Of course this is a legit point, but I doubt it'll change anytime soon because despite the fact that salaries are comparable, big city programs are still considered more desireable to candidates than are rural or middle america positions. Do you see columbia, harvard, northwestern, ucsf, or ucla programs struggling to fill? they could pay even less than a program in little rock and still have no problem filling. they can do this because students simply don't want to live in smaller towns in general and because most of more prestigious residencies are in large cities.
but you can be sure that the program in augusta is going to be sure to highlight how you can live a lot better on their $43K per year than the $47K per year in NYC, DC, LA, etc. unfortunately the nature of medical education dictates that it be done in decent-sized population centers, even for tertiary care centers that get a lot of referrals. you still need a base population large enough for your residents to get their "bread and butter" diseases mastered. that simply cannot be accomplished in a small kentucky town with 15K people where making $40K/year would make you a king.
as to the guy who went on the dennis miller style rant, i think their point that the match is anti-competitive is absolutely true. it clearly violates the sherman anti-trust act. however the alternative is the free for all that existed before the match was put into place. and that brings the discussion to the whole "should the match be eliminated" question that's been done before. however i have seen differences in perks offered (weeks vacation, insurance for spouses/kids, meals, laundryl, etc) that do serve as some form of competition. i just doubt most people weigh those factors much in making their decisions.
