I have publicly bet that these policies won't last in the face of a significantly more mobile workforce, who can switch jobs just by dialing into a different Zoom. https://twitter.com/quicktake/status/1304492582765027329

As an employer you pay your hires X and it's assumed you get X + Y value out of them. Unless Y changes when they move (and why would it?) you can't justify changing X. They'll switch jobs to a company who will pay X and let them work where they are.

Previously you could argue that you had to pay more for people living in expensive metros because you needed them on site and cost of living was high BUT you showed you could afford it then, so you've shown your hand.

As I've said before: if there are more people qualified to do these jobs than there are jobs, then salaries will race to the bottom in a remote work world. But I don't think that's the case.

I think the absolute peak bubble salaries in the most expensive metros may fall a little but overall demand remains high and job mobility is now a lot higher, on-site perks are meaningless. Employers are going to have to cough up more cash to compete.

Fun thought: what prevents a remote worker getting a PO Box and just *claiming* they live in San Francisco? New business opportunity for Fake Home Addresses Dot Com.

(Tax law. The answer is tax law.)

I don't think tech company salary policies have yet caught on to a world of remote work. I don't think we, hunkered down in a pandemic and fearful of recession, have yet realized how job mobility has changed the equation long-term. It will take 5+ years for this all to shake out.

But all of the above is specific to tech, the only industry I'm really familiar with. I place no bets on the future of work as a whole.

At npm we paid the same rates for everyone regardless of location (modulo health care costs, which varied by country). When Microsoft took over it seems they changed that policy and lost some great people as a result, seems incredibly short-sighted.