I don't wish to sound harsh, but you've got selective blinders on to the arguments that favor your position. And your position is arguing from the point of vie

I don't wish to sound harsh, but you've got selective blinders on to the arguments that favor your position. And your position is arguing from the point of view of someone who already has the benefit of a job in a company and asking the company to justify itself why they don't pay you more. Here's a different point of view. A company can choose to consider people for work either close to their offices or remote. People who get hired close to offices come with an expectation that they will go in to work at some point, and be collaborative and possibly more effective than people who are remote. This point is debatable, but is up to the company to determine for itself whether it's true or worth the premium. There is a limited set of people living close to offices, and costs of living are generally higher, and pay reflects those factors. If the company is to consider people who are remote and are not going to be coming in to work, that opens up practically the entire world for them as a labor pool (modulo time zone issues, etc). People in many other countries get paid far less and are willing to do much more work for the same pay than in the US. If you are remote, you are competing against the labor pool that is similarly situated. If you can show that your value is disproportionate to the average, maybe you can negotiate. Try to reason through things in a way that reflects more objective reality rather than your perception of it, or your feelings. No one is "forcing" you to migrate or do anything. You are seeking high pay and remote work. You're totally free to go out there and find the company that's offering that. Your company is offering pay and a job, at rates that you can decide to accept or decline. You make your choices, and either feel good about them, or not.