I suppose employee value is for any given company to decide. Companies that determine there is value in having employees onsite, and as we know there are plenty of them out there, may place more value on their in-office employees--even if they allow certain positions to be remote.

From what I've seen many remote advocates don't want to discuss the extra benefits they receive from working remotely as compared with their in-office peers, but it's true nonetheless.

I say all this not because I'm anti-WFH, but because I advocate equal compensation for all employees. Folks who expect equal pay while also having zero or reduced commute burden are thinking only of themselves as I see it. Commuting is a pain in the ass, the costs are always rising, and it's been a problem that employers have passed on to workers for entirely too long. So as long as employees find ways like WFH to mitigate the problem, all employees should benefit in some way. Fair is fair for all, not just some.

Because remote employees don't spend their own time and money on commuting to work. Those factors, along with saving on childcare, are the main drivers for desire to work remote, yes?

A company can reduce its office footprint to account for fewer in-person employees and save money. But that alone doesn't address the factors above faced by employees who commute, so those workers should be compensated.

Maybe that's the approach for hiring...remote employees are hired with the understanding that they will earn less than equivalent in-office employees. Commute time, transportation expenses, and any other incidentals make up the difference. It's all made clear and transparent upfront.

If remaining remote limits an employee's promotability for reasons of company need, this is also made clear.