> the company would be offering the “best” salary to employees in the lowest cost of living places, and so the incentives would lead these places to be dramatic

> the company would be offering the “best” salary to employees in the lowest cost of living places, and so the incentives would lead these places to be dramatically over-represented relative to higher cost of living places What’s the concern here, exactly? If you’re hiring into a remote team, and you locate an employee who possesses the requisite qualifications, integrates well into the team, fits the culture, is available during the hours required, proves themselves trustworthy, etc., — just hire them. If your business is doing well, the extra calculation on whether we can pay this hire less because of where they live seems disingenuous; chances are, the savings convert into bonus money for someone in upper management regardless. (If you’re strapped for cash—bootstrapping or not willing to trade control for investor money—chances are you’re already not offering competitive rates to residents of costly areas anyway.) My guess is that the companies that see it as a problem either (1) don’t have a strong remote culture, or (2) are trying to compensate for suboptimal hiring practices (e.g., candidates from more affluent areas tend to possess some qualities the company wants but can’t select for directly).