> companies may be using this as an opportunity to hire 'cheaper' workers in markets where you don't need that type of income to pay rent

That's not a bad tendency in the long run. In case remote work gains serious traction, tech workers would be eventually dispersed around the whole country, and that would drive down rents in previously expensive areas. With workers living in less expensive places, they wouldn't need an SV salary to afford a good lifestyle.

Time zones still matter, very few companies are going to go fully remote, salaries are sticky downwards, many companies are going to keep large campuses in elite cities. That said, to the degree living in NYC or SF starts to be seen as the same sort of luxury choice being made by employees that living in a prime beach location is, the comp premium will go down. Employers don't care that you like living in particular cities or that you like living somewhere you can easily hop to other local jobs and, in fact, the latter is something of a negative.

> they wouldn't need an SV salary to afford a good lifestyle.

While I agree you wouldn't need to worry about affording SV-grade housing costs, I feel like these discussions leave out a couple of things:

* The CoL is going up everywhere. Food, medical care etc... None of it is getting cheaper.

* Good houses in good school systems with reasonable access are still expensive in many areas of the country.

* It's kind of ridiculous to see companies pushing the narrative that they can suddenly pay everyone less based on arbitrary geography when the average revenue/profit generated per engineer is often many, many multiples of their total compensation costs.

This isn't true. The costs of some things are going up while others are going down. Transportation is much cheaper, for example, even without taking into account remote work. The cost of cars, gas, and auto insurance is lower than it was 20 or 30 years ago when adjusted for inflation. Education and Healthcare are getting dramatically more expensive. Clothes are much cheaper, and the cost of consumer goods in general is decreasing a lot. Think about how much a microwave cost in 1980's.

I'll concede that some durable goods are cheaper adjusted for inflation.

But at the end of the day, what has the most impact on socioeconomic mobility and overall success? It's probably not a cheap microwave.

It's access to good schools, health care, and diet. All of the things that are getting more expensive.

Cheaper gas and clothes also have hidden(less so now) costs in pollution and ethical sourcing concerns.

Good point. I'd strongly prefer cheaper healthcare and pricier gasoline to cheap gas and cost-prohibitive healthcare.

==(Seattle, San Fransisco, Chicago), companies may be using this as an opportunity to hire 'cheaper' workers in markets where you don't need that type of income to pay rent.==

To clarify for those reading, rent in Chicago is about 50-60% cheaper than Seattle or San Francisco.

Source? Are you talking 1BR or 2BR? I would put this number closer to 25-30% [1].

[1] https://www.nerdwallet.com/cost-of-living-calculator/compare...

I was going off the Best Places COL Calculator [1]

Seattle housing: 67.9% cheaper [2]

San Francisco housing: 83.4% cheaper [3]

[1] https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/

[2] https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/seattle-wa/chicago...

[3] https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/c...