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

471–480 of 624 posts

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

#471

Post by ghiculescu »

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…

I think what's more likely is a lot of overpaid people are about to move to Sydney and Melbourne because their pay isn't tied to their location (for now).

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

#472

Post by justincredible »

ubercow13 wrote: post #463
darth_avocado wrote: post #444

No, equal pay for equal work, especially in remote jobs isn't going to work. Why is it that for almost the entire history of man, we've had wages decided based on COL, and suddenly when it comes to tech bros who are seeing a pay cut, we are all up in the arms? A Starbucks barista in SF gets paid one and half times that in Oklahoma. They do equal work, just different locations. A lady in the Zara sweatshops in Banglad…

>there'll be plenty of people there who can do your job for less with the same set of skills Why weren't they already hired instead of the SF person, then?

They weren't arrogant enough.

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

#473

Post by raisedbyninjas »

jimbokun wrote: post #434
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…

What you're leaving out is two candidates that have comparable qualifications. Thousands of positions that were once on-site only have expanded to the rest of the world. The candidate pool at every level just got increased. This can only drive wages down. Regardless if a company is targeting 99 percentile or 50 percentile developers, they will choose the candidate in the rural mid-west given equal qualifications.

If there is ever a trend of a significant number of developers moving to low COL areas, then every recession, reorganization, merger, etc. becomes a potential situation for employers to threaten your job or relocating to Trumpville, Nebraska.

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

#474

Post by geodel »

jstummbillig wrote: post #469
darth_avocado wrote: post #444

No, equal pay for equal work, especially in remote jobs isn't going to work. Why is it that for almost the entire history of man, we've had wages decided based on COL, and suddenly when it comes to tech bros who are seeing a pay cut, we are all up in the arms? A Starbucks barista in SF gets paid one and half times that in Oklahoma. They do equal work, just different locations. A lady in the Zara sweatshops in Banglad…

> Simple answer: economics. Yes, that's a very simple answer – unfortunately, not entirely conclusive. A MacBook costs the same across the entire US. A Netflix subscription costs the same across the entire US. Maybe equal pay is just the right kind of unreasonable: The one that will get increasingly more reasonable the more it is being done, providing a push towards a more egalitarian society, first interregional and…

Netflix cost lot lower in India. Macbooks quite a bit higher. In one case reason is much lower purchasing power in other case much higher tax rate as Macbooks may come under luxury goods.

Even if I limit to US none of these 2 are like recurring major expense like food, housing, and myriad local services which have location sensitive pricing.

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

#475

Post by leetcrew »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #457
leetcrew wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This logic horrifies me because it applies equally well to wage disparities based on protected classes. I dunno if GP meant to imply that, but this is kinda the key flaw with the "equal pay for equal work" thing. most engineers earn way more than the median income. this is a direct result of existing in a market-based economy where wages are determined by supply and demand rather than some abstract notion of fairne…

> you can't complain that the payscale is different for atlanta vs sf while maintaining that it's totally fine for you to make 5x as much as the cashier at 7-Eleven. It's that the "equal work" part? Comparing one cashier to another cashier (assuming same hours, same responsibilities, etc) is equal work, so is part of an "equal pay for equal work" conversation. Comparing a cashier to a software dev is a wholly separat…

taken in isolation, sure, "equal pay for equal work" makes sense. but it sidesteps the question of why certain work commands higher pay in the first place. the answer lies in the balance between supply and demand. engineers were quite happy to accept the market equilibrium pay when it placed them near the top of the income food chain in their locale, but suddenly they are quite unhappy to see other engineers getting paid even more. maybe I'm not articulating this quite right, but there seems to be an inconsistency in here. it strikes me as similar to the type of feminism that only cares about seeing more women as CEOs.

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

#476

Post by yboris »

joelbluminator wrote: post #459
yboris wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should nudge and pressure people to be better (whether using some 'dark arts' or with kindness). Once you learn about the horrors of the animal abuse happening thanks to the money with which you buy meat, I think it's the right thing to stop. And similarly, to encourage others to decrease their meat consumption by letting them know that by buying meat, they are very likely going against their values (just ask them…

> And similarly, to encourage others to decrease their meat consumption by letting them know that by buying meat, they are very likely going against their values Well, people know. Maybe they don't KNOW know, in the sense of actually visiting a slaughter house and smelling the blood, but I'm sure most people know about animal shipments, tiny cages, and that gassing or slashing animals throats isn't a picnic. Personal…

It's a challenge talking about this topic. It's very easy to come off as "I'm better than you" or "you are a bad person". But these conversations can be productive and non-offensive.

I encourage people to see a wide continuum between eating 100% meat and eating 0% animal products. I express that I understand the challenges in decreasing one's meat consumption. I point out that it's not all or nothing - you can be "mostly vegan" (while still consuming animal products sometimes).

It's best to have conversations like this when the person is asking, not because you "caught" them eating an animal product.

Because of how grim the reality is for animals raised for food, most people are reluctant to be exposed to what it means. They will hope that (and not look for evidence against their belief that) the meat they buy comes from a better place (it's worth pointing out that in the US about 99% of meat comes from factory farms).

As I said - people's values are likely aligned. Polls consistently show that people do not approve of animal abuse.

The final argument that made me drastically decrease my meat consumption was the empirical fact that individual choices matter:while supermarkets are not 100% responsive (buying 1 item less decreases their next order by 1 item), they are responsive to demand. And if they buy in batches (which they likely do), you have a chance of triggering a "next-larger" batch order. On average it all works out to an (economic) elasticity of less than 1, but a far cry from 0 (depends on type of meat, but rough figure of 0.5 is a sensible underestimate).

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

#477

Post by asciident »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #291
yeetman21 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am only qualified to speak about the tech sector in which I work. All of my coworkers make above six figures. We have every sort of benefit that we could want. Why would we want a union? Our company has convinced us that unions are a bad thing by giving us basically anything that a union could have, and more. Why would we want to agitate for more when we already have so much, and risk what we currently have (which…

I'm in the same boat as you, but think about this: these cushy developer jobs in the Western world are on borrowed time. FAANG companies are investing billions to teach people how to code and brand it as if it's some noble humanitarian effort when it's really just to further lower wages. When the time of FAANG companies actually offshoring key development teams comes (and it is coming), I have 0 faith the federal gov…

I heard this same narrative in 2000, and it didn't happen, in fact the opposite. If you want people to believe that more people coding leads to offshoring and thus universally low wages, you'll have to make a more convincing argument to convince us that history is wrong (and not just wrong, went the complete opposite direction).

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

#478

Post by geodel »

ubercow13 wrote: post #463
darth_avocado wrote: post #444

No, equal pay for equal work, especially in remote jobs isn't going to work. Why is it that for almost the entire history of man, we've had wages decided based on COL, and suddenly when it comes to tech bros who are seeing a pay cut, we are all up in the arms? A Starbucks barista in SF gets paid one and half times that in Oklahoma. They do equal work, just different locations. A lady in the Zara sweatshops in Banglad…

>there'll be plenty of people there who can do your job for less with the same set of skills Why weren't they already hired instead of the SF person, then?

Really? Is every person on earth with certain capability doing or getting opportunity to do exactly that work.

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

#479

Post by inglor_cz »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #464
MetalGuru wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay isn’t directly based on COL. It’s based on supply and demand. If there were thousands of baristas available to fill jobs at SF Starbucks, the pay would be lower. The reason pay is higher in SV is because all the same firms were competing against each other for the limited supply of talent. One could argue the supply is impacted by COL, but it’s still only an indirect cause of pay determination.

I don't understand where people get the idea that prices are based on anything but supply and demand.

An interesting exception from intuitive understanding of supply and demand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

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

#480

Post by gamblor956 »

baron_harkonnen wrote: post #140

This will happen but people will should not be surprised that we all get paid Topeka KS salaries not San Francisco CA salaries. The long term strategy of location pay differentials may seem like punishing people for leaving SF, but it's the opposite. I've been paid 80% of SF rate to live in the middle of nowhere and anyone else who has done this will realize it's an amazing deal. When a 3000 sq ft house costs conside…

Then the conversation will be "Look Matt, it really doesn't make sense to pay you a premium just because you want to work SF. If you want to stay that's fine, but we'll be downgrading your pay to meet company standards."

Yes, this is a fantasy of many businesses, but it only works in a down market when a business does not have to meaningfully compete for employees with other businesses.

Post reply on HN