Facebook already pays people with the exact same credentials 1/3 in London what they would in California, despite London being similarly expensive. These companies do not pay anyone solely based on the work they produce, it has never and probably will never work that way.
"Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
81–90 of 624 posts
Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there is no moral obligation for employers to pay a wage that's fair, based on the value of the employee work, perhaps above ~subsistence levels. is there moral obligation to do your job well instead of let's say watching youtube and doing bare minimum not to get fired? It's funny how people expect moral behaviour from other people but not from companies made of these people. Somehow it's fine for companies to be j…
> It's funny how people expect moral behaviour from other people Do we though? We expect people to not break the rules, e.g murder or steal. We don't expect people to stop eating meat, polluting the earth, or generally to stop being extremely selfish. If we expected everyone to be moral you and I wouldn't be spending money on vacations and buying computer games but on trying to save poor kids in Africa and Bangladesh…
Over the years, I realized that everyone is selfish and will literally throw you under a bus for the right amount of money, or some other acceptable incentive. Laws keep people in line, except for the few who break them and get away with it.
Maybe I'm hanging around the wrong people (I often wonder where all the "right" ones are), but that's how it is. And if I don't play the same game, I'll keep getting fucked until I die. It's really depressing.
Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
#83Calling it now, the existence of geo-pay scales will lead to the creation of ghost dorms with beds leased out by tech workers needing a legal address. Basically a WeBed with mail forwarding and a VPN.
Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
#84This, and similar moans, really misses the point. Employment is a social contract, looking for a compromise between two positions: * Employers want to essentially acquire a good (productive employee) for the best quality / price ratio. If a trained monkey could do the job for peanuts, employers would be happy. * Employees, and the society made up of employees, want stability, employment rights etc. as salary work is…
I think the only way that balance changes is within a worker cooperative. It’s odd to me that there aren’t more tech based cooperatives as the entry cost seems so much lower than many other businesses. But I also suppose the opportunity costs may also be higher.
Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there is no moral obligation for employers to pay a wage that's fair, based on the value of the employee work, perhaps above ~subsistence levels. is there moral obligation to do your job well instead of let's say watching youtube and doing bare minimum not to get fired? It's funny how people expect moral behaviour from other people but not from companies made of these people. Somehow it's fine for companies to be j…
> It's funny how people expect moral behaviour from other people but not from companies made of these people. Somehow it's fine for companies to be jerks. We expect different behavior from a beehive than we expect from the bees, don't we?
I don't want to be a bee.
How can I be not wrong? "Entrepreneur" is not an answer.
Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
#86Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the one hand lying about your location to an employer seems sketchy. On the other hand COL adjusted pay seems pretty much equally sketchy. Employers trying to adjust salaries based upon COL really isn't much different to printer manufacturers software disabling printers and selling them at a cheaper price. It's an attempt at price differentiation - in the opposite direction.
If your employer required you to move to a location with a higher cost of living, would you not expect to be compensated for that? i.e. is it only downward adjustments for COL that you object to? and, if so, what's the logic in that (other than pure self-interest)?
I think the "requirement" part is a sticking point. If I chose to move from my small house in WV to a condo in Pitt, i would not expect my employer to pay me more because of my choice. If they required me to move to Pitt or I lose my job, I would expect some compensation.
Likewise, if I take a job and get X salary for that job, then move to a cheaper part of town I wouldn't expect to take a pay cut.
Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
#88The reality behind "cost of living" is actually "market price". Companies having this policy don't actually try to figure out how much it costs to live in a city in an other, they just look how much people are paid for a similar job in the area.
In other words, companies with this policy pay you as low as the market allows them, without you being poached by a local competitor.
Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
#89If you live in the US and are advocating for this be careful what you wish for. It could lead to your 100-200K per year salary being cut to well below 100K to equalize across all engineers including those in low cost areas such as China and India.
Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
#90The disconnect in this conversation between employer and employee happens for these reasons: In reality companies had to pay a premium in order to demand that an employee lives in certain geographic area so that they show up every day in a certain office building. Depending on the location of the building, the premium can be very high. Now comes the pandemic which forces - or should I say “allows” - companies to try…
> In reality companies had to pay a premium in order to demand that an employee lives in certain geographic area so that they show up every day in a certain office building. Depending on the location of the building, the premium can be very high.
100% agreed with this. I personally see no issue in paying a premium if an employer is asking for something extra, like being in a specific location, or working odd hours, paying a premium is reasonable. There are many reasons why a company may want someone to be on-site in a specific city; this applies if the city is SF, or a small city.
The issue that I personally have is when location is not a factor, but is still factored in to "location dependent pay". Pay someone in SF more because it's important to you for them to be phsycially present? Sure. Pay someone in Oklahoma less than someone in Austin, despite the fact that neither of their locations makes a difference to their work? Now you're openning yourself up to implicit discrimination and "unfair" conditions.