So your position is a company should pay the same $ for the same job, no matter where the person lives?
Why would I ever hire someone that lives in SF/Cali/NY?
In fact, why would I hire someone that lives in the US?
Why would I ever hire someone that lives in SF/Cali/NY?
In fact, why would I hire someone that lives in the US?
You're not. You're paying based on how much it would cost to find somebody to do the work. You're paying for time, not value. Profit comes from the difference between the two.
The cost of finding somebody to do with work is always going to be tiny compared to the cost of paying someone to do the work.
If their work does not have a value at least as high as what it will cost to pay them to do the work, you're not likely to hire them. If their work does have a value equal to or higher than what you will pay them, you have a reason to hire them.
The cost of finding an employee can be significant, but pales compares to the actual cost of paying them.
If someone else appears equally capable and willing to work for half or a quarter of what you are, it doesn’t matter much what the work is worth, they’re going to get the job much more often than you will.
Employees want to get the most attractive compensation they can from an employer. Employers are not that different in this regard, in the other direction.
In a sense we do because they (sometimes but increasingly) get paid leave and also drive up health insurance costs. As far as health insurance goes it never seemed fair to me that spouses and children get their health care subsidized by the employer.
Yes, no one should get paid less for the same work just cause they live in a cheaper area. Not to mention living in SF, NYC gives you way more opportunities than living in a low col, people don't seem to ever think of that point.
Suppose that company X wants to hire me, and they want me to move to NYC and I say "there's no way I'm living in NYC unless you pay me an extra $30k a year to be based in that hellhole". They really want to hire me because I'm the best candidate, and they believe I'm so good that even with the extra $30k compensation, it is still in their best interests? Should they be allowed to do this?
Conversely, company Y wants to hire me but are fine with me continuing to live in rural NM where my cost of living is relatively low. They offer me less than the a Sausalito-based employee doing similar work for them. I dispute this, and they point out that I don't even pay $3k a year in property taxes. I think about it for a while, and realize that my quality of life/disposable income will at least match if not exceed the person in Sausalito. I decide to accept the offer. Should they prevented from doing this?
And go ahead and hire someone in a high CoL area — if your pay bands are flat across all people working a position and the job is remote, it’s honestly easier. Any variable comp for performance / seniority can be handled with a bonus structure.