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

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

#561

Post by forest_dweller » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 12:51 AM UTC

IggleSniggle wrote: post #560

forest_dweller wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saying it’s a power relationship is another way of saying the same thing that you are saying here. The way you frame the power imbalance is framed suggests that there is always something coercive and manipulative going on. A market rate suggests that a the hourly or daily rate for labour has settled naturally around a particular point through market forces in that particular area. Developers are more in demand in L…

I’m not talking about a power imbalance, I’m talking about pay being a function of power equilibrium, of which market forces are one significant (perhaps most significant) component in a market society.

I think I will leave this conversation. You seem to want to engage in double speak. I have no interest in continuing.

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

#562

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 1:17 AM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #371

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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…

> 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…

[deleted]

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

#563

Post by IggleSniggle » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 1:18 AM UTC

forest_dweller wrote: post #561

IggleSniggle wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not talking about a power imbalance, I’m talking about pay being a function of power equilibrium, of which market forces are one significant (perhaps most significant) component in a market society.

I think I will leave this conversation. You seem to want to engage in double speak. I have no interest in continuing.

I am sorry that it appears this way; I truly am not meaning to engage in double speak and really am trying to have a good faith dialogue. I’m not sure how you can remove the act of negotiation for labor unless the labor involved is entirely commoditized. And I’m not sure how to express the elements that make up that negotiation except as opposing interests with more or less power (regardless of whether you wish to label this as “coercive” or “manipulative” which seems to come with its own moral baggage that I am not trying to address).

I guess it could appear that I am engaged in double speak if you believe I am the poster that you originally responded to, but I am not.

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

#564

Post by satyrnein » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 1:22 AM UTC

JAlexoid wrote: post #538

satyrnein wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this include coercing the employer to only employ union members? What does the union say if the company wants to hire someone for cheap in another country, who wants the job?

If a company enters into a contract - they cannot break it without facing consequences. Yes - union contracts may include a ban on non-union workers. As long as that's not mandated by law - it's really none of our business.

Is this a contract freely entered by both parties? I got the impression that wasn't the case, that a company couldn't just politely decline.

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

#565

Post by areyousure » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 1:28 AM UTC

JAlexoid wrote: post #520

whimsicalism wrote: post #431

Earlier 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."

Just because SAD has had a lot of milk in it for the last 70 years, doesn't mean that we actually need it. Milk consumption dropped and we need to drop financial incentives for it.

I had never heard of this abbreviation, so in case someone else is similarly curious, it appears "SAD" in this context stands for "standard American diet": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_pattern_diet

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

#566

Post by whimsicalism » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 2:08 AM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #494

whoknew1122 wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could start with: 1.) Getting rid of at-will employment 2.) Have a NLRB that is functional and actually protects labor 3.) Lower the legal threshold for proving illicit anti-union activities 4.) Give teeth to laws protect that unionization and uniformly enforce those laws no matter the political party in power 5.) Staff the upper levels of the NLRB with career civil servants, not political appointees

Honestly, I would start with just a. eliminating workplace one-party consent recording laws in every state b. public advertising campaign + bounty - record your employer for violation of labor law and get paid a bounty if it is proven in court

two-party* shit

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

#567

Post by thedevilslawyer » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 2:33 AM UTC

throwaway3699 wrote: post #341

neilwilson wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So naive." Depends on the law. If I'm female, and you're male, then equal pay laws may force it to be the same for equivalent work. Most of the rest of the world forces business to compete for labour - which is as it should be. Jobs, not people, should wait.

Enforcing this kind of equal pay law will result in a mass shifting of jobs to 3rd world countries the likes the world has never seen before.

"Enforcing of this kind of equal pay for women will result in mass entry of women into the workforce, the likes of which the world had never seen before. "

It was the moral thing to do, and it happened despite the men it affected.

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

#568

Post by arrosenberg » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 2:41 AM UTC

superfrank wrote: post #555

arrosenberg wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the author is pretending it isn't about money - that seems to be the central thesis of the entire article. The point they are making is that if the author wants to live in India, if the work is entirely remote anyways, they shouldn't have to provide additional value. If his work was worth $100K when he lived in SF, why isn't the equivalent work worth $100K in Wichita? To me it seems like a recognition o…

> The point they are making is that if the author wants to live in India, if the work is entirely remote anyways, they shouldn't have to provide additional value They should because there is nothing stoping their company from hiring someone else in India for the Indian market rate. > If his work was worth $100K when he lived in SF, why isn't the equivalent work worth $100K in Wichita? His work wasn't worth $100k. It…

> They should because there is nothing stoping their company from hiring someone else in India for the Indian market rate.

They already could do that. Nothing about the situation has changed.

> It cost $100k to hire someone who was willing/able to do his work and come into the office.

Well, see, now you are adding a thing. That's the entire point of this article. The company didn't outsource the job before. Plus, with lower office space requirements and fewer commuters, companies will save money without touching salaries. If being in an office is a requirement, then sure, but the premise of the argument is that these jobs are being done just as productively without physical presence.

> People in the Bay Area (etc) were being payed wages far, far above the national rate.

Says you. Bay Area pay rates were at a premium because the best talent went there for the network effects. Now there is a diaspora happening. The talent is still worth the premium rate (otherwise the employer already would have looked to lower their basis), so why should it go down just because the IP that connects to their company VPN is in Arizona instead of California? That seems backwards to me.

I completely understand the motives of the company, but the employees should absolutely not accept that. One day good software engineers (etc.) might be that fungible, but they aren't today.

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

#569

Post by bumby » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 3:01 AM UTC

JAlexoid wrote: post #533

xav0989 wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies can't stop you from unionizing, but as Walmart has shown time and again, they will straight up close a store and lay-off every employee there if there are rumours of unionization. They would rather not have a store at all than have a store where the employees are unionized.

Ok... Is there a law somewhere that says that you have a right to have a Walmart? As an anarchist - why are people not willing to start a co-op?

Short answer: people have limited bandwidth and are forced to pick their battles.

Open your refrigerator, look in your closet. Can you say with certainty that you voted with your wallet by only supporting companies that adhere to your values? Today’s economy has too many interactions to have any confidence about how you vote with your wallet. In this case complexity, not religion, is the opiate of the masses.

Most people’s lives are too complex and busy to “start a co-op”. I know the counter argument is probably “then they obviously don’t care enough” but that’s the pragmatic answer

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

#570

Post by niij » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 3:05 AM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #408

rorykoehler wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is another angle here too which is whether or not milk should be a staple. The market could function properly. It would mean people drink less cows milk and more other milk substitutes which could be good for everyone in the long run.

I'm actually vegan, so I'm here with you there, but my first priority is calling out free-market-evangelism where I see it.

By the government subsidizing milk production you are in a small way,via taxes, supporting the dairy industry. If you're vegan for health reasons I assume you don't care, but if you are for ethical reasons I think that should make you a bit uneasy.

The free market can empower to make their own decisions on what they think is moral. In most cases that's a much better choice than the government deciding for you.