That's not really an information advantage — the employer can demand that information even without the need for employment paperwork (ignoring the impracticality of that for argument's sake). An employer has an interest in knowing in which time zone their remote employee is situated. If there is onsite work to be done with clients in different geographies, knowledge of where employees live so as to be able to efficiently deploy them is also another use case. And finally, the employer can simply demand that the employee divulge that information through negotiation leverage — the same way that they can force an employee to divulge their name.
Also, this argument can be used the other way around. Why should an employee know what the employer's finances are? Perhaps the employer has the raw ability to pay an employee more (even if it's not economically expedient), but why should the employee know this? Why should the employee know where the employer is physically situated?
In every market, the employee and employer both have information on where the other is situated and how much they are able to pay / receive. That's not really information asymmetry.
Also, at this point, remote software engineer salaries are some of the most well published in the industry, though there is definitely room for improvement in salary transparency. All that being said, I don't think you can convincingly argue that ALL remote software engineers ought to be paid exactly the same, regardless of their local cost of living. They can certainly try to negotiate their wages up, but there will also be downward pressure on wages if the labor market is loose enough.
I disagree with the idea that an employer can demand information that the state does not require. If an employer asks for salary history, a candidate can simply tactfully say "no," and walk away if necessary. Saying no doesn't preclude working there (except in how it may agitate the negotiator). Where a candidate lives is not something you can convince the employer to negotiate without, because the state requires that information. You cannot have the job without revealing it. So I still think it's different.
Also, this argument can be used the other way around. Why should an employee know what the employer's finances are? Perhaps the employer has the raw ability to pay an employee more (even if it's not economically expedient), but why should the employee know this? Why should the employee know where the employer is physically situated?
In every market, the employee and employer both have information on where the other is situated and how much they are able to pay / receive. That's not really information asymmetry.
Also, at this point, remote software engineer salaries are some of the most well published in the industry, though there is definitely room for improvement in salary transparency. All that being said, I don't think you can convincingly argue that ALL remote software engineers ought to be paid exactly the same, regardless of their local cost of living. They can certainly try to negotiate their wages up, but there will also be downward pressure on wages if the labor market is loose enough.