This is how things already work. Companies like Google and Facebook are not shy at all about cutting your pay significantly if you move to some location they think doesn't merit the same level of comp as the bay area and nyc.

Why would anyone be okay with that? If you flip it around do you expect it to suddenly be okay?

You would be Okay with it because you like to work from home and others choose to take all the trouble to go to office so that they can have more chances to get familiar with the bosses and learn about things not online.

But that’s just one narrative framing. Would you be okay if remote people got promotions more often because they didn’t waste two hours a day commuting, got more done, and met with their managers in more casual settings like pubs and restaurants and so had more time to shoot the shit?

“Not going into the office” != “never seeing coworkers face to face.” Being remote has forced our team to be more proactive about seeing one another and so we’ve ended up socializing more than we ever did at the office. It’s easy to fall into the trap of not doing anything other than working chat and water cooler conversations and never actually socializing because “we see each other every day.”

I am OK with either way, because my political philosophy is personal choice. It really does not matter which specific option leads to better outcome. My point is that there are people who do not hold this philosophy and they will demand for equal outcome. Read my top comment, it really doesn’t matter which way it goes, some people will make it a political issue.

Also, they can always link the difference to race/gender etc. Say, if there are more women or racial minorities chose option A, and then option A leads to less wage increases, then the company will be in trouble.