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

241–250 of 624 posts

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

#241

Post by throwaway2245 »

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…

> your compensation is a function of your negotiating power

That's right, I suppose:

But, why do I have more negotiating power, if I can sufficiently fake an address in San Francisco?

This is just a way for employers to exert their power and reduce salaries across the board. It should be resisted.

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

#242

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

klodolph wrote: post #107
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.

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.

Market price connotes a two sided equilibrium, and in this case the point seemed to me to suggest the possibility of irrationality. It’s the same point being made in more plainly biased cases where equal pay for equal work is brought up.

Sometimes a market price disparity for a group is driven by nothing but social expectations.

Consider that the causal arrow might more strongly point the other direction on wages vs cost of living.

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

#243

Post by atomize »

couchand wrote: post #133
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…

> Take 2 people of equal skill, experience, and negotiating prowess. This just doesn't exist, not even in a hand-wavy rhetorical sense.

lulz @ "...not even in a hand-wavy rhetorical sense..."

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

#244

Post by boc »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #241
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…

> your compensation is a function of your negotiating power That's right, I suppose: But, why do I have more negotiating power, if I can sufficiently fake an address in San Francisco? This is just a way for employers to exert their power and reduce salaries across the board. It should be resisted.

Faking an address would work until you are expected to meet up with your team in person. If it turns out that you actually live in Bend, the gig will be up pretty quickly.

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

#245

Post by mac01021 »

boltefnovor wrote: post #15

If the employer offers terms you don’t like then don’t work for them. If you feel inclined you can say “I’m taking a job with an employer who doesn’t pay based on location”. But there’s really no reason to do the employer the service of telling them.

Not even the reason that I'm playing a long game and want to play a tiny part in steering society at large away from such hiring practices? If enough people decline offers, giving this reason, it's bound to make an impact eventually.

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

#246

Post by zepto »

inquirerofsorts wrote: post #165
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…

Why does this feel like one of these numerous HN posts that will not stand the test of time a few years later. I can do a better job than many in SF for half the price. Have already spent close to a decade waking up early for US west coast meetings. Get the feeling that a day of reckoning is coming for those clinging so dearly to their location based earnings. I've been saying it for years about Australia being so co…

Can explain where your feeling comes from?

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

#247

Post by a_imho »

bluedino wrote: post #211

I've heard of companies planning on paying people less money, since they don't need to commute, buy dress clothes, etc.

Some companies argue paying better salaries for remote are detrimental because it distorts the local markets. How to interpret that distortion is probably up to personal taste.

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

#249

Post by zepto »

a_imho wrote: post #226
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…

s/remote/female/g Or really, use any other marginalized group with limited negotiation power and see how your comment turns out. Only difference is remote is not protected class, but that is simply an implementation detail. Everybody argues this issue from the POV of their very own salary and it is understandable. It is fair to say you think you are at the good end of the deal and you like it there. But the moral arg…

Except remote/female is not interchangeable.

Remote = lower costs. Female ≠ lower costs.

I’m not arguing against equal pay for equal work. I’m arguing that it’s a bad analogy to compare being remote with being female.

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

#250

Post by a_imho »

jariel wrote: post #94

"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 abo…

This article is exactly about that people from all those places are not happy being paid less though.
Post reply on HN