I just wanted to point out that Facebook doesn't pay based on cost of living, but cost of labor. They will pay as much as it takes to hire the best in a given location, but not a penny more. So the article is attacking a strawman.
"Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
501–510 of 624 posts
Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
#502Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There's a very concise explanation for why someone would pay $4 for a cappuccino, and it's the one they teach you in Econ 101: it was worth at least $4 to the buyer, and it couldn't be found more cheaply from a similar (location, quality, convenience) seller.
Sure. But that still isn’t terribly satisfactory. Why is it the case that there aren’t buyers and sellers at other prices? I don’t think we can concisely and accurately answer that.
Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Socializing costs" is a widely used term to describe the phenomenon of the public taking on private costs for some real or perceived benefit.
Frankly, this way of talking seems to have its origin in the 2008 financial crisis more than in any actual technical economic language ( https://www.cnbc.com/id/34921639 ). And it speaks more to American's mis-education about what socialism is (or its history) than anything else. Apparently HN does not agree with me, I challenge my downvoting fans to find citations for "socializing losses" in the way you're talking a…
> Frankly, this way of talking seems to have its origin in the 2008 financial crisis more than in any actual technical economic language
The exact phrasing of "privatize the profits and socialize the losses" seems to have become popular in 2008, if not actually originating there, but the concept of the problem is much older; its essentially a new phrasing of what has both before (and even since) popularly been phrased as "Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor" [0].
But "socialization" for distributing a cost/benefit outside of the participants in a transaction, and "privatization" for concentrating it there is a common term that is disconnected from "socialism" except that their shared "shape" is not mere coincidence, but because they have related-though-not-derived-from-each-other meanings.
> And it speaks more to American's mis-education about what socialism is (or its history) than anything else.
That's true of the older form (though less so the newer, though it derives some rhetorical utility from the similarity in words), though not in the obvious way. At least the earlier form was coined and is still popularly used by people who know very well what socialism is; it deliberately and directly leverages the way (not just the fact, but the specific arguments used) that the people who support what it criticizes have poisoned the well against socialism and misleading used to promote capitalism, turning it against the system.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_for_the_rich_and_cap...
Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 co…
Honestly in Europe we have the same quota system for milk.
Quality here is not a function of the market being more free.
It's a function of a better food production chain
Instead of competing on prices many food products in Europe compete on quality and locality (small areas that produce some unique product of extremely high and renowned quality: Champagne in France, Parmigiano Reggiano in Italy, jamon serrano in Spain, etc. etc.)
Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
#506The disconnect in this conversation between employer and employee happens for these reasons: In reality companies had to pay a premium in order to demand that an employee lives in certain geographic area so that they show up every day in a certain office building. Depending on the location of the building, the premium can be very high. Now comes the pandemic which forces - or should I say “allows” - companies to try…
> In reality companies had to pay a premium in order to demand that an employee lives in certain geographic area so that they show up every day in a certain office building. Depending on the location of the building, the premium can be very high. 100% agreed with this. I personally see no issue in paying a premium if an employer is asking for something extra, like being in a specific location, or working odd hours, p…
[deleted]
Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a company is found to be discriminating by protected class, they are in big trouble. Sure, it can be difficult to catch. But what is your point exactly? Markets currently play a massive role in determining prices across our entire society. A wage is a price paid for an individual's labor. Labor markets are not perfect. No market is (despite the wailings of the ideologues). We try to fix these issues with specific…
The point is that “the markets don’t work that way” isn’t an argument that “society shouldn’t work that way.” We intercede in the case of protected classes because “economics therefore morality” isn’t a sound argument.
[deleted]
Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
#508> 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…
It doesn't follow that it's a necessary state of affairs, though. New Zealand milk farmers are not subsidised and milk is cheap enough (about USD $2.80 for 2 litres, which is only slightly more expensive than milk in the USA, and due to tax differences and so on, easily accounted for).
Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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."
The appropriate way to fix that problem would be to directly give the money to the people who have trouble paying for food, instead of giving it to dairy farmers.
This (some kind of UBI) does seem like the best solution to give those that don't have money a say what we produce.
But this still doesn't address tail risk like war or disasters. Importing 100% of the nation's food might make sense from a market POV but is a significant risk from a strategic POV. Markets do not seem to handle low probability events very well.
Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a company is found to be discriminating by protected class, they are in big trouble. Sure, it can be difficult to catch. But what is your point exactly? Markets currently play a massive role in determining prices across our entire society. A wage is a price paid for an individual's labor. Labor markets are not perfect. No market is (despite the wailings of the ideologues). We try to fix these issues with specific…
The point is that “the markets don’t work that way” isn’t an argument that “society shouldn’t work that way.” We intercede in the case of protected classes because “economics therefore morality” isn’t a sound argument.
[deleted]