Location-Based Salary Adjustments

Companies don't do this. They will adjust your salary down based on your city of residence. Square is one example of this. You're not compensated for the value you provide, you're compensated for the cost of living near the office.You're also now competing against a national talent pool vs locals only

I want to ask a question to the group, too. How do the companies headquartered in SF and NYC and places like that decide your salary and if you are in a cheaper locale? Do they give you a lower salary, are taxes weird, is there an awkward conversation with HR? Has anyone moved from an expensive place to a cheaper place and dealt with awkward company reactions (HR)?

It's not about "cost of living". It's about "You're willing to work for less money" and "you have fewer alternative options than this offer". If you're willing to agree to work for less than your teammates who live elsewhere, that's up to you.That's just how free markets work.(I say this as someone who worked for a US-based company out of the Toronto office for a long time, getting less pay than my equivalents elsewhere)

Unfortunately that's how it works for companies today - they know they can pay less depending on where you live (even within the same country, like SF vs Midwest US).

Exactly. This isn't a "cost of living" adjustment, it's a "we're lucky you have fewer options, so we don't have to pay as much" adjustment.If I get hired in such a company, I'm moving to SF or Zurich the next day.

The cost of living is typically a factor in the wages offered though, with people considering the job having the opportunity to decide what trade offs are available and which ones to make.Like if 2 people get hired into the same role at the same time and one decides to rent a small apartment near the subway and the other decides to drive 45 miles to a suburb, why is the company on the hook to then compensate them differently?Or am I misunderstanding the argument?

Yes it is and it happens all the time because of salary negotiations. The same thing applies to location based salaries - nobody will want to work if the offered money is not adequate. If company X from poorer country Y wanted to open an office in SF they simply wouldn't be able to find anyone that is willing to work for the same amount of money that is offered for country Y employees.

I haven't made my mind on this yet tbh. I tend to not agree with the argument that workers are bringing the same value to the company no matter their location. What about doctors that live outside major cities. Should they be compensated the same as the doctors in the centre of NY? I think that's a utopian state where it just can't co-exist with the current way of how markets work.On the other hand, I totally agree with Sid (from GitLab)[1]:> "If we pay everyone the

Pretty insane, as if people were not doing same job regardless of where they choose to live. I understand you must offer competitive salary based on location when hiring for on site job, since workers and company is fighting against local competition, but at WFH you are literally fighting with everyone everywhere, so the salary should be fixed for everyone instead punishing more frugal people who choose to live in cheaper location.

Even the big companies do this. My employer is a FANG and I'm based in London. Rents are nearly as expensive as in San Francisco... But if I moved to Silicon Valley, I'd get 40% more base pay for the same work.The only justification for this policy is something called "cost of labor" — in other words: "We've agreed with other tech companies that nobody's going to raise salaries locally."