I’m your employer. If you live somewhere it costs you $1,000/month to live, then I should pay you less than if you live somewhere it costs you $10,000/month to live. Makes sense, right? I don’t think so. We are seeing an interesting balance of power play out as more work goes remote. Should you as an employee be paid less if you live somewhere with a lower cost of living? Should you as an employee be paid the same regardless of your living costs? I can see how the norms of our industry could tip either way, but I’m going to make the case here that geographic compensation will lose in the end.
Geographic Compensation Will Lose
Geographic Compensation Will Lose
Geographic Compensation Will Lose
I’m your employer. If you live somewhere it costs you $1,000/month to live, then I should pay you less than if you live somewhere it costs you $10,000/month to live. Makes sense, right? I don’t think so. We are seeing an interesting balance of power play out as more work goes remote. Should you as an employee be paid less if you live somewhere with a lower cost of living? Should you as an employee be paid the same regardless of your living costs? I can see how the norms of our industry could tip either way, but I’m going to make the case here that geographic compensation will lose in the end.