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

311–320 of 624 posts

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

#311

Post by coward8675309 »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #296
coward8675309 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, pretty spot on. Would these Facebook employees be happier if Fb decided the equilibrium point was way below SV/SF subsistence and reset everyone's salary accordingly? "We're being fair. Work from wherever you like. Happy now?" I don't see that scenario hurting Fb. In fact, if I were Zuck, I might do it to clean house. There are plenty of talented people outside SV/SF and I bet they might be less focused on work…

The loss of institutional knowledge caused by a mass exodus at the same time would cripple them (and pretty much any company that doesn't have incredibly rigorous standards for documentation).

I've been at startups where we experienced 90% engineering turnover over 12 mo. due to M&A or change of leadership. We got by. I'm sure Fb could cope.

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

#312

Post by aeternum »

claudiulodro wrote: post #287
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…

> You want to pay $2 dollars for milk, instead of $20? That's thanks to competition between companies. It's not though. "The support granted to U.S dairy producers represented approximately [...] 73% of the farmers' marketplace revenue. USDA data also reveals that US dairy farmers operate at a loss, and have a cost of production that is higher than what they earn from the marketplace."[1] We're subsidizing the low co…

> the marketplace failed to provide both affordable milk and the ability for dairy farmers to make a living.

So the price is both two low and too high? This is not a failure of the marketplace (aka price discovery), this is the U.S. deciding that cheap milk and overproduction is in the nation's best interest and we should socialize some of the production costs.

There are logical (milk as a staple product and avoidance of shortages), and illogical (milk lobby takes too much effort to oppose) reasons for it, but it is not a marketplace failure. Remove the subsidies and the market would quickly find the higher price at which dairy farmers could produce milk profitably and consumers would purchase it.

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

#313

Post by a_imho »

jerf wrote: post #303
a_imho wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Legal protections for marginilized or protected classes is generally based on categorizations that can not be changed about a person. You can't just wake up one day and change your perceived race, or decide to be 20 years younger. 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…

Religion or Veteran status* are obvious counterexamples, people are very much in control for those.

Point is, just because an outgroup can be discriminated (legally) it is not fair morally.

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

#314

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

jpollock wrote: post #289

If you can move to a cheaper location and perform your job, your job can be exported to a cheaper country and performed there. It is possible to outsource jobs overseas, but the additional friction in communication will frequently overwhelm the benefits. I learned this from watching firms first outsource to New Zealand and then to India, only to pull the work back because the communication and training issues were hu…

Timezones are a harsh, harsh mistress.

In general, anything more than 8 hours either way is pretty much impossible (and 3-5 is probably the most workable).

Additionally, cultural differences are super super important (and ignored in a lot of these discussions).

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

#315

Post by toomuchtodo »

Aunche wrote: post #294
toomuchtodo wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I vigorously support those with more wealth than they'll ever spend (billionaires and such, the wealthiest in the world) to take efforts to lift the poorest out of poverty. We're talking about a nation's labor policies to protect it's own citizens. Why would a nation disadvantage it's own citizens for the benefit of another country's citizens? If you're not protecting the income and ability to accumulate wealth of yo…

I'm talking about multinational corporations, not individuals or nations.

As am I. I'm arguing against labor arbitrage, due to weak labor regulation and protections, as a wealth transfer mechanism by multinationals (operating in a market while outsourcing labor to another, collecting and profiting off the spread, while likely paying minimal taxes where they're domiciled).

The hollowing out of the American middle class over the last 40 years due to globalization is what the end result looks like, hence why those in the Western world should not support further globalization efforts (including outsourcing offshore).

Just like an airplane, oxygen mask on yourself first, then help those around you.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/09/459087477...

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

#316

Post by ouid »

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…

Perfect competition between laborers would lead to equal pay for equal work...

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

#317

Post by jasonjayr »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #280
jasonjayr wrote: post #136

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…

No, you didn't mention unions, but my response is specifically to:

> company's goal is to "extract" from each employee more value than his/her/their salary. If a company manages to save on a salary because the employee doesn't have much negotiating power, good for the company.

If that's a companies goal, then an employee's goal should be to counter that, and Unions are a line of defense against companies treating an employee as a resource to "extract" from.

Free markets are good and all, but companies leveraging their outsized power against individual people shouldn't be surprised nor able to prevent individuals from working to put that power in check.

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

#318

Post by sgift »

refurb wrote: post #239
echelon wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm certainly not pro-union in tech, but this is something that could hasten its arrival. Just because I'm in Atlanta doesn't make me inherently worth less than my peers in SF.

You’re not paid based on “worth”. You’re paid based on the intersection of how badly the company needs someone (demand) and how many people out there do what they need (supply). If suddenly the supply expands from the Bay Area to all of the US, that changes the equation. Don’t forget that guy in Atlanta who is equally as talented as you, but willing to work for 20% less than you make.

One point of unions is to make sure this kind of "shopping around" for people who are sufficiently desperate is not possible for companies: You pay x or you get no one.

And that's a good thing.

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

#319

Post by chillacy »

dvtrn wrote: post #197
macinjosh wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

I don’t think the tool is as important as the what you’re doing with it.

QA is done with a keyboard but is considered less skilled.

Sculpting statues may use a water jet but would be considered more skilled.

So the question seems to me: what are people doing with these water jets in US automotive plants? How long does it take to learn? How much variance is there in ability? (We talk about 10x programmers, are there 10x machinists?)

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

#320

Post by gtsop »

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…

> In reality, your compensation is a function of your negotiating power.

Ahhmm, no. Where does negotiation power stem from? Is it a skill? No. You are a product much like eveything else in this economy and you price is a function of how much you cost (living cost, heavily depedent on location) + supply/demand trends. Yes, your attitude and negotiation skills can impact your salary but only by a bit. You can't get your salary to tripple by negotiation. Why? What is the force that doesn't allow that? Supply and demand of other people who will do the same for less.

Thus I argue the trend will be a big decline in salaries for remote jobs in places like SF or London, but a very slight increase in salaries in places like india. The market of remote workers is going global, thus the price for this product will adjust accordingly. There will still be some variation in the salary depending on where you are, but the global min-max difference will decrease

Post reply on HN