> Your pay is based on the cost to hire your replacement.
That's not necessarily true. Many fully remote companies hire from anywhere and pay location-adjusted wages. So it's a roll of the dice whether the replacement makes more or less than you.
That's not necessarily true. Many fully remote companies hire from anywhere and pay location-adjusted wages. So it's a roll of the dice whether the replacement makes more or less than you.
I'm not saying they should give more/better offers to people in 'cheap' locations, I'm saying location shouldn't influence the offer at all.
Once you get past that basic hurdle, you might find that the company is willing to pay more because they want a given skilled worker to be co-located with the team they will be joining to increase productivity which might come at a higher price than hiring into a different location but potentially trading off worker and/or team efficiency.
That's making a big assumption — that the team is in an HCOL area, such that "colocated with the team" is synoymous to "costs more."
There are a lot of companies who are headquartered in LCOL areas of the world; but still do location-adjusted pay, such that they might be paying someone working remotely from an HCOL area more than they pay the local team.
So you either: a) write off every candidate who is still in talent hubs, b) pay way above everyone else's competing offers so that your universal salary is also competitive in talent hubs, or c) pay based on location.
I don't think the OP would feel demotivated after learning their company pays competent employees more.