I may have misinterpreted your comment as a positive claim about companies' intentions surrounding location-based pay rather than a normative claim about how companies should deal with location-based pay.

Specifically, this part of your response seems it is criticizing the author for being incorrect about companies' intentions (implying that the article claims that companies are enacting location-based pay out of benevolence):

"The fact that companies are still able to pay lower rates in different parts of the world is driven by their relentless drive to cut costs and nothing else. They couldn’t care less about societal issues. Get real."

But maybe I'm wrong about that, and this comment is in fact assertively agreeing with the author (the 'get real' seems out of place?).