I haven't made my mind on this yet tbh. I tend to not agree with the argument that workers are bringing the same value to the company no matter their location. What about doctors that live outside major cities. Should they be compensated the same as the doctors in the centre of NY? I think that's a utopian state where it just can't co-exist with the current way of how markets work.

On the other hand, I totally agree with Sid (from GitLab)[1]:

> "If we pay everyone the San Francisco wage for their respective roles, our compensation costs would increase greatly, and we would be forced to hire a lot fewer people. Then we wouldn’t be able to produce as much as we would like," Sid explains. "And if we started paying everyone the lowest rate possible, we would not be able to retain the people we want to keep.

> "So you end up in a place where the compensation is somewhere in between. And that would cause us to have a concentration of team members in low-wage regions because it’s a better deal for them. They’re getting more than the market rate, so they’re more likely to apply and accept an offer. And they’re more likely to stay regardless of how happy they are, which is not healthy for them or the company."

That makes sense! Both company and the employees are equally happy. I don't find anything wrong with that.

I think choosing an "above the local rate" rate to pay your employees is the way to go. Rate them based on the criteria you think it's best and put that in perspective against their local rate and the rate ofc that they want. They are going to be some that live in Greece and want to be compensated with SF rates. That's fine and they are probably able to do it. But that shouldn't affect your own strategy.

1: https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2019/02/28/why-we-pay-local-ra...