So the explanation on why this is alright is that if the remote worker was earning the same kind of money then it would make people in her surrounding area mise

So the explanation on why this is alright is that if the remote worker was earning the same kind of money then it would make people in her surrounding area miserable as she'd have much more money than everyone else. Except... it would actually help everyone in her area because she will have much more money to spend around which would benefit local businesses? And the good thing is that because people would be spread all over the country then this wealth won't concentrate in one single area (which will lead to inflation in the local prices, as we see in SF). This person says they've worked in tech and HR for a while but I don't think they've ever opened an economics textbook. All in all, Google does this not because they think it's the best for workers, but because if they can pay someone in Nebraska 80k instead of the 140k they would pay them in SF they will be saving a significant amount of money. That's the bottom line. The truth is that Google will outsource as much work as it can, as people learn how to work online more efficiently it'll be much easier for Google to start hiring people in Argentina, Pakistan, Colombia, who knows. I think a lot of people forget that automation and off-shoring are basically the same to any local employees and what Google is looking for is being able to get the work done with as little money as possible, in the end, that's one of the most profitable ways to run a business.