How's that a negative aspect? For many, that seems fair as it means you get paid the local rate and so can live anywhere in the world comfortably.
Remote first does not necessarily mean bay area pay while living in a low cost of living country.
Remote first does not necessarily mean bay area pay while living in a low cost of living country.
Well, it reinforces a system where predominantly rich, white men who won the passport/work-permission lottery at birth are destined to continue receiving more money for doing the same work than the predominantly brown people of Asia and South America. It's difficult to understand why anyone who values equality would support this.
> you get paid the local rate and so can live anywhere in the world comfortably
You mean, what the company considers "comfortable", even though they don't live there?
I'm not sure why you've brought up both "passport/work permission lottery" and an individual's race.
I mention the passport issue because, for most people in the world, it's not possible to relocate to San Francisco and put yourself in the high salary bracket. So you're stuck with whatever someone in the SF HQ thinks is a "good salary" in India. Realistically the best performers will go elsewhere and I expect that companies that employ this kind of model will be unable to compete for talent, but it's still frustrating to watch them underpay people in the meantime.
As for the skin tone issue, it's not a factor in what they pay, but the end result is undeniably split along racial lines due to local demographics. I mention this because many of these companies spend a lot of PR time talking about inclusiveness and workplace equality and then set up systems that underpay foreigners.