more money, not less.
I dont think it should be illegal, companies exist to make as much profit as possible. I work to make as high of a salary as possible. My life us privileged, right now I make almost 5x what a local engineer would make. I also pay more than a local engineer’s salary in child support and get fuck-all in benefits for my americam taxes so I have to save more.
I don't even making a San Francisco salary working not remotely in the US. It should be illegal to pay people different wages based on where they live, but it's not. Companies pay the market value of labor in a given region.