> The non-strawman argument is "equal pay for equal work" But that's also a logically problematic notion in the sense that it's a complete utopia given how our

> The non-strawman argument is "equal pay for equal work" But that's also a logically problematic notion in the sense that it's a complete utopia given how our world currently operates (i.e. there's a reason why most of your clothes are made in China or thereabouts) and, on top of that, it's a self-defeating idea. The logical conclusion of that line of thinking - an ad absurdum, if you ask me - is that everyone gets paid the same for similar work, and therefore also have to accept 2M house prices, including the folks making your socks in Malaysia. In reality, though, you don't get to have a cake and eat it too, that's literally the basis of how inflation works (and why Austin folks resent Californians for example). You do raise a good point about strictly WFH jobs vs locality-dependent jobs (e.g. a McDonalds worker has to be physically present at a location) and I think it ties a bit into why management is often reluctant to go forward w/ WFH policies: management is largely about multiplicative effects, and there can be very tangible differences in in-office vs WFH depending on timezones (in fact, I know a consulting company that very successfully convinced their clients that offshoring is more expensive than a north american workforce due to time lost on back and forth communication with India timezones)