It's not about leveraging the lower cost of poorer countries that we do that, as we actually have most of our team living in high cost of life ones. Part of the explanation why we do it this way can be found here, https://slite.com/blog/lets-pay-our-remote-employees-fairly-..., happy to continue the discussion if you want to!

I read the article your justification to pay people leaving in poorer countries less if because it raises costs?

> I'm personally afraid we're going to replicate the San Francisco phenomenon over and over, to cities elsewhere in the world.

What do you mean by this? Your company paying 10 guys US market rates won't raise any city's rent prices. Rent prices are impacted by supply and demand. So you are afraid if you pay your employees San Francisco rates, their city will become San Fransisco? I don't understand the fear of some engineer in Argentina making 200k USD, wouldn't that make your company very desirable to work for over there?

All the reasons you give in the article seems like excuses to no pay people certain rate. And about paying everyone SF rates, it does raises costs, duh, but it also raises the amount and quality of talent you can reach internationally. It feels you are seeking validation on a compensation scheme that's at least equal that most corporations and bring nothing new to plate, nor is any more fair than what everyone else is doing. That's why anyone can see why Basecamp holds the moral high ground on this topic.

>It feels you are seeking validation on a compensation scheme that's at least equal that most corporations and bring nothing new to plate, nor is any more fair than what everyone else is doing.

I think this is a great point, because exec's are not included in this pricing calculator. I think they totally should be.

From the article and some other links I think the company is doing a great marketing campaign during a time where salaries and pay is a hot topic.

I do not think salaries should be paid based on location, especially if the team is remote. Everyone is in the room (zoom room) and they should be paid on their skillset and value they bring to the team. Using location allows the company to focus on cost. This points to the fact they will be located in LOW cost of living locations, using fair calculator is the justification for lower salaries. Which links back to

> If we start giving crazy high US salaries by default in remote, I'm personally afraid we're going to replicate the San Francisco phenomenon over and over, to cities elsewhere in the world.

We should be giving employees higher salary based on the value they bring to the company. If the engineer from Argentina is more productive and bringing more value to the team but they are paid much lower than a team member in the US, this will cause internal conflict but the only person gaining is the company from the margin they will make from that employees contribution to their overall cost.

Yeah, OP seems to not understand why San Fransisco(and tech hubs in general) real state is hot. I'm line with you, this is just a marketing piece, with low effort, made up excuses for why not paying people in 3rd world countries fairly.

I read this, and it is a good argument but should this also apply to founders?

If you make $50m say in an exit will you take $50m minus what you sacrificed in salary terms for being a founder and give it away. Lets say $49m you give away.

Then it would be fair because you have then earned the same as the location based earnings the employees get.

Also, it makes sense that in a company that rewards employees financially for living in high COL locations, that Goodharts law applies and you get most employees living in high COL where possibly they make money through real estate acquisition made possible by the higher salaries etc. as well as nice disposable income for investment / 401k etc.