Fair enough. But it would seem that for a remote worker, the value for the company comes from what they produce, not from where they produce it from. To me, th

Fair enough. But it would seem that for a remote worker, the value for the company comes from what they produce, not from where they produce it from. To me, this would instead be an argument that "since engineers are equal, might as well get the cheapest one". Which is an argument I can understand, even if I don't agree. But this would mean that your compensation would be mostly fixed, and you'd mostly look for people living in cheaper places, since this should give you a better bang for your buck. Which would mean, basically, that you'd be looking to pay en engineer in San Francisco the same as one living in a tent in Africa. If they're the same, why would you pay 100x more for the one in SF?