Is it an inequality though? Everyone's seen the baseball game equality comic with the different high people. Equality is when everyone can see the ballgame, not that everyone gets the same height boxes to stand on. I'd argue that this is the same here. I'm the "taller" person because my cost of living is lower, if you give me the same size box (income) as the person in the HCOL area, they might not be equal to me, because I start with an advantage.

In the literal term, I think it is inequality if one is just comparing the salary numbers. BUT, once variables start to get added(location, personal preferences, the availability of replacements) then you start getting into murkier territory. There are also significant impacts of standardizing pay across regions. There will obviously be a flow of people from HCOL > LCOL/MCOL areas, consumption will increase, local inflation will happen...these things benefit some groups and hurt others. No idea how it would all shake out in the end though.

Ultimately, I'd be far, far more concerned about a race to the bottom. That race to the bottom is possible regardless of location-based pay or not. Once people discover how to navigate remote work across big timezone differences en masse and mentality shifts, things will truly get interesting.

Is this from a consumer or producer standpoint(or both)? A race to the bottom ultimately hurts everyone. In a simplistic world, if wages go down, people will consume less, causing decreased revenue. Its in the best interest for companies to have a competitive wage floor that still allows for quality goods and services to be created.

Remote work will certainly shift dynamics, I am quite interested in if the concept of 'hybrid' work will take off, and how that would shape cities/communities.

Consumer. And frankly, I believe most producers do not realize it will hurt everyone, or are hoping some form of automation/AI will take off so they can massively minimize the downsides.