Whether this is good or bad is beside my point, as are what other second-order effects may arise. I'm simply pointing out, "everybody in the world gets paid SV rates" simply isn't on the table. So don't go into this process expecting that outcome.
I predict wages will stratify based on what kind of company you work for, not where you live. FAAMG will still pay top dollar. Best of luck if you work doing coding for, say, the Weather Channel.
If suddenly the supply expands from the Bay Area to all of the US, that changes the equation. Don’t forget that guy in Atlanta who is equally as talented as you, but willing to work for 20% less than you make.
Supply and demand ultimately determine the wages, assuming the job is filled at all, but what you're "worth" to the employer does serve as an absolute upper limit on what you can expect to be paid. If no one is willing to take the job at that price then no one will be employed and the job will simply go undone.
And that's a good thing.
I think the mistake you are making is assuming that your salary represents your worth to the company.
Should a person be charged SF prices for groceries when they're living in Atlanta because they're getting SF pay? Clearly not. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Your reasoning makes no sense. It's a choice to live in a city that lets landlords dictate which buildings can be built. Atlanta and other cities are unconstrained for new housing development.
SF policies are a tax on its non-homeowner residents.
You shouldn't be entitled to a differential just because your city doesn't build new housing fast enough. That has no bearing on the work your employees perform.
You can if you have sufficient negotiating power.
Just because I'm in Atlanta doesn't make me inherently worth less than my peers in SF.