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

411–420 of 624 posts

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

#411

Post by whimsicalism »

nickff wrote: post #404
dontbeevil1992 wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for certain people, the point of a market is not to meet people's needs, it is to "function efficiently," so they'll never think a failure to meet society's need is a market failure, that's just "the way things are, money doesn't grow on trees commie!"

'Market failure' is a term of art, and it's generally best to avoid redefining terms of art unless there's a very compelling reason to do so. Failing to meet people's needs is definitely a problem, but not a uniquely market-driven one. If there is a specific phenomenon which causes markets to fail in the delivery of socially desirable goods, it would be good to come up with a specific description and corresponding te…

Reread the thread.

> 'Market failure' is a term of art, and it's generally best to avoid redefining terms of art unless there's a very compelling reason to do so.

The person conflating "market failure" with what they were talking about is the GP.

The original comment was about the market failing to accomplish a goal, which is a perfectly idiomatic usage.

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

#412

Post by dwaltrip »

klodolph wrote: post #395
dwaltrip wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You acknowledge there are a very large number of complex factors that determine a market price. There isn't a way to neatly summarize that. What kind of explanation could you possibly want?

> What kind of explanation could you possibly want? Something that isn’t a tautology. “Why do you pay $4 for a cappuccino?” “Because that is the market price for a cappuccino.” “What does ‘market price’ mean?” “It means the amount of money people pay in the given market.” You can see that nothing at all has been explained. So when someone says that people are paying a certain price in a certain market “because it is…

I imagine anyone who could provide a very concise, comprehensive, and accurate explanation for such things would promptly receive a Nobel prize in economics.

There are some rough approximations we know to look at (e.g. the "market price" of the inputs, existence of competing products, and so on). But as you clearly noted, there are an immense number of complex factors affecting this.

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

#413

Post by allannienhuis »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #324
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sort of the opposite here in Canada, where dairy production is managed on a quota system (you need quota to produce and sell) and the quota is regulated such that the price remains stable (and more expensive than in the US) for the benefit of the farmers who have quota and in theory the public, who has a reliable "reasonable" price. It's dubious on many levels, but has its defenders.

End result of this being if I want to produce milk with dairy cows I can't?

If you want to buy an existing dairy farm's quota, you can. Similar to Taxi licenses in many places, no?

I think most Canadians feel that the supply-side management of dairy and some other food products works for us fairly well, and that the Taxi license system doesn't. I guess that means the reasons for them working well or not are something other than the concept of supply-side management?

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

#414

Post by robocat »

satyrnein wrote: post #209
bumby wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The value you bring is the ceiling on your compensation; employers are not going to pay more than that. Your cost of living is the floor; you're not going to take less than that. The spread between the two is what you're negotiating over.

The key is that there is competition for the job. Your negotiation is limited by the negotiation price of other applicants.

If you are the single possible candidate for a job that is essential for the company, then you can use your monopoly power to get paid more than the “value” you bring.

If the company has an excess of candidates, they may be able to pay less than “CoL” (because CoL varies per applicant, and the minimum is someone in poverty not a standard engineer lifestyle).

I do agree with your statement as a generalisation. Although the maximum a company will pay is usually nowhere near the value you might bring (Apple average pay $150k, Apple average excess profit per employee $300k).

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

#415

Post by nybble41 »

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…

If an employer asks an employee to move to a higher cost-of-living area then they're asking the employee to take on extra expense for the benefit of the employer. It's only reasonable that the employer would offer some form of compensation if they want the employee to grant that request.

If an remote-work employee wants to move to a lower cost-of-living area it should make no difference to the employer. They're still getting the same work as before, at the same cost. If the work output was worth that much before then it's still worth that much when performed from a different location.

If an employee chooses to move to a more expensive location, on their own initiative, then that is more like the second scenario than the first, and there is no reason to expect the employer to offer higher compensation to offset the cost-of-living in the new location when there is no particular benefit to the company from the move.

EDIT: fix typo

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

#416

Post by nickff »

whimsicalism wrote: post #411
nickff wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Market failure' is a term of art, and it's generally best to avoid redefining terms of art unless there's a very compelling reason to do so. Failing to meet people's needs is definitely a problem, but not a uniquely market-driven one. If there is a specific phenomenon which causes markets to fail in the delivery of socially desirable goods, it would be good to come up with a specific description and corresponding te…

Reread the thread. > 'Market failure' is a term of art, and it's generally best to avoid redefining terms of art unless there's a very compelling reason to do so. The person conflating "market failure" with what they were talking about is the GP. The original comment was about the market failing to accomplish a goal, which is a perfectly idiomatic usage.

I sort-of agree with you, but I was directly responding to the phrase:

>"... they'll never think a failure to meet society's need is a market failure..."

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

#417

Post by cmrdporcupine »

allannienhuis wrote: post #413
R0b0t1 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

End result of this being if I want to produce milk with dairy cows I can't?

If you want to buy an existing dairy farm's quota, you can. Similar to Taxi licenses in many places, no? I think most Canadians feel that the supply-side management of dairy and some other food products works for us fairly well, and that the Taxi license system doesn't. I guess that means the reasons for them working well or not are something other than the concept of supply-side management?

I think the perception that it works is more about the perception is that "milk" is a homogeneous category and the population doesn't much care that there isn't much diversity in it. Same goes for eggs. And the price is considered fair.

When you go making your own homemade cheese or yogourt though, then you notice how painfully high our (consumer) milk prices are. And when you taste higher quality milk in European countries, and notice the lack of quality milk at reasonable prices on Canadian grocery store shelves, it starts to be a bit more frustrating.

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

#418

Post by whimsicalism »

renewiltord wrote: post #342
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?

Companies can't stop you from unionizing. They can choose not to accept the collective agreement and they can hire permanent replacement for strikers. As for whether anyone should have a problem, you're welcome to have a problem. It's a free country. Whether that will lead to an outcome you desire is independent, though.

People love to paint this world of voluntary transactions and consensual agreements, but then corporations turn around and push for right-to-work laws which infringe freedom of association and contract by making it illegal for companies to sign security clause contracts with Unions.

Why should a voluntary, consensual signing of a contract be made illegal?

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

#419

Post by whimsicalism »

nickff wrote: post #416
whimsicalism wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reread the thread. > 'Market failure' is a term of art, and it's generally best to avoid redefining terms of art unless there's a very compelling reason to do so. The person conflating "market failure" with what they were talking about is the GP. The original comment was about the market failing to accomplish a goal, which is a perfectly idiomatic usage.

I sort-of agree with you, but I was directly responding to the phrase: >"... they'll never think a failure to meet society's need is a market failure..."

Fair, I didn't actually read that comment that closely.

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

#420

Post by [deleted] »

asdfaoeu wrote: post #17

Salaries are based on market rates not "cost of living". If you want your employer to pay a higher salary either move to another city where they would pay more or find another company. There's not much else you can do that would convince your company otherwise.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN