I agree. The first step to fixing or avoiding a problem is knowing it's there. It's great to be able to have a little more understanding of what companies are

I agree. The first step to fixing or avoiding a problem is knowing it's there. It's great to be able to have a little more understanding of what companies are thinking when they try to judge an employees value based on location rather than... value provided to the company. I think the dynamics are pretty interesting. Forgive me if this seems like a not so humble brag, but I'm remote and paid way more than anyone at buffer. I also have a pretty decent network of remote friends at my company and at other good companies. With that in mind I can tell you that the practical effect of Buffer's policies is that they have decided to self-select for developers who are currently underpaid and historically have not had their pick of good jobs. Because otherwise they'd be taking a pretty big paycut to work at buffer and, while possible, it seems unlikely that social media management is a dream job for many developers. So the entire open policy, no matter it's surface intent, is basically a policy to grab sub-par talent. Especially insecure talent who is willing to buy into "radical transparency". Meanwhile, my base is pretty close to their CEO's compensation, but I live in a low COL area. It turns out that the marketplace is competitive enough right now that it's a viable bargaining technique to say "pay me X, where X < Value provided" and some companies will, without arguing (as if the argument made any sense at all) that many people in your zip code make < X. I guess that was a really long winded way of saying that buffer has implemented policies that self-screen out the best developers, which is fine. You probably don't need the best developers to send tweets on a schedule.