"Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs • Hacker News Board

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

#431

Post by whimsicalism » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 7:11 PM UTC

aeternum wrote: post #424

whimsicalism wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If it is in our societal interest to produce more milk so people can eat, and the market doesn't do so, requiring subsidy, then that is a failure of the market to meet society's need. You're conflating the failure of a marketplace to…

Is excess milk production really a social need though? According to the market people would generally rather spend that money elsewhere. Via the subsidy the U.S. is forcing everyone to spend a small portion of their income on milk production.

> According to the market people would generally rather spend that money elsewhere

Or some people don't have the money to spend on it at all. This is the fundamental issue with using "willingness to pay" as proxy for "utility consumer gains."

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

#432

Post by pc86 » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 7:11 PM UTC

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #252

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 should expect "equal pay for equal work" ... > 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. > ...if you accept that you live in a market-enabled society, your salary is at stake, too. This logic horrifies me because it applies equally well to wage disparities based on protected classes. We have collectivel…

Protected classes are specifically excluded from market forces. That's why they're... protected.

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

#433

Post by titanomachy » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

fishtoaster wrote: post #367

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.

This is why I strongly suspect this is a self-correcting problem. A company decides to pay based on COL. Their engineers in rural areas are much cheaper and they now have a strong incentive to hire more people in Des Moines than in SF. They do so, thus driving up the demand for (and thus, price of) engineers in Des Moines. Likewise, by hiring fewer SF engineers, they're driving down the demand for (and thus, price of…

That was my first thought reading this article. As more of the workforce shifts to remote, the market price of talent should become less location-dependent.

> As an SF engineer, this'll probably pull my salary down, but the salary of engineers throughout the country up.

I'd say the salary of engineers throughout the world would go up.

I think this is a positive change that will make the overall industry more efficient and benefit society as producing high-quality software becomes more affordable. And I say this as an engineer in a high-pay city who benefits from the current inequality in the system.

I believe the change will be gradual enough that people like me can keep earning good pay by continuing to improve our skills and learn from experience.

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

#434

Post by jimbokun » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

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…

> Some people, in fact, manage to get the same pay even when working remote, because they're "highly employable".

Some people, when working on site, make more than other on site employees because they're "highly employable".

Bottom line is, being "highly employable" is the only relevant factor in negotiating, remote vs. on site is irrelevant, and you shouldn't let companies to bluff you otherwise.

If they like you a lot more than the other candidate, who just happens to live in a high cost of living location, are they really going to pass you over to hire the other candidate, if you demand the same wage that candidate would receive?

Capitalism isn't just for companies, you know.

If you're not "highly employable", get highly employable and negotiate knowing your worth.

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

#435

Post by grovellogic » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

During Covid this is not true, but my experience with Remote work is you need to be located next to a major international airport and/or US air hub for any travel requirements. The further you are for these locations make it incredible difficult to travel when the need comes up. Any company/employee that isn't based is a city center with good air travel would be limited with what they can do. This article clearly doesn't account for these differences.

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

#436

Post by nybble41 » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

ukoki wrote: post #347

satyrnein wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your cost of living is not the floor -- just ask Uber drivers. An income of less than the cost of living is still better than nothing. The floor is the next best thing you have available, or the minimum wage if applicable.

The actual cost of living is the floor, but cost-of-living metrics frequently overestimate the actual cost of living.

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

#437

Post by bobthepanda » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 7:14 PM UTC

aeternum wrote: post #424

whimsicalism wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If it is in our societal interest to produce more milk so people can eat, and the market doesn't do so, requiring subsidy, then that is a failure of the market to meet society's need. You're conflating the failure of a marketplace to…

Is excess milk production really a social need though? According to the market people would generally rather spend that money elsewhere. Via the subsidy the U.S. is forcing everyone to spend a small portion of their income on milk production.

Excess milk production acts as a buffer, because shortages in food can be quite severe depending on what happens any given year and it takes a while to ramp up production in response.

The program was developed in response to shortages of milk during wartime.

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

#438

Post by jimbokun » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 7:15 PM UTC

mgh2 wrote: post #264

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…

It is funny how tech employees complain about this when it hits them personally, while employers have been discriminating for eternity. That clause at the bottom of a job page: "no discrimination based on citizenship, origin, etc..."? Just corporate/legal mumbo jumbo. This is how it feels for the non-elite, non-American. In a weird way, the pandemic is leveling the playing field. Democratize opportunities, increase c…

> It is funny how tech employees complain about this when it hits them personally

That's a good point, because no other groups of people only complain about issues when they start to affect them personally.

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

#439

Post by suyash » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 7:15 PM UTC

rich_sasha wrote: post #5

This, and similar moans, really misses the point. Employment is a social contract, looking for a compromise between two positions: * Employers want to essentially acquire a good (productive employee) for the best quality / price ratio. If a trained monkey could do the job for peanuts, employers would be happy. * Employees, and the society made up of employees, want stability, employment rights etc. as salary work is…

This is a good definition based on how Capitalism works.

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

#440

Post by pc86 » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 7:16 PM UTC

gtsop wrote: post #339

golemotron wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lesson is: don't be a commodity.

Honestly interested in hearing your opinion on how to do that.

Address business concerns, don't just write code. Almost anyone can write some spaghetti Java and get it to build, but most people who can do that can't operate well in a business environment dealing with executives and C-level people. If you can do both, you're no longer a commodity.