It seems to me companies can either pay for the work, and how valuable it is to them, or pay by need, ie 'cost of living'. But in the latter case, they should

It seems to me companies can either pay for the work, and how valuable it is to them, or pay by need, ie 'cost of living'. But in the latter case, they should also be paying people with families more than singles, for example. Since that is not the case, I can't see how they can justify 'cost of living' adjustments. Quite apart from the fact that the cost-of-living indices are often wildly incomparable. For example, sending your kids to a state school in Norway, vs for example Equatorial Guinea. Obviously in the latter case, you actually need to send the kids to an often ludicrously expensive expat school to obtain even the same ball-park level of education, and so even though the cost of just living may be much lower, it is actually more expensive to maintain a comparable lifestyle.