Employers are just butthurt they might not be able to do geographic arbitrage anymore. This was always coming in a globally connected world, but they’ll fight it kicking and screaming like always.
I’d bet heavily against that being the point of convergence.
I have worked in niches in the past that are now almost completely handled in India. And I had to move on to doing something new, despite the fact that my employer still has tons of tech staff (in fact most of it) in the US too.
It's very unfortunate that the Covid-anxiety many people have about returning to an office is driving them in the direction of always-remote. Fear is the mind-killer, as they say.
Sure there may be people who don't want to go back because of the disease, but many in tech likely don't want to go back simply because they've now realized two of their long-ignored objectives.
Why would I ever hire someone that lives in SF/Cali/NY?
In fact, why would I hire someone that lives in the US?
You're not. You're paying based on how much it would cost to find somebody to do the work. You're paying for time, not value. Profit comes from the difference between the two.
The cost of finding somebody to do with work is always going to be tiny compared to the cost of paying someone to do the work.
If their work does not have a value at least as high as what it will cost to pay them to do the work, you're not likely to hire them. If their work does have a value equal to or higher than what you will pay them, you have a reason to hire them.
The cost of finding an employee can be significant, but pales compares to the actual cost of paying them.
If someone else appears equally capable and willing to work for half or a quarter of what you are, it doesn’t matter much what the work is worth, they’re going to get the job much more often than you will.
Employees want to get the most attractive compensation they can from an employer. Employers are not that different in this regard, in the other direction.
In a sense we do because they (sometimes but increasingly) get paid leave and also drive up health insurance costs. As far as health insurance goes it never seemed fair to me that spouses and children get their health care subsidized by the employer.
Yes, no one should get paid less for the same work just cause they live in a cheaper area. Not to mention living in SF, NYC gives you way more opportunities than living in a low col, people don't seem to ever think of that point.
Suppose that company X wants to hire me, and they want me to move to NYC and I say "there's no way I'm living in NYC unless you pay me an extra $30k a year to be based in that hellhole". They really want to hire me because I'm the best candidate, and they believe I'm so good that even with the extra $30k compensation, it is still in their best interests? Should they be allowed to do this?
Conversely, company Y wants to hire me but are fine with me continuing to live in rural NM where my cost of living is relatively low. They offer me less than the a Sausalito-based employee doing similar work for them. I dispute this, and they point out that I don't even pay $3k a year in property taxes. I think about it for a while, and realize that my quality of life/disposable income will at least match if not exceed the person in Sausalito. I decide to accept the offer. Should they prevented from doing this?
And go ahead and hire someone in a high CoL area — if your pay bands are flat across all people working a position and the job is remote, it’s honestly easier. Any variable comp for performance / seniority can be handled with a bonus structure.
There are situations where two people of equal ability and output are worth differing amounts to the company. If you're in a vastly different time zone that makes work coordination difficult or the company has reason to need in-person collaboration, paying someone more to conform to those location constraints make sense as those people are more valuable to the company. But thinking a company should pay a remote worker who chooses to live in a high rent area more than a person who doesn't even though both have equal value to the company isn't logical. In the end, the people in the low rent areas will be picked off by competitors who see their value rather than their location.
I don't understand the parental model of employment that seems to be all the rage these days. Employees aren't the company's children and the company aren't the employees' parents. It's weird how often people bring their personal choices and needs into the compensation discussion and often elevate it into a moral issue. If you have six babies you don't deserve to get paid more for the same work as someone who is childless but that seems to be a common way of thinking now.
They have just as capable devs as we do.
For arbitrage to be entirely fair, if a company can easily hire from 2 places, workers should be able to move between those places just as easily. So subunits of the same country if fair game, but countries must not be, unless both countries have effectively open borders with each other.