It seems that one of the arguments the author is making is that that an employee’s cost of living isn’t what’s in play but the competitiveness of the employee’s compensation at that location. That your buying power is more in SF than in London, because a good amount of people just as talented in London would take a lower pay cut compared to SF, for example.
That seems to make sense, but I wonder why the opposite isn’t just as likely to happen, more employees ask for more, if companies paid more for remote workers
That seems to make sense, but I wonder why the opposite isn’t just as likely to happen, more employees ask for more, if companies paid more for remote workers