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

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

#371

Post by leetcrew » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 6:18 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…

> 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 fairness. 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.

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

#372

Post by xav0989 » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 6:20 PM UTC

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.

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.

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

#373

Post by cmrdporcupine » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 6:20 PM UTC

aeternum wrote: post #312

claudiulodro wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> the marketplace failed to provide both affordable milk and the ability for dairy farmers to make a living. So the price is both two low and too high? This is not a failure of the marketplace (aka price discovery), this is the U.S. deciding that cheap milk and overproduction is in the nation's best interest and we should socialize some of the production costs. There are logical (milk as a staple product and avoidanc…

A subsidy to a private corporation is not "socializing" production costs. Socialization is putting goods under social control. This is literally the opposite -- providing benefits to private interests. Even if the end has the appearance of being for the social good, in reality this has more to do with the power of the private dairy lobby than any pricing concerns about availability of milk.

That dairy producer's lobby is quite powerful and politically important to both parties. See the key role they played in the politics Trump was playing around NAFTA renegotiations last year.

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

#374

Post by Cabal » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 6:21 PM UTC

csense wrote: post #333

Say you have a startup in California and are thinking about hiring me remotely. It's completely ridiculous that you say "Okay I'll give you $100k if you live in NYC, but only $60k for the same work if you live in the Rust Belt." If it makes economic sense for you to pay me $100k, making that conditional on where I live is just a jerk move. As someone who actually does live in the Rust Belt, it feels like these tech c…

For one thing, if you give your employer a wildly wrong address (i.e. different state), your taxes will end up pretty screwed up.

Your example could possibly work for NYC vs. upstate, middle-of-nowhere NY, though.

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

#375

Post by nybble41 » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 6:21 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #351

aeternum wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the marketplace failed to provide both affordable milk and the ability for dairy farmers to make a living. So the price is both two low and too high? This is not a failure of the marketplace (aka price discovery), this is the U.S. deciding that cheap milk and overproduction is in the nation's best interest and we should socialize some of the production costs. There are logical (milk as a staple product and avoidanc…

Aren't there cases where the market fails when considered in broader context? E.g., the market decides to off-shore manufacturing. This is good short-term as it leads to lower prices for consumers. But it's also potentially a failure at a national long-term level as it has reduced our manufacturing capacity. The short-term bias of the market can adversely affect long lead-time strategic interests. See: the inability…

> But it's also potentially a failure at a national long-term level as it has reduced our manufacturing capacity.

That isn't a market failure. It's just a recognition that the economy is global, not national. The market doesn't optimize for the benefit of one nation against others. As for "short-term bias", the market just reflects the biases of the people making the decisions—the same as any other system. If people are inclined to stockpile medical supplies or materiel for self-defense, the market will support that too.

The market's only real "failure" is that it's too democratic for the liking of certain individuals who feel they have a better idea of how a society should be organized than the poor, ignorant, gullible masses that actually comprise that society.

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

#376

Post by spurdoman77 » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 6:21 PM UTC

jasonjayr wrote: post #136

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…

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?

All companies I've worked for haven't had problems with unions. Though in the tech sector it feels that the employees dont have much interest towards it. I dunno what would happen if all programmers in a company would say that raise our salaries or we will quit. I guess the company would just hire contractors instead and it could even save the company money.

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

#377

Post by setheron » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 6:22 PM UTC

I'm very bearish that the whole "work from home" indefinitely will survive post pandemic.

Everyone seems to take company statements at 100% face value and that they won't change.

I expect many of these companies to do a 180 reversal of policies eventually.There will be some discord and grievances but will eventually drown out.

There may be lingering affects of the situation though as a more willingness to allow 1-2 days from home but not 100%.

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

#378

Post by falcolas » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 6:26 PM UTC

ledauphin wrote: post #184

falcolas wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This 'misconception' comes from two big sources, IMO: 1) Leadership is paid for the value they bring. Primarily through huge stock grants as part of their multi-million dollar compensation packages. 2) Companies always discuss employee compensation, especially raises and bonuses, in terms of the value an employee has relative to their peers. So, it's no wonder that people believe that their value has something to do…

stock grants mean you're paid for the value your company _has_, not the value _you_ provide to your company. For the vast majority of leaders, their input into the company's overall performance is vanishingly small.

The job of leadership is to make the company succeed. The value of the company is a simple (but effective) "Key Result" metric that's used to evaluate how well they're doing their job (no matter how many others are also contributing).

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

#379

Post by cmrdporcupine » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 6:26 PM UTC

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?

Yes, similar systems are also in place for eggs and poultry. And yes in all cases there are exemptions in place for very small farms, but not enough to make much of a difference.

"Alternative" products like duck eggs, water buffalo or goat's milk, etc. do not count, so there is some room for market diversification there, I guess.

It has the net effect of keeping dairy prices at what's seen as an acceptable stable level that also keeps dairy farmer's in business, at the expense of diversity in the marketplace and access to new farmers.

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

#380

Post by dwaltrip » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

klodolph wrote: post #107

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.

Kind of putting the cart before the horse, here. Saying that something is “market price” doesn’t explain anything. Market price is driven by millions of factors including cost of living. “Market price” just means that it’s the price that people actually pay for something in the real world, it’s just a name for that price that doesn’t offer any explanatory power. Cost of living does have explanatory power.

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?