Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

nityesh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 624 posts

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#91

Post by klodolph »

Often overlooked in the discussions about privilege and equality is the discussion about how citizens of different countries are given different levels of access to the same jobs.

Like, I’m a US citizen and have basic programming skills. Not long after college I landed a software engineering job and I immediately have access to markets like SF or NYC, all I have to do is pack up and move (and it turns out I don’t even have to pack up, because relocation packages include it).

Let’s say you’re from Syria and have a similar set of skills. This sounds hypothetical, but I’m thinking of a specific, real person here. You go to college in the middle east, eventually get a tech job doing operations work in the EU, get an intra-company transfer to the US, have to deal with US govt. questions to work in tech or get a bank account, and then eventually transfer to a software engineering job.

At the same point it makes complete sense that there are dense clusters of highly skilled software engineers in a few places, like SF, and if you want access to that talent pool you have to pay them enough money to make rent.

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#92

Post by bumby »

arc0 wrote: post #81

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.

There is a pervasive misconception that you are paid for how much value you bring. In a market economy, you are paid commensurate to how much you can negotiate. The value you bring (real or imagined) is part of that negotiation, but so are other factors.

It pains me to see people get frustrated by this fact.

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#93

Post by rich_sasha »

davemp wrote: post #73
ukoki wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is there moral obligation to do your job well instead of let's say watching youtube and doing bare minimum not to get fired? No You can choose to do well to avoid being fired. You can choose to do well to chase a promotion. You can choose to do well because the work interests you. But you are not morally obligated to do anything, and if your employer is not very good at evaluating your work, then — like a man who b…

Who's morals are in question here? Both you and GP seem to be talking from an amoral perspective. To many people there is certainly a moral obligation to put in an honest effort and pay fair wages.

I certainly don't think of my approach as amoral. Rather, I think it's not immoral to negotiate down a salary based on fair yardstick (COL). Annoying, perhaps, but not immoral.

It's immoral to exploit your employees, lie to them, not keep to a contract, deny them the growth opportunities they were lead to believe they have etc. But to negotiate a lower pay, that's not immoral. As an employee, take it or leave it.

To be clear, I'd love to get a SF salary and live in an Alpine valley in Italy or France. Maybe the world will come to that arrangement. But if not, I wouldn't call it immoral.

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#94

Post by jariel »

"Equal pay for equal work" ... Says the guy putting together your iPhone in China as well.

This is going to be a huge lesson in Supply and Demand for the workforce.

And contemplate that there are zillions of intelligent people learning to speak English and who can code (and do other things) very well.

I don't think the American / Western workforce realizes how fragile their position is in the long run.

Today it's about 'remote work' but starting the moment the pandemic is over, there are 5 resumes from Poland, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Zambia, and Fiji - all of whom very qualified and will work for 1/3 the cost to replace you. And I mean you. (Even CEOs and AI Researchers are replaceable, or at least, investors will believe they are).

These forces are unassailable in our current structure and in some ways it may not be good.

It may lead to further consolidation among the 0.1% as they gain more power.

And while the 'power centres' may be located in the West, but they're really just 'international zones', not really American/Western in anything but civil and legal structure.

We saw the manufacturing jobs go out the door for the last 50 years, and frankly it was a boon for 2 Billion people have come out of 'abject $1/day starving poverty' into 'survivable $20/day humble-means poverty' ... but now the same thing will happen to white collar workers as well.

The Fed Chairman, usually very demure and super conservative and orthodox, even talked about how 'we're not going back to the way it was' - it's not just remote working, it's the insane amount of debt, perennial 0% and negative interest rates, aging workforce (including China), and frankly a surprisingly conflict-free world (it's hard to believe that but it's true) thriving on trade. It's definitely a Brave New World - for those who've grown up and remember the Post WWII order ... it's kind of spooky because the rules are being rewritten in a major way.

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#95

Post by forest_dweller »

rwmj wrote: post #36

Pay is a power relationship. No one is asking company directors to take a pay cut based on cost of living calculations, because company directors have power over their companies. Similarly cleaners are paid peanuts even if they have to live/commute to high cost of living cities to do the job, because cleaners have no power in the relationship. This is also why workers who unionise can be paid more - the union has pow…

No it isn't about power. Labour is a market and is governed by the laws of supply and demand (typically).

A cleaner gets paid less because it is unskilled work and almost any able bodied person can be a cleaner. Same someone that stacks shelves in a super market.

The same happens in our industry. VB.NET developers aren't in demand, the contract rates are sometimes £200-300 a day less than a React JS / C# .NET Core developer in Manchester which is in demand. Higher demand pushes up the price of labour.

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#96

Post by 0x445442 »

Sadly I expect Big Tech is looking at remote work for the wrong reason, mainly labor cost arbitrage. I say sadly because I think Big Tech could do a lot of social good in an ever increasing divided America by making a concerted effort to employ remote workers from diverse geographic regions within America.

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#97

Post by LeonB »

bserge wrote: post #82
joelbluminator wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 think you might be hanging around the wrong people. I’ve rarely met people with the ethics (or lack) you describe and certainly haven’t stayed in their presence if i can help it.

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#99

Post by xenocratus »

eloisant wrote: post #88

The 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.

So presumably once a sufficient number of employers switch to accepting fully-remote on the reg, "local competitor" won't mean much anymore. This impacts "local-first" companies more, right, because their pool of candidates will shrink/be poached, so it will put more pressure on them to switch to "remote accepted" as well

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#100

Post by Loughla »

lgleason wrote: post #89

If 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.

Learn a lesson from the manufacturing fields. The jobs left because they could be cheaper somewhere else.

It was a greater good for a much larger number of people, but for those at the top of the pay scale, it was a severe reduction in quality of life.

Shooting for a higher average has the effect of bringing up a ton of folks' incomes, while negatively impacting a few.

You, too, could be the few.

Post reply on HN