For example: https://www.palmspringstaxandtrustlawyers.com/nonresidents-w...
(Not something I would prefer, but many would.)
Listen I am not advocating doing this. I don't even live there nor do I work at Facebook. I just feel like this is easily gameable.
On the other hand, you are almost definitely reading this comment on a device that was manufactured in a "low cost of living area" (namely: China) by people who get paid far below Western wages. Likewise, most of the clothes you wear were manufactured in a "cheap" country by people who get paid next to nothing. If you had bought these goods from a US- or Europe-based manufacturer, you would have paid far more, and the people who produced the value would have received higher wages.
So if Facebook shouldn't be allowed to reduce the pay of workers who move to less expensive areas, why don't we apply this logic across the board? Why is it okay for you (or me) to reduce the pay of our own workers (by which I mean the people who work who work for us indirectly, by creating the goods we consume) just because they live in less expensive areas?
It seems to me that you can't have it both ways.
And a market is a market. It doesn't matter what you do for a living, your salary/wage is, to some degree, determined by where you are, among many other variables.
The incentive is clearly to stay and cost FB more money per head.
That is ridiculous. A job is a job. Also what prevents anyone from keeping a California phone number and a PO Box in Menlo Park or wherever? At what point have you 'moved'?
Note: I don't advocate doing this. I neither work in CA nor at Facebook. I just wonder if this doesn't open things up for being to game the system.