Live data from Hacker News

"Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

nityesh.com

101–110 of 624 posts

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

#101

It seems to me companies can either pay for the work, and how valuable it is to them, or pay by need, ie 'cost of living'. But in the latter case, they should also be paying people with families more than singles, for example. Since that is not the case, I can't see how they can justify 'cost of living' adjustments. Quite apart from the fact that the cost-of-living indices are often wildly incomparable. For example,…

> It seems to me companies can either pay for the work, and how valuable it is to them, or pay by need, ie 'cost of living'.

As many have pointed out, it's usually neither of those. The pay is determined by supply and demand.

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

#102
post #32

Cost of living is a swindle, at least when it applies internationally and cross culturally. If you want to live like a local in Jakarta (to use an extreme example), you can do so very cheaply, $180 a month for a room, eat rice for breakfast lunch and dinner. If you want to live like a San Franciscan in Jakarta, it will cost as much if not more as in San Francisco. An apartment will cost several thousand dollars a mon…

Yeah, I always laugh at the naivete of many people from first world countries : "Wow down there in Mexico the dollar is worth 10X/8X/6X times as more". No, it fucking is not. Or let me rephrase, it does but just for an extremely small subset of things. Cars? No, more expensive in the third world. House? Not at all, for a similar house, same quality of construction, and neigborhood, expect to pay at the very least the same amount of money you pay in average in the US. Food? No. Clothes? No. Land? Probably but if you have to sell it if will be sold to a lower price too. The only reason the dollar is worth more is because the local wages are pitiful, that's it.

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

#103
post #92
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.

This 'misconception' comes from two big sources, IMO:

1) Leadership is paid for the value they bring. Primarily through huge stock grants as part of their multi-million dollar compensation packages.

2) Companies always discuss employee compensation, especially raises and bonuses, in terms of the value an employee has relative to their peers.

So, it's no wonder that people believe that their value has something to do with their compensation: it's what they've been told by the companies themselves; it's how the most visible employees (leadership) are compensated.

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

#104
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

right, but what underpins the usual rules of employment is based on what the society wants. Like democracy - it is literally a contract, written in laws. And yet it is also a social contract.

the usual rules of employment is based on what the society wants. Until "the board" steps in and says 'no', right? That's been my experience. Proclamations and cheerleading about "we're a meritocracy, we act democratically in this company". Times get tough (like a Global pandemic coming along), employees ask firm questions like "will the executives taking a pay cut like the rest of us?" Response: "the board said no"…

So as I see it, the society leaves most of an employment contract up to the firm-employee combo (where the firm has the upper hand).

But some fundamental things are not up to the company, at least by law: can't discriminate by gender, race, age, veteran status, marital status, having children and so on. In Europe, like it or not, you must give your employees paid holiday leave, sick leave and time off to look after children. If firing people, you must give them proper notice, and cannot fire people for a long list of reasons considered illegal. If doing group redundancies, you must follow proper procedure, aiming to maximise the fairness of the approach.

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

#105
I guess it all comes down to how one interprets norms regarding discrimination. Paying someone less money for the same work based on their living area fits this dictionary definition of discrimination: "the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually" and that coincides with my personal feelings of discrimination.

I guess one can differ in the opinion on whether discrimination as defined is ethical or unethical. In this case the argument hinges on cost of living based on location and the willingness of the workers to work for less or more. However, if the cost of living argument was say in the context of Muslims needing more money because Halal food is harder to find and more expensive, then I think most people would agree that this is discrimination on the basis of religion and probably not legal in most jurisdictions of users here. I guess many people can distinguish these scenarios since discrimination based on race/religion is historically problematic and deserving of special protection whereas generic discrimination isn't necessarily problematic until it is. For me, "Because I can," is not a defense of unfair behavior and less pay for the same work is unfair in my norms.

For me, any determination based on criteria other than the individual's ability to perform the work is suspect. It is just too easy to abuse to maintain power imbalances in the world (obviously people living in ghettos are going to be paid less: it costs less to live in a ghetto, then they cannot earn more to either improve the ghetto or leave). It seems to me if you want to demand people work in the city with the office, you make the part of the contract where they are required to be in the office for some determined hours a sevarable part of the contract with its own remuneration. Then all remote workers get paid the same uniform smaller amount but are never required to be in the office: the requirement of being in the office is relevant to ability to perform work in some sense. If you live outside of the country and the company needs to handle special taxes for that, well either it could be flat out forbidden if HR won't do it or they could reasonably require you to pay for the actual costs associated with foreign reporting of income. Other than that, the employer should stay out of my personal business.

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

#106
post #73
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.

>To many people there is certainly a moral obligation to put in an honest effort

how can you have a moral obligation to an entity that is itself amoral (a corporation)?

>and pay fair wages

i'm not gonna hedge this at all: there are no corporations that pay fair wages out of a moral obligation. if there were no minimum wage they would be the lowest that the market would bare (and the market is also amoral).

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

#107

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.

Kind of putting the cart before the horse, here. Saying that something is “market price” doesn’t explain anything. Market price is driven by millions of factors including cost of living. “Market price” just means that it’s the price that people actually pay for something in the real world, it’s just a name for that price that doesn’t offer any explanatory power.

Cost of living does have explanatory power.

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

#108

The biggest thing that factors into your "cost of living" is not geographic, but rather the number of dependents you have. Oddly, you don't seem to see companies trying to base their compensation on this. Why do you suppose that is?

Probably because the company isn't paying you based on your living costs, but based on their cost of potentially losing you to some other company.

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

#109
post #92
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.

If a company is going to use the lazy COL argument, they're going to do so no matter what.

Take 2 people of equal skill, experience, and negotiating prowess. One lives in SF, another in Kansas City. Both apply to the same remote position for a SF-based company. The company will always take the one in KC. I don't see how negotiation skill has a role in this. Unless there are people out there who have successfully negotiated a SF-level salary while living somewhere like Kansas, but I haven't heard about it.

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

#110

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

Already happening in significant size.
Post reply on HN