Apart from saving money, another aspect of their reasoning iirc was that paying a single rate would create a very lopsided team in terms of geography: the company would be offering the “best” salary to employees in the lowest cost of living places, and so the incentives would lead these places to be dramatically over-represented relative to higher cost of living places. That’s the theory anyway.
I haven’t heard people in favor of geography-agnostic salaries address this concern, which seems legitimate from the company’s perspective. I suppose there are tradeoffs either way.
I haven’t heard people in favor of geography-agnostic salaries address this concern, which seems legitimate from the company’s perspective. I suppose there are tradeoffs either way.