How about the second paragraph from the article in the first post:
"Screenshots obtained by Reuters show that Google employees who previously commuted an hour to Google’s Manhattan offices from nearby Stamford, Conn., for example, would see their salaries slashed by 15 percent if they choose to continue working from home."
I work with people who live on the other side of town and when they drove in before the pandemic, it took them roughly about an hour. My new boss lives about an hour and half away. Some of them are even coming to Portland OR from nearby Vancouver WA and that can absolutely be an hour long drive. How is that different than the scenario described above? Thus my comment about getting paid more (or not less) because I only live 2 miles away.
That aside, I don't even agree with someone living in the mid-west. You can't pay someone more because of skin color, age, race, religion, politics, gender, etc, so why is it ok to discriminate based on location? If two people are giving the same value to the company, shouldn't they be compensated the same? The fact that one has chosen to live in a far off location shouldn't be part of the equation. That's just an excuse by the company keep more money in their own coffers. And if you want to keep pushing that approach, why not fire all the local talent and outsource to a completely different country where you can really drive down costs?