Good question, why would you peg your rate to the bay area? I wouldn't. It's not sustainable, or even rational in a world where money isn't cheap. The argument goes: I have to pay Bay Area salaries, because that's where the best people live, and the best people live near the Bay Area because that's where the money is. But in a world where you can recruit from anywhere, I'm not sure that's true, or that it will be true on a medium to long timeline, as people disperse to decentralized, remote jobs. So, I'd pay the same amount, irrespective of geography, based on the value the employee brings to the company and the difficulty of filling that position with the marginal next employee. That makes most sense to me, would likely select for happier employees (because living the bay area isn't ideal for many), less turnover, and a wider (ultimately better) pool of candidates.

Agree. Also, I live in a “cheap” country… so cheap for food and rent. Expensive for clothes, very expensive for tech, rather expensive to travel, etc. So anyone paying me in relation to the cost of buying food is abusing the asymmetry.

> But in a world where you can recruit from anywhere, I'm not sure that's true, or that it will be true on a medium to long timeline, as people disperse to decentralized, remote jobs.

Enough employers paying by location indicates that they have not bought into your assumptions here. What data do you have to convince them?