You don't use any of your offices for the remote rate. The remote rate is whatever is sufficient to get enough qualified remote workers to fill your needs.

The point is that you as a company do not care where your remote workers are except perhaps they need to be in a timezone close to that of whichever office of yours they are working most closely with.

If you can pay remote workers what would be a good wage in El Paso or Tulsa or Boise and that is sufficient to get you enough good workers from such places to fill your needs, you don't care that it is not enough to get workers from Boston or Minneapolis or Chicago because you don't specifically need workers from Boston or Minneapolis or Chicago.

Experience is not yet evenly distributed today, because of non-remote jobs in the recent past. I chose to relocate to our industry's most competitive market, and here I had the benefit of problems and expert peers like none before.

So, in other words, salary is going to be location based? Because you can probably get folks from lower CoL areas for less than from higher CoL areas.

This is exactly why the grandparent post doesn’t make sense. Market rates matter.

Mumbay, probably.

(i'm being ironic here, btw)

:-) You're not going to have equalization across countries for the most part for many reasons, especially those in distant timezones. It's a more interesting discussion within the US because there are at least reasonable arguments to be made for flat pay bands across locations.