What do you think when someone with 3 years experience gets paid more than someone with 12 years experience simply because they live in California, when the 12 year lives in Alabama?
And just to make that clear: I don’t know or assume how the author goes about that, I’m just pointing that out as a general pattern.
Of course, it's hard to generalise about situations where specifics are key.
Maybe you are are just ignorant to the fact that so many companies default to actually paying remote employees double, and even more, if their location is in the right spot in the USA... for the SAME years of experience, job, and work. I personally know people who pay rent in a 1:1 in New York just for the salary, but actually live and work from South America.
Thanks for telling me what I would think, but honestly it would be no different for any of those professions. If you're still doing exactly the same job 9 years later, the real problem is elsewhere.
And CoL-adjusted salaries kind of make sense and have always seemed fair to me when I've been offered one. If people are scamming the system, that would be something for the company to worry about, no?
I guess a better question would be: what would be fairer?
> it would be no different for any of those professions
Do you want a surgeon with 12 years of experience or 3?
The issue at hand, unequal pay, has nothing to with experience in the first place, so making up an imaginary scenario where the experienced employee is a slacker is a strawman fallacy anyway. The point is that if someone from a low pay area moves 50 miles in one direction they could suddenly be worth 2-3x as much to the company?
Additionally, most tech companies don't actually pay based on cost of living, they pay based off of cost of the local competition. There are generally* 3 pay tiers in the United States; Hawaii is a Tier 3 state (lowest pay) despite being one of the most expensive places to live. The most expensive zip code in the USA is in Florida, but again: it's a Tier 3.
Anything above the cost of living is money the employee can choose to spend on quality-of-life improvements that are generally the same price no matter where in the USA you live (think investments, tuition, cars, boats, shopping, etc). The Tier 1 employee gets more money for those fixed-price items than the Tier 3.
I'm just saying it doesn't make sense; it's an artificial constraint made even worse when companies exploit the timezones of an employee because they desire a globally diverse workforce.
* Note: I only have experience with two businesses that collect salaries from mid to large (100+ employees) business subscribers in exchange for information about what others in their sector pay their own employees on average. It's a legal form of wage fixing.
I'm sorry you think this is a strawman, but I'm just addressing the scenario you originally posed.
I still can't see what you think would be fairer - the labour market is always going to be subject to demand and supply dynamics. I believe a fair minimum wage should be established (and seriously enforced) for every job, but if employers want to pay above that to attract what they perceive is a better quality of applicant I don't have a problem.
Where it gets admittedly weird is comparing two otherwise equal employees, fully remote - why the company cares where they live is a mystery for them to answer, but considering that wages aren't really a zero sum game, isn't this a case of some employees earning more as much as it is of some earning less (being that all these jobs are above minimum wage, so the question of what a SWE, for example is "worth" is even more at the mercy of the market)?
It’s even worse at established tech giants like FAANG, where everyone working at anywhere other than SF would optimally declare fully remote for the free salary increase
They're mostly not. It's really not a race to the top. If you can get a job with FB and get a Bay Area salary from them, most companies will effectively tell you to go for it. (So they are competing in a sense. But many are opting out.)