I don't know if it's quite as simple as that, as the cost of living can vary depending on where you live.
For example, I work in small midwestern town that has a much lower cost of living than somewhere like LA or Seattle. So I personally think that it would be unfair if I were paid as much as developers there are.
Though I do agree that the value of work should not change if you are remote vs in-office, which may have been what the original question was implying.
Then how about this: Should you be paid less if you don't have any expensive hobbies? Should you be paid less if you happen to eat very cheap?
Or, to generalize, should you be paid less, just because you live very cheap?
I think it's a very, VERY clear no. If you live in a cheap place, that's you saving money, just as much as if you were to cancel your netflix subscription, walk to work to save gas or do repairs on your own car instead of hiring someone.
A persons spending habits should not, in any way, play a role in their pay. People should get paid based on the work they do, and that is independent from what car they drive, where they go shopping and where they live.
Otherwise you're not getting paid, you're getting an allowance.
I see what you mean, and you have a good point that personal spending habits shouldn't effect pay.
However, I think you may have misinterpreted my argument. I was talking mostly about minimum wage, which can vary between regions (specifically in the US, dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/...).
Of course you may feel that cost of living shouldn't effect income, and pay should be set based on work, which is a valid opinion.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I don't know if it's quite as simple as that, as the cost of living can vary depending on where you live.
For example, I work in small midwestern town that has a much lower cost of living than somewhere like LA or Seattle. So I personally think that it would be unfair if I were paid as much as developers there are.
Though I do agree that the value of work should not change if you are remote vs in-office, which may have been what the original question was implying.
Then how about this: Should you be paid less if you don't have any expensive hobbies? Should you be paid less if you happen to eat very cheap?
Or, to generalize, should you be paid less, just because you live very cheap?
I think it's a very, VERY clear no. If you live in a cheap place, that's you saving money, just as much as if you were to cancel your netflix subscription, walk to work to save gas or do repairs on your own car instead of hiring someone.
A persons spending habits should not, in any way, play a role in their pay. People should get paid based on the work they do, and that is independent from what car they drive, where they go shopping and where they live.
Otherwise you're not getting paid, you're getting an allowance.
I see what you mean, and you have a good point that personal spending habits shouldn't effect pay.
However, I think you may have misinterpreted my argument. I was talking mostly about minimum wage, which can vary between regions (specifically in the US, dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/...).
Of course you may feel that cost of living shouldn't effect income, and pay should be set based on work, which is a valid opinion.