Like most fallacies they sound in the right but they are deprived of true sense.
Your personal cost cannot be a determinant of your compensation. Get into a huge dept or whatever and see whether your employer adjust your comp due to your particularly high must expenses or lunatic lifestyle.
What does make sense is what the market says is true. Even when it isn't.
Back then location was a predictor of a delta in compensation and that's exactly because there was no other way than to go to the office, hence be nearby.
Behind the fallacy is simply that they want to pick from the global pool of talent thanks to remote work, and want to use the location facfor to also lower the wage burden as they are at it.
There is a job market, i agree we should all put a stop to the non sense and if all goes well we can also start to ask ourselves why certain individuals are able to move to a limited number of locations in the world, other individuals having about the same profile only able to move to a more limited number of locations, and among those some only able to move to an even more limited number of places.
While political reasons also involved it doesn't make them ethically justifyable. A defence for more remote work and compensation not tied to location of the worker moves the needle towards the more justice direction.
Like most fallacies they sound in the right but they are deprived of true sense.
Your personal cost cannot be a determinant of your compensation. Get into a huge dept or whatever and see whether your employer adjust your comp due to your particularly high must expenses or lunatic lifestyle.
What does make sense is what the market says is true. Even when it isn't. Back then location was a predictor of a delta in compensation and that's exactly because there was no other way than to go to the office, hence be nearby.
Behind the fallacy is simply that they want to pick from the global pool of talent thanks to remote work, and want to use the location facfor to also lower the wage burden as they are at it.
There is a job market, i agree we should all put a stop to the non sense and if all goes well we can also start to ask ourselves why certain individuals are able to move to a limited number of locations in the world, other individuals having about the same profile only able to move to a more limited number of locations, and among those some only able to move to an even more limited number of places.
While political reasons also involved it doesn't make them ethically justifyable. A defence for more remote work and compensation not tied to location of the worker moves the needle towards the more justice direction.