Remote work has opened up a world of opportunity, and also raised issues of fairness.
A software engineer in India can now work for a startup in Berlin. A designer in Malaysia can work with a client in San Francisco. A programmer based in Vietnam can work for a Singapore company. With remote work, jobs are more accessible now to people in different countries.
However, it also leads to one question.
Should your pay be based on where you live, or the value you bring?
The Case For Location-Based Salaries
Let’s start with the traditional way we have always been doing this, which is to pay someone based on where they live.
From a business perspective, it seems practical. If you are hiring a developer in India, and the local market rate is $1,000, it would seem excessive, even inefficient, to offer the same $5,000 that you would need to pay in Singapore for the same role to be filled. After all, local salaries should reflect local market supply, demand and living costs.
This logic also works in reverse. If someone from India is relocated by their company to Singapore, it would be unreasonable to expect to pay them only $1,000, as they now have to live in a more expensive city. Hence, it’s fair that their pay adjusts upward, perhaps through an expat package with allowance, to reflect their new living expenses.
In short: if the company chooses to relocate you, it’s fair that they pay you a higher salary to account for the fact that you are living in a higher expense country.
But what if you choose to relocate, or are already based in a cheaper country? Should the company still be paying you the same salary if there is no difference in the value of the work that you are doing?
But I Am Doing The Same Job!
There’s another side to this.
If you are delivering the same value, solving the same problems and hitting the same targets as someone in a higher-cost country, why should your location still matter for the pay you get?
Some may argue that your compensation should be based on your role, skillset and impact, not your postcode. Especially in roles where location doesn’t affect performance (e.g., remote tech, content, marketing), it feels unfair to be paid less simply because you live somewhere cheaper. This can also cause resentment. Why should a programmer in Manila earn one-third of what a colleague in Singapore does when they are doing the same work?
Same Job, Different Pay. Why It Might Still Be Fair
To understand this, here’s an example.
A cleaner working at McDonald’s in Singapore today will likely earn around $1,500 to $2,000 a month. The exact role and work done at a McDonald’s outlet in India might pay them only a fifth of that salary.
Is it unfair? Not really.
Because wages are, and always have been, tied to local conditions. A cleaner in Singapore earns more than the same cleaner in India, not because they work hard or do a better job, but because the cost of living, wage standards and labour market in Singapore are different.
It’s unlikely we will ever expect global parity for physical jobs like these. So, should we expect anything different for remote jobs?
Location Still Matters, Even If The Work Is Remote
When companies hire in different countries, they typically base salaries on local market rates, not the headquarters’ pay scale. That’s not exploitation but rather a function of market economics.
Take this example:
- A Singapore-based company pays $5,000/month for a software engineer in Singapore.
- It hires a remote engineer in Vietnam at $1,500/month, which remains a competitive and well-paying salary in Vietnam.
- Similarly, a very experienced programmer with more than 10 years of experience working in India may earn $3,000/month. If the same person relocates and works in Singapore, he may earn $10,000/month.
Is that unfair? No. Just as the cleaner analogy illustrates, the salary reflects the context of the local economy rather than the absolute value of the output.
Singapore’s Place In This Global Equation
Singapore is no longer a low-cost labour market. Many roles once filled locally are being offshored to more affordable countries, while global talent competes for the same high-paying jobs we value here.
There’s also an uncomfortable truth: many Singaporeans, including fresh graduates with no experience, earn $3,000 or more not because of their output, but because of where they live. A $3,800 starting salary doesn’t necessarily reflect $3,800 of delivered value. It reflects the cost of hiring someone in Singapore.
Put bluntly: if you were doing the same job in a cheaper country, your pay would likely be lower. That’s how markets work.
Which is why local workers, especially in remote-friendly roles, must constantly find ways to value-add. Otherwise, those jobs could, and likely will, be moved elsewhere.
Final Thoughts: Global Talent, Local Realities
It’s tempting to believe that equal work deserves equal pay, no matter where you live. But the truth is: location still shapes salary, even in a digital world.
Companies hire based on the value they receive, and what it costs to get that work done in different markets. Just like we accept different salaries for physical jobs across countries, the same logic applies to remote roles.
For workers, especially in Singapore, it’s essential to recognise that our relatively high salaries are largely a product of our environment, not necessarily a reflection of our outsized productivity (e.g. we earn three times more than a Malaysian in a similar job, not because we are three times more productive). And as global competition intensifies, the ability to justify that premium will become more critical.
Because in a world where companies can hire anyone, from anywhere, where you live will likely still shape what you earn. And that, for now, is the reality.
Read Also: Remote Working: Should You Arbitrage Between Where You Work & Where You Live
