> why they shouldn’t just pay people based on what they offer the job rather than where they choose to live? Your salary is determined by what a competitor wou

> why they shouldn’t just pay people based on what they offer the job rather than where they choose to live? Your salary is determined by what a competitor would offer you. Nothing else, forget about your output, adding value, increasing profits, your cost of living, or whatever. When you are in SF and most importantly, are willing to physically into the office, then there can be only so many available workers. This means high competition from companies for workers. When you are remote, there may be many more available workers, so less competition from companies. Naturally, companies / managers try to bend the negotiation in their favor by trying to convince you that your cost of living is lower (happened to me). My advice is to shut this argument down immediately, be willing to get up and leave (for one of the many other real companies willing to hire you). IMHO it's OK to get a different salary when not in a big city, after all, both sides play the negotiation game. You get access to a bigger pool of companies too, you just have to share it with more workers (probably). On a society-level it's absurd that a SF dweller gets a million dollar mortgage subsidy, and you in rural Canada get (let's say) a 100k mortgage only - for the same productive output. All while crying about city/countryside inequality.