It appears the question hit quite a nerve, sparking heated responses from people on both sides of the debate.

There were those that were adamant that paying someone less just because they live regionally was a “bulls**t policy” and the same job should equal the same pay.

“It’s not right. If the role isn’t required in a city office, then you shouldn’t be paid less for living elsewhere. At that point it’s a choice to live in higher cost locations,” one person wrote.

Another agreed, saying that if someone was doing the same job as another, there is “zero reason” why the pay should be different.

“Within the same company – equal pay. Dodgy to pay differently based on living situations. Where does it end?” one questioned.

Another added: “Try and pay a doctor less to work in the regions. Evan maccas kids work of a national award. This is wild.”

However, there were also plenty of people who saw no issue with city workers being paid more, pointing out “it is fair” when you consider the higher cost of living in metro areas.

Ms Calder, founder of recruitment agency EST10, pointed to data from the Australian Bureau Statistics that show average wages in capital cities are higher than in regional areas, along with housing and living costs being markedly higher.

As a result, this has historically anchored pay to location rather than the role alone.

Ms Calder said that this logic still holds in many sectors, however, as work becomes more digital and flexible, the “psychological contract is shifting”.

“When two people deliver identical results from different postcodes, the argument that one is worth less begins to feel less like economics and more like tradition,” she said.

“Organisations are increasingly being asked to justify not just what they pay, but why.”

With remote work, wider hiring pools and increasing pressure on pay transparency, it is now easier than ever for employees to compare wages, with these benchmarks no longer hidden in payroll systems.

Because of this, Ms Calder said while this geographical approach to pay is still widely used, it takes “much more explanation than it did five years ago.

“What’s interesting about Covid and the view of jobs performed outside the city is the original argument was ‘let me work away from the office as it saves me money on commuting, office clothing, lunches, coffees etc’,” she said.

“Yet now we are seeing the boundaries blurred with, ‘let me double dip with saving money but now you need to pay me the same as the city role’.”

The recruitment specialist said people often forget that what you are paid is driven by the market, so it is not so much about what is “fair” and more about the economic reality of the situation.

She pointed out that if you have skills that are in high demand but limited in supply, you are more likely to be paid a higher salary.

“Doctors, for example, are paid significantly more in regional areas (sometimes double) than their city counter parts. Again, this is driven by supply and demand,” Ms Calder said.

“Should the reverse happen and regional doctors be paid less to match the city or city doctors paid the same? That would be disastrous and counter intuitive.”

Ultimately, Ms Calder believes a company’s decision whether to implement or maintain location-based pay should be a commercial decision based on economics and supply and demand.

She said this ensures a clear and transparent explanation.

“Employees are far more likely to accept differences when the rationale is consistent, transparent and applied evenly. If location influences pay, organisations should articulate how and why,” Ms Calder said.

She also noted that these settings should be reviewed regularly, as labour markets are constantly shifting, costs are rising in many regional areas and remote work continues to blur geographic lines.

“There is no single model that suits every sector, but there is a common thread: pay structures that align with both market reality and internal fairness tend to age better than those built on habit,” she said.