Is this something mentioned in your contract? Like some extra "cost of living" bonus for people living in the expensive Seattle area?

Does your contract say anything about your salary being contingent on your place of residence? Personally, I would never accept this (and start job searching immediately) but your mileage may vary.

You should check your contract, they might have included $X as a reimbursement for living in Seattle. Also, you might check whether your payroll documents also listed $X as reimbursement for that.

Part of the reason you were given such a high salary, is because of the cost of living in Seattle. But you didn't move to Seattle, so haven't experienced that high cost of living. Now you get to decide if you can get over your depression and continue working for $115k or not. Yes, it's allowed.

IMHO: instead of saying "salary 150k" they should say "salary 115k + we pay your mortgage/rent + utilies + gas + car paymetns etc for up to 35k a year if you live in Seattle". This would also fix inequalities like people living for cheap in Seattle because the parents own the flat or provide for them.

@GACy20 The US military does that with military personnel partially with a separate tax-exempt, locality-adjusted Basic Allowance for Housing. They also get a Basic Needs Allowance if their household income is too low. Civilian employees instead have a locality pay adjustment.

Are you being asked to show up in the office in Seattle? What does "living in Seattle" mean, having a mailing address there? I wonder what would happen if you notified HR of your new address in Seattle, which just happened to be a mail forwarding service?

@shoover If the OP decided to move to Manhattan do you think they would be paid more? Cost of living is a red herring, the company doesn't care about how much money it takes the OP to survive they only care about how much money it takes to keep the OP working for them.

@spuck even if IRS did not get positions they asked for they are still force to recon with... If company found that they pay taxes incorrectly (i.e. one was physically present in one state, but the company paid taxes as if they were in a different state) that would not play well for the company... It likely would be cheaper to fire the person an report them to authorities.

@spuck: In addition to Alexei's remark, there's an element of dishonesty at play here. If you claimed you were living in the same state as the office but were actually living in another, what else did you lie about, would be the thought I'd have as a manager. Being dishonest never works to your advantage, because that could easily box you out of any sort of unemployment insurance you'd need while looking for a new job (and it might by default, since your state is the one that distributes that).

Do you still have the option to move to Seattle? If not in the heart of the city then hopefully something cheaper outside of the city? Is physical presence in the office a requirement? Right now you're just telling us that you didn't hold up your end of the bargain but are free to keep the extra $70k you've made in the past two years. Yes, the reduction to $115k stings but it doesn't sound like it blindsided you.

Did you have any concerns when they adjusted your salary higher when you told them you'd move to Seattle?

If you have 2 years at a FAANG under your belt I bet there's a lot of companies that would give you better offers (better than 115k at least), even with remote work. Big tech is going through a squeeze right now, there are a lot of layoffs going around, they may just be looking for excuses to cut costs.

Does this answer your question? Remote Work: I moved, my employer wants to reduce my pay

"go back to what it was." so it was 115, then 150 in the anticipation of going to seattle, then you decided not to move, so your salary was brought back to its original value. Sorry, what are you complaining about exactly?

@Makoto, full agreement here. To be sure: this would be "bending the truth" by omission at best; full out dishonest at worst. I can't recommend they try this, just curious how HR is determining they are not "due" the Seattle salary.