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

191–200 of 624 posts

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

#191

Post by WJW »

drdeadringer wrote: post #85
pavel_lishin wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Presumable the first step would be "philosophy", so that you can determine for yourself what "not wrong" is. Then once you find out, act accordingly.

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

#192

Post by username90 »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #127
cambalache wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How can local wages (in a currency other than USD) be "pitiful", but food cost "the same" for the USD? These are incongruent. Locals wouldn't be able to subsist on those food prices. The USD has greater purchasing power, that's just a fact.

> Locals wouldn't be able to subsist on those food prices.

You can live on 2-3$ a day with American food prices and eat well. You can live on 50 cents a day with American food prices if you eat badly. Most third world wages covers this. For people living on less than that they will be forced to eat food of so low standard that it would be illegal to sell in USA.

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

#193

Post by sp332 »

rebuilder wrote: post #121

In this context, equal pay fo equal work really means reduced pay for local workers, assuming they're getting paid above the global average. If remote workers in cheaper countries can really get the job done as well as local employers, why would a company decide to lose money on local workers? Of course, the corollary to this is that maybe remote worker's aren't always as good a choice as local workers, which would e…

Maybe the workers moved to where they could make the most money. If equal pay were offered in every location, local workers would start competing against workers who would not or could not move. But to some extent, the competition has already concentrated itself locally. Beyond the short-term, people would stop moving to be close to the work so the pay would become more equal across distances.

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

#194

Post by Dirlewanger »

bumby wrote: post #171
Dirlewanger wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nego…

Besides the obvious point made by another commenter that two completely equivalent people won't exist, it's not just negotiating skill it's more about negotiating leverage . A real example that I've seen: two workers work for the same employer and have been given offers from other companies located in a different State. The single mother in the group had significantly less leverage because she (and presumably her emp…

Right, and employers are going to exploit these leverage imbalances in any way possible. It's why I don't think we'll ever see "equal work for equal pay" as seen in the article. You're just not going to get high COL wages while living in a low COL area.

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

#195

Post by ronyfadel »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #162
Dirlewanger wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can local wages (in a currency other than USD) be "pitiful", but food cost "the same" for the USD? These are incongruent. Locals wouldn't be able to subsist on those food prices. The USD has greater purchasing power, that's just a fact.

Anyone who's ever done an international relocation understands this. It works like this. Your company asks you, a SF-based tech executive, to relocate to India for a three-year assignment. Notional cost of living in India is absurdly low. But your company will actually estimate that you'll need ~$50-100,000 more per year from a COL perspective. This is because your existing lifestyle is now composed of what are all l…

Data point: me.

I used to live in Paris, in a one bedroom apartment, eating out most of the time, using public transport, and going on vacation about 3 times per year. I used to spend about $3500 per month.

In Mexico City, I was living with the same quality of life if not better (apartment in the heart of downtown, Uber'ing everywhere, eating out all the time), spending about $1500 per month (less than half).

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

#196

Post by [deleted] »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #122
nemacol wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure that's internally consistent from a logical perspective. Forget the require bit. Say it's an option. You're employed with a salary of $X at location Y. Your employer wants you to move to location Z with higher cost-of-living. You can either stay at location Y or move to location Z. You feel it's right that your employer increase your salary because of the higher cost of living if you move to Z. The compa…

[deleted]

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

#197

Post by dvtrn »

macinjosh wrote: post #146
sremani wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Software Developers will follow the path of the Autoworkers of the 60s, once a high paid and esteemed profession which becomes a menial job with average pay. It is not that far either, I bet Software Developers do not have beyond 7 years for this to take shape and of course, those massive layoffs are just around the corner when remote works becomes the standard.

Were auto workers considered skilled laborers? The value of a software engineer is that there is a skill there that takes significant time and effort to learn before you can be useful. Not sure if there is an equivalence there.

Having worked at a US automotive plant as a SWE: yes, they were and they still should be. I don't consider them any less skilled because their work is merely different than mine as an engineer whose primary tool is a keyboard versus a high-pressure water jet.

Their skills are just different.

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

#198

Post by bumby »

yeetman21 wrote: post #180
plutonorm wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is irrelevant. But somehow companies have convinced most that unions are a bad thing. They have leveraged their greater influence to further their power. They are now in an essentially unassailable position. For the great majority of the workforce they have no bargaining power. This toxic modern world should pop like the noxious little bubble it is. We need a new 60s only this time we need to win.

I am only qualified to speak about the tech sector in which I work. All of my coworkers make above six figures. We have every sort of benefit that we could want. Why would we want a union? Our company has convinced us that unions are a bad thing by giving us basically anything that a union could have, and more. Why would we want to agitate for more when we already have so much, and risk what we currently have (which…

Unions are meant to bring some balance to a very imbalanced power structure when that power structure lends itself to taking advantage of the employees. The fact that you and your fellow employees have it so well may indicate that isn't your case.

Unions aren't necessary but can help. I've worked in positions where the courts provided the same benefit via a different mechanism.

Edit: I accidently had "are" for "aren't"

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

#199

Post by satyrnein »

jasonjayr wrote: post #136
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #112

> You should expect "equal pay for equal work" at your new remote job So naive. In an ideal, utopian world? Maybe it would work this way. Maybe. In reality, your compensation is a function of your negotiating power. Some people, in fact, manage to get the same pay even when working remote, because they're "highly employable". Others don't. And let me add: I almost agree that remote work shouldn't necessarily command…

Then companies should have no problems whatsoever with Unions? I mean, if a group of employees want to get together to amplify their negotiating power, then they should not stop that?

Does this include coercing the employer to only employ union members? What does the union say if the company wants to hire someone for cheap in another country, who wants the job?

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

#200

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

plutonorm wrote: post #158
helen___keller wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then they should not stop that? The whole point of having negotiating power is they can't just "stop" it. Because you, as a union, collectively have enough power to force them to the table to negotiate. Whether or not the company has a problem with unions is basically irrelevant.

It is irrelevant. But somehow companies have convinced most that unions are a bad thing. They have leveraged their greater influence to further their power. They are now in an essentially unassailable position. For the great majority of the workforce they have no bargaining power. This toxic modern world should pop like the noxious little bubble it is. We need a new 60s only this time we need to win.

> "companies have convinced most that unions are a bad thing"

I don't know why people keep saying this. Unions themselves convinced most that unions are a bad thing, through their behavior. In my case, it was watching the UAW and Teamsters for a couple of decades.

Post reply on HN