"Cost of living" is personal and largely not the company's business. If my spend is $X per month, it's $X, it doesn't matter what portion of that goes to rent or mortgage. When circumstances change that shifts the portion of housing, most people don't pocket the savings, but instead just shift it to other things. Sometimes even for better housing. It's a rare individual who will save instead, and even rarer to unnecessarily subject oneself to lower quality something for savings, like the SF Google employee living in his car, driving his cost of living as far as rent was concerned to $0, cheaper even than the corn fields of Iowa.
But companies will keep trying to do these "adjustments" so long as they keep getting away with it. Consider fighting it, and finding out how valuable you really are in the process. Similarly with WFH "adjustments" -- given intent for a coming pay reduction, you should instead counter with a demand for a pay increase, because you're no longer contributing to the costs of having an office space.
I live internationally, and the cost of moving between countries on a regular basis pretty much negates the savings of the cheaper locales vs the more expensive ones.
On the one hand, I don’t expect my employer to pay me more because I live this way, but on the other hand my salary expectations are not calibrated to the cheapest locale in the mix because that would be insane.
My hunch is the “WFH == pay cut” thing is just a cover for redistributing money to the employees with leverage, because they are (perceived to be) more valuable.
That, among other reasons, like wanting more or nicer things, across many possible dimensions of meaning for 'nice'. Same reasons at play for why when people get a raise, or take a job with higher pay, the surplus is rarely converted fully into savings. Another though also not the only reason left is a simple "keeping up with the Jones'" mentality, though this problem may affect Americans more.
It's useful to be aware that the median American household has $1000/mo in surplus funds after all 'ordinary expenses', which notably are greater than 'necessary expenses' the 'living wage' people tend to focus on. But that $12k/yr typically gets spent rather than saved or invested.
> That isn’t the fault of the employer.
Nope, nor is it really their business, so they shouldn't try, and people should fight, these underhanded "adjustment" tactics of "oh, you moved to an area where the average rent is $1000/mo less, these common foods are a bit cheaper, etc., so clearly you can get by on less now, and so we'll cut your salary by x%." (Typically being a percentage cut rather than global absolute amount cut is another indicator of its badness.) Even the hypothetical reverse case of moving back and getting an increase is false generosity; if moving back raises my cost floor, I'm not going to do it unless I can afford to, automatic adjustment or not, and it's very possible the divined adjusted increase might not be high enough.
Or does it only count if you're talking someone's sole and primary mortgage and where that's physically located? Even mortgages can vary wildly. In my city I can buy a condo for $100k or I could buy a mansion for 5 million dollars. My cost of living will vary drastically depending on what I decide to get.
If there's enough remote positions and they're generally seen as equally desirable as in person positions we might even see everywhere going to a single market within national boundaries regardless of remote or in person, which would be quite interesting.
If they are only going to work remotely (i.e. in a remote market), I don't see how this works steady-state. If there's no benefit to having an employee in SF vs. Austin, I'll just start paying a premium to non-SF residents and pull away non-SF talent from Google. Eventually, this should all equalize to remote workers being paid equally.
https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/google-exec-remote-work-wfh...