I think that was the point the author was making. It's not the employers decision on your location adjusted wealth sccumulation opportunity, or how he puts it h

I think that was the point the author was making. It's not the employers decision on your location adjusted wealth sccumulation opportunity, or how he puts it how many goats you get. He's basically advocating for global market value. The side effect here is that individuals are free to maximize their wealth by choosing to live where they can best maximize their wealth. This allows the individual to chose what is valuable to them - dollars/goats or the intangibles of a location, e.g. sunshine, culture, freedom, family, etc. This makes some sense for the individual where you have global scarcity. This enhances the competition for the individual's skill where geography in many cases presents a real barrier. For example in non-distributed workplaces you are essentially up against a sort of implicit collusion to minimize rates, the local market demand for your skill.