My guess is this. Many companies are thinking about geo-readjustment. The true primary reason is that they want to lower their costs, given that a significant p

My guess is this. Many companies are thinking about geo-readjustment. The true primary reason is that they want to lower their costs, given that a significant portion of their employees reside in high cost of living location (Bay Area, Seattle, or any European capital). However, my bet is that this is going to pan out poorly in the next couple of years and the scheme will need to be abandoned or thought over. First, there are plenty of people who will want to live in San Francisco, New York or London even when they are no longer required to do so for work. This means that their high cost of living stays with them. This means they can only accept job offers that support it. Another thing may turn out to be true. When employees are informed that their salary will be lowered when they move to another location, this may not sit well with them. So they may not move or they will have a strong sense of resentment. Basically in 1-2 years, we'll realize that what works in theory creates too many unnecessary problems and is not the way to go forward.