Rants that start off without defining what or with whom they're arguing really come across as "Old man yells at cloud".
Of the limited samples I've seen "cost of living" is a fraction of base salary. They're not paying so that on-site staff live a champagne lifestyle. It's "how much does x need to live, eat and get to work". Cheaper housing, zero commute, etc all mean remotes "need" less to achieve this level.
Labour is also a marketplace. A big city, for all its sins, attracts more companies. And there are usually many times more on-site positions than remote (role dependant). So the best employees from a distinct location are scarce, and competed for.
People who work remote can be adult about this. They get other non-monetary benefits from not having to commute, seeing their family, having a bigger house (hey, even just owning their house), lower rates of crime, etc, etc, etc. Living in a city can be hard work in itself.
More than anything, they can argue their worth, they could move, or they could find another job.
> It's "how much does x need to live, eat and get to work".
Employers should not care about these things. It should be, "I need three devs and I can afford to pay each $X." It absolutely should not matter where they're located if they're allowing remote work.
Edit: Let me put this another way. You live where the company headquarters are but they're a remote company. During negotiations, do you think it would be fair if the employer asks if you ever intend to move? They should not be allowed to ask this any more than they can ask a women if she intends to ever have children. It's not their business and it should have no bearing on if they hire you and at what rate.
> During negotiations, do you think it would be fair if the employer asks if you ever intend to move?
Yes. Clearly you are ignoring the reality of different labor laws in different places, and making sure the company is prepared to meet the needs of the law.
For example, when I worked at a small 5 person startup based in NYC, we hired a remote dev in St. Louis. Our cool tech-startup HR software _was not able to pay him_ because they were not prepared to operate in St. Louis. It took like about a month and a half to get that sorted.
Your logic is nice, but it fails to account for the realities of the world. Buisnesses will reduce risk in any way possible, and the situation you are describing is literally unlimited downside risk for the business. Those are nice signals to employees but create new overhead and problems for the business.
> I need three devs and I can afford to pay each $X.
Okay so far, but if market prices dicatate that they could hire four devs for $X0.7, then wouldn't it make sense to do that? Or still hire three devs at $X0.7 while reducing the company burn rate and extend their runway?
Don't get me wrong, as an employee I'd be thrilled if an employer wanted to overpay me in relation to my peers (meaning those who do what I do, where I do it), but I'm not going to expect it.
Of the limited samples I've seen "cost of living" is a fraction of base salary. They're not paying so that on-site staff live a champagne lifestyle. It's "how much does x need to live, eat and get to work". Cheaper housing, zero commute, etc all mean remotes "need" less to achieve this level.
Labour is also a marketplace. A big city, for all its sins, attracts more companies. And there are usually many times more on-site positions than remote (role dependant). So the best employees from a distinct location are scarce, and competed for.
People who work remote can be adult about this. They get other non-monetary benefits from not having to commute, seeing their family, having a bigger house (hey, even just owning their house), lower rates of crime, etc, etc, etc. Living in a city can be hard work in itself.
More than anything, they can argue their worth, they could move, or they could find another job.