When you factor in the cost of living it's not an "excuse".
If, after the obligatory expenses like housing and food, the employee has more after tax dollars to spend on whatever he wants and in many ways a higher quality of living (better housing, better control over crime although that's looking to change WRT California, etc.), is he getting cheated as you imply?
I've lived in the Boston area and the D.C. area for a dozen years each, and have now moved back to my smallish home town in SW Missouri ... the differences are staggering.
Officially the same pay, but the people in California get an extra 1K/month for their higher living expenses. Heck, the Federal government does this for civil servant compensation.
Flip side: if the company is nasty, it'll tie up it's outside of California employees with non-competes---although that could be a bit tricky, given that it would get no support in the California state courts. How would you establish jurisdiction in the employee's home state?
If, after the obligatory expenses like housing and food, the employee has more after tax dollars to spend on whatever he wants and in many ways a higher quality of living (better housing, better control over crime although that's looking to change WRT California, etc.), is he getting cheated as you imply?
I've lived in the Boston area and the D.C. area for a dozen years each, and have now moved back to my smallish home town in SW Missouri ... the differences are staggering.
Look at imroot's policies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7568217
Officially the same pay, but the people in California get an extra 1K/month for their higher living expenses. Heck, the Federal government does this for civil servant compensation.
Flip side: if the company is nasty, it'll tie up it's outside of California employees with non-competes---although that could be a bit tricky, given that it would get no support in the California state courts. How would you establish jurisdiction in the employee's home state?