For sure I see the argument there: it is way more of a pain in the ass to show up to an office on Market Street than chilling wherever you want. And if that was

For sure I see the argument there: it is way more of a pain in the ass to show up to an office on Market Street than chilling wherever you want. And if that was their stated argument, I'd have no problem with it. However, that this not the argument these people are making. The argument I see time and again is that your compensation should be location-adjusted based on cost of living. And by making that argument, they are clearly saying you are—or are not—entitled to a certain degree of living, which is where it gets creepy, inappropriate and inevitably abusive. And why do I say creepy? Because saying that a person does or does not deserve a certain lifestyle, and saying that they will or will not facilitate that lifestyle for you, crosses a boundary into your personal life that degrades you as an independent individual who is entitled to decide whether or not you do basic things like saving money. Instead of treating you like a person, they treat you and force you to conceive of yourself some sort of "lifestyle consumer." Sure, some people just have no leverage. But normalizing this way if thinking is going to lead us down an even worse labor path than we are on right now. Your employer is not your legal guardian.