I think the attempt is to tie you value as an employee to you disposable income instead of your housing and basics income.

I find them usually often inaccurate, though.

For companies that don't pay at the top of the scale, the people in the high-cost areas are comparatively screwed (software engineers having to resort to living with roommates!?), whereas for the companies paying more, sometimes it tips the other way (like failing to account for how most costs don't scale with area the way housing does, so you could end up with a $500+ disadvantage in disposable income in one of the cheaper areas).

This is an extremely self-limiting and myopic viewpoint on employment.

For instance, the only person who can classify income as disposable or not is me. No one else is allowed to make that decision, or is even deserving of knowing the information at all.

If your hiring manager is giving you the song and dance about calculations on your cost of housing and milk, you need to turn around and go elsewhere.

If you think you’re a cog in a machine, yes, you can determine your value this way.

If you feel you have inherent value in and of yourself, your attitude will change about work and employment.

The value I provide to a company has absolutely nothing to do with where I live. If I’m a good hire, I’m a good hire.

Did you notice the "I think the attempt is..." part of my post, which positioned it as an attempt to understand the employer negotiation position, not as my own views?

It's a view on negotiation, not on employment.

But I think feelings like yours get in the way, regardless.

"Determining your value" is internalizing things way too much. Failing to convince the opposite side in a negotiation is very different from "your value".[0]

Being a cog in a machine - or, more directly in this situation, being seen as replaceable by the next candidate who would accept the offer you don't like - isn't about how you feel or think of yourself, it's about what you can do and what you demonstrate. That holds true for far more than just the initial interview and offer negotiation, too.

[0] I'm tempted to suggest the person who's happy to be a "cog" - show up, do some work, get paid, and define their life and their value in non-work terms - may value themselves more than us maximizers!

If the company can get an equally good hire at half the cost, it can and should replace you. As a shareholder I would not only expect this, I would demand it.

Cost of living is higher if you live in a major metropolitan area. That higher SF salary gets you the same amount of goods and services as a lower salary in Utah. This is a pretty basic concept.

If you want to get paid the big salary, move to the big city. Don't complain about higher rent and cost of food. Or live frugally.

But there is value in living in those higher CoL areas (hence them being higher CoL) that you sacrifice living in a lower CoL area. You sacrifice on space to live in SF, but you get all the other benefits which is why people do it. If I sacrifice the SF benefits, why do I then also have to sacrifice my CoL/pay ratio without any additional gain?

Is it any different from say a kg of rice, will feed the same still would cost diff in a village of Vietnam then Whole Foods in silicon valley. Price is by demand / supply.

You’re comparing a human being to a commodity like rice. Unbelievable.

Surely you realize that your current compensation is already decided based on market forces and not some inherent "value".

I work for myself and dictate the cost of my services. There’s a market involved, sure, but it’s not a race to the bottom like the commodity markets.

I dictate my value, not my zipcode or employer.

The market dictates your price for the value you provide. You can't charge $1B/hour and get away with it. There is an optimal profit-maximizing price for your services, regardless of whether or not you acknowledge that fact. Yes, you can change more than this amount, but you will get fewer clients and be making less total profit as a result.

That could be totally fine and rational since there are other utility-maximizing considerations for you like how much you want to work, the kind of work you do, the kind of clients you're willing to take on, etc., but that doesn't change the fact that you can't arbitrarily set your price and not expect a change in the amount of business you can conduct.

You may not be profit-maximizing, but companies certainly are, and as a result, they'll pay whatever rates the market allows them to.

If you're able to dictate your income, then why even worry? Go ahead and live somewhere else and dictate your income. It's a voluntary exchange and if someone takes the other end of the deal then good for you!

No, we're comparing human labour to rice. Let's be honest. If you're essential you'll negotiate your rates to be what you want.

It's obvious we're not comparing humans to rice here since we're not buying and selling humans. It's so obvious that I can only conclude you're acting in bad faith intentionally.

That's not the point. Why would I pay Bay Area salaries for someone living in bumfuck Iowa? It's all about supply and demand.

Deadlock. This comment thread won’t go anywhere.

What I don't get is why you would pay Bay Area salaries for someone living in Bay Area when you could get an equally good remote worker based in Iowa on the cheap. Like just don't hire in Bay Area at all.

While that may be true in the future, the talent pool in the Bay Area at present is undeniably better.