What's wrong with targeting equal disposable incomes (after covering essentials like housing/schools/childcare etc)?
I see this in my field where I work remote and most people in my field work in NYC or London. My gross income is way lower than my former classmates who settled in NYC. However I have a bigger house, equally good school and childcare for 1/10th the annual cost etc. Don't see why I should get a salary that reflects the massively inflated cost of living in a city that I don't live in. Instead I think it should be about targeting a quality of life commensurate with the contribution made & scarceness of the skillset. The cost of providing that quality of life will vary dramatically between someone living in a rural area vs San Francisco and so should the pay imo.
I see this in my field where I work remote and most people in my field work in NYC or London. My gross income is way lower than my former classmates who settled in NYC. However I have a bigger house, equally good school and childcare for 1/10th the annual cost etc. Don't see why I should get a salary that reflects the massively inflated cost of living in a city that I don't live in. Instead I think it should be about targeting a quality of life commensurate with the contribution made & scarceness of the skillset. The cost of providing that quality of life will vary dramatically between someone living in a rural area vs San Francisco and so should the pay imo.