Did you not read the part where their cost of living dramatically dropped? You know, the entire comment you replied to?
Then the notion that anyone is being stolen from is just completely ridiculous.
Look at an international circus contract, for example (I was in one). A group of performers from different countries performing in the same place get paid different amounts for doing the same exact role in the show (up to 2.5X difference, by the way) just because the company can get away with it. It's about the cost of the best alternative (for the worker), not about some intrinsic worth of the work.
They pay the minimum they feel is required to retain you and prevent you from going to a competitor. And if that amount exceeds the cost to hire someone who can do your job as good as you, they want you gone. That’s it.
They know that working remotely from a place with a lower cost of living is a perk. They know even if you take a pay cut, you’ll come out ahead. They know the minimum they need to pay you to retain you has gone down.
As for whether you should subsidise someone, if it makes you more money overall then of course you should. Regardless of what luxuries they have.
We should have open pay scales by position with well-defined criteria for bonus / raises. Negotiation should have little to do with it, ideally.
Pure value rarely has to do with your salary; it's more about supply/demand. If we doubled the supply of people doing your exact job right now, your ability to negotiate (and your salary) would probably drop, even though you are delivering the same "value" to the company (unless value encompasses supply & demand).
(As I've mentioned above, I've seen pay differences in circus of 2.5X for performers with different passports doing pretty much the same exact job in the same exact show - the value they were delivering was the same, the only difference was country of origin). So pay is also about cost of best alternative.