I'm surprised so many people are so angry about the pay cut. Using my company's simulator, the pay cut seems to be at most 15% of the base salary and most likely less than that. In my case, considering cost of living, it would certainly be most advantageous to work remotely. I would save more money and live in a much nicer place.
It's not about the actual numbers. It's the WHY. How come the company was ok to pay X when the employee was coming to the office, but now that the same employee is WFH (and thus may be saving some dosh) they are only entitled to 0.85*X? Presumably the said employee was producing a value of Y (where Y may have been > X). Has Y changed? If yes, then it's fair to do the reduction, but I doubt that is the case. It might…
They pay you less, because presumably by going remote you're changing the market in which you're based and your value in this new market is lower. They had to pay you, say, $200k before because otherwise they would never hire anyone if the other companies offered 200k. If you move remote, and your local companies/other remote options only pay 100k, they would be stupid to keep paying 200k. They can pay you 150k instead and still keep you. What are you going to do? Rage quit and join the 100k company in protest? Most people are not going to do that.