Sorry, I think this is a pretty pedantic distinction. It's along the lines of argument that your employer can't make anything mandatory, because you can always

Sorry, I think this is a pretty pedantic distinction. It's along the lines of argument that your employer can't make anything mandatory, because you can always quit and work for another company. But anyway, if you follow the logic of the thread, it was: (A) location-based pay is justified because of location-based cost of living --> (B) then is car-based pay justified because of car-based cost of living? --> (C) no, cars are a personal choice --> (D) your car is as much a personal choice as your location; it's only not a personal choice to the extent that your employer pays you to choose in a particular way, so using that reasoning to justify location-based pay is begging the question --> (E) your reply, that location is a personal choice, which is a counter to the claim (C), not to my response (D). As far as negotiation goes, you might be amazed the extent to which companies are willing to shoot themselves in the foot to stand by their non-negotiable policy. I've seen it. And the calculus is this: you might be so skilled that you're a bargain even at $1 million, but if they pay you that much, it increases the market value of other skilled workers in your area. And if the market discovers this information, that might cost the employer a lot, even though it has nothing to do with you. So they'll tell you you can have the $X you want, but only if you move to a city where other skilled workers are already being paid that much, even though they don't actually care what office you're at, or even if you work remote full-time anyway.