301–310 of 624 posts
What's the incentive to stay in the $1k/sqft Bay Area if our coworkers in $90/sqft Michigan are living the lives of kings and queens?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Somehow it's fine for companies to be jerks. Look at many of the products we make together. Why would we hide behind laws that protect bad practices and think those same companies take a moral high ground on this issue. It is, and always will be, due in part to fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, about the money.
Funny how Target and Costco are still in business, since they're both public and pay living wages to their employees. The duty of a business is to keep the business healthy. This whole "profit at any cost" is a fairly new development.
> 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…
Geographic location is not a category for protection, nor is it going to become one. First, it simply isn't something that can't be changed, and second, our elites in general want us to be able to move around freely, so they aren't going to make it one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I didn't say anything about Unions. I am not an expert, but my humble, quick one-liner to describe how I see Unions is the following: Unions are good to protect employees that don't have negotiating power (e.g. factory workers), otherwise companies would take too much advantage of them. I am not sure this necessarily applies to knowledge workers, especially if their work can be done remotely to some extent. And I am…
> 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…
This is itself a bit naive. In a basic market with voluntary transactions the distribution of the gains from trade is undefined.
If your labor sells for $100/hour and costs you $10/hour to produce (basic food, water and shelter) then it is a perfectly legitimate equilibrium for the company to pay you $10.01/hour and take the other %89.99 as profit.
It's only through politics that we can make sure that the gains from trade are evenly split. The math of markets doesn't define it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Why is it suddenly coercion if your employees make this kind of negotiation using their collective bargaining ability? Employers are constantly able to dictate almost endless terms of employment, but if employees want the ability to exact more leverage using that power suddenly the supreme court and every supposed free-market guru shits their pants.
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…
High end companies doesn't work like that. For example Google first decides that they want you, then they pay you their market rate no matter where you live. You can choose to work in SF for a high pay or in India for a low pay, up to you, they still want you. In fact the high pay in SF is actually the easiest position to get, the lower wage positions in other areas are more competitive since they have fewer spots.
Are they paying 250k base in London? They weren't a few years back, and therefore they pay based on the market.
The London thing is even funnier because they claim to want top talent, but refuse to benchmark against actual top-talent companies in London (i.e. finance).
It's just nonsense, and if some of this gets disrupted by remote work then I (as someone getting screwed by the current system) will be all for it.
> 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…
> That's thanks to competition between companies. That's market forces at play. You want it there? Accept it on salary negotiation too. This is itself a bit naive. In a basic market with voluntary transactions the distribution of the gains from trade is undefined. If your labor sells for $100/hour and costs you $10/hour to produce (basic food, water and shelter) then it is a perfectly legitimate equilibrium for the c…
That's clearly not the case since my employer could legally pay me $15/hour for my work, but pays significantly more. They do so, because they are competing with other employers for talent.
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.
> 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…
> That's thanks to competition between companies. That's market forces at play. You want it there? Accept it on salary negotiation too. This is itself a bit naive. In a basic market with voluntary transactions the distribution of the gains from trade is undefined. If your labor sells for $100/hour and costs you $10/hour to produce (basic food, water and shelter) then it is a perfectly legitimate equilibrium for the c…
False. Competition from other employers can do this too.