3 ms·

I was about to throw away this napkin. Glad I hung on to it for a little longer. When I see things like this, I often ask myself "Why would people take this job

I was about to throw away this napkin. Glad I hung on to it for a little longer. When I see things like this, I often ask myself "Why would people take this job?" and some times I find it's because it pays very well from the perspective of the local economy. 1. £1.36 = 86.68 Philippine Peso (according to Google) 2. average annual family income ... 267 thousand pesos [0] 3. 267000 / 2 = ~133500 yearly person income 4. There are about 2,087 work hours in a year [1] 5. yearly/hours 133500/2087 = ~64 Philippine Peso * Average Guesstimated Salary: 64 Philippine Peso/hour * Facebook Censurer Take Home: 87 Philippine Peso/hour That's about 30% more then the average take home. Let me crunch the numbers again for the top 10% earners [0] bracket. 1. (786000/2)/2087 = 188 Philippine Peso/hour That means a person in a top 10% earners household is only making about (188/87) 2.16 times what you make. According to Investopedia the "average household income for the top 10% of earners is higher, at $295,845". which means that running the same numbers... 1. (295845/2)/2087 = 70 2. 70 / 2.16 = $32 USD/HR Since they are earning 2.16 times less then the top 10% bracket I'd guess that taking (top 10% hourly wage / 2.16) would give you a localized approximation for your economy. Doing this job is the local equivalent of ~$32 USD/HR in USA money for reading Facebook posts and deciding if it is terrorism or not. I know I've definitely gotten some stuff wrong here. Please correct me if you know better. [0] - https://psa.gov.ph/content/average-family-income-2015-estimated-22-thousand-pesos-monthly-results-2015-family-income https://psa.gov.ph/content/average-family-income-2015-estima... [1] - https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-administration/fact-sheets/computing-hourly-rates-of-pay-using-the-2087-hour-divisor/ https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-admi... [2] - http://www.investopedia.com/news/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/ http://www.investopedia.com/news/how-much-income-puts-you-to...

developer2 9y ago
I don't think anyone is disputing the "benefit" to the worker, from their perspective. The outrage is that corporations take advantage. They refuse to employ US employees because they would have to pay reasonable wages, provide healthcare, offer stock options, etc. So they outsource to skirt millions on all of the above. I'm really sick and tired of "but they're happy to have the abysmally low-paying job, because in their currency it's above-average!". Companies like Facebook aren't outsourcing to "give jobs to the needy"; they only do it because it's disgustingly cheap for them. The destitute, desperately grasping at the crumbs dropped on the floor by the rich, is not a positive thing. It's depressing. What's next? Do we defend companies who hold immigrants' passports hostage, enslaving people indefinitely with no way out? After all, they pay X% above average! Those workers should be thankful just to have a job! Who cares that they'll never see their family again, and likely die while living in squalor?
- gravypod 9y ago
  I agree with you. I don't think it's right but we're in a shitty situation now. You have the following choices: 1. Choose to fire the now reasonably well off employees forcing them to go back to a previous lines of employment that were less lucrative 2. Force companies to stop outsourcing labor which will in turn make it more likely for other countries to create similar sanctions like this against you. 3. Make companies pay foreign employees a "reasonable" rate based on local offering thereby making these jobs infinitely more lucrative then even well-educated professions and ultimately tilting their economy in an unwanted direction. We live in times where economic action is also foreign policy. How would you like it if a country richer then yours started offering jobs for 100x the average wage that you are used to? Would you try and get one of those jobs? Would people start expecting that wage in other places? Would this change the way the market behaves? > The destitute, desperately grasping at the crumbs dropped on the floor by the rich, is not a positive thing I wouldn't call the Philippines destitute. I know a few people who'd be offended by that characterization. I'd also ask: why are these people doing these jobs if it's not better then what they were doing before? Better either being higher pay, easier labor, or more enjoyable work environment.
  - developer2 9y ago
    >> why are these people doing these jobs The only question is "why are rich American companies outsourcing to the poor?". There's no reason why they have to. They can entirely afford paying full market wage in the US. If it's acceptable to outsource, then it should be legal to hire within the US for the same salary. Let Americans make $2/hour if that is the acceptable rate.
    - gravypod 9y ago
      >If it's acceptable to outsource, then it should be legal to hire within the US for the same salary. That's not how economies work. > Let Americans make $2/hour if that is the acceptable rate. I see no reason what that should be disallowed in my moral structure. If you don't think that's a reasonable wage don't take that job. You won't see any takers.
pvg 9y ago
'average' and 'what factor off 10% of US earners' contain some assumptions about distributions that make this a less informative comparison than it might seem. You probably also want 'censor'.
- gravypod 9y ago
  > contain some assumptions about distributions that make this a less informative comparison I feel the same about this information. If anyone has plots they can through up I'd love to take a look. > You probably also want 'censor'. You are correct. I'll leave that unchanged because it doesn't effect the meaning of the post.
  - pvg 9y ago
    Economists have various ways of comparing purchasing power, where a particular income fits in a given distribution, etc, etc. It's probably more sensible to dig up one of their metrics - the chances you're going to come up with a good one on a napkin seem low.
kartan 9y ago
> average annual family income If you get 10% over the "average annual family income" of a USA family, but you live in San Francisco Area, you are screwed. I understand your point, but "Doing this job is the local equivalent of ~$32 USD/HR in USA money for reading Facebook posts and deciding if it is terrorism or not." it's a big jump into conclusions without having more information. With 300,000 km2 and 100 million citizens probably requires more analysis. So maybe is a good job, it doesn't look like a bad one. Bud the "equivalence" is not as easy to get to.
nesu 9y ago
30% more than average take home, in a country where about a quarter of the population are below the poverty line.

developer2 9y ago

I don't think anyone is disputing the "benefit" to the worker, from their perspective. The outrage is that corporations take advantage. They refuse to employ US employees because they would have to pay reasonable wages, provide healthcare, offer stock options, etc. So they outsource to skirt millions on all of the above. I'm really sick and tired of "but they're happy to have the abysmally low-paying job, because in their currency it's above-average!". Companies like Facebook aren't outsourcing to "give jobs to the needy"; they only do it because it's disgustingly cheap for them. The destitute, desperately grasping at the crumbs dropped on the floor by the rich, is not a positive thing. It's depressing. What's next? Do we defend companies who hold immigrants' passports hostage, enslaving people indefinitely with no way out? After all, they pay X% above average! Those workers should be thankful just to have a job! Who cares that they'll never see their family again, and likely die while living in squalor?

gravypod 9y ago
I agree with you. I don't think it's right but we're in a shitty situation now. You have the following choices: 1. Choose to fire the now reasonably well off employees forcing them to go back to a previous lines of employment that were less lucrative 2. Force companies to stop outsourcing labor which will in turn make it more likely for other countries to create similar sanctions like this against you. 3. Make companies pay foreign employees a "reasonable" rate based on local offering thereby making these jobs infinitely more lucrative then even well-educated professions and ultimately tilting their economy in an unwanted direction. We live in times where economic action is also foreign policy. How would you like it if a country richer then yours started offering jobs for 100x the average wage that you are used to? Would you try and get one of those jobs? Would people start expecting that wage in other places? Would this change the way the market behaves? > The destitute, desperately grasping at the crumbs dropped on the floor by the rich, is not a positive thing I wouldn't call the Philippines destitute. I know a few people who'd be offended by that characterization. I'd also ask: why are these people doing these jobs if it's not better then what they were doing before? Better either being higher pay, easier labor, or more enjoyable work environment.
- developer2 9y ago
  >> why are these people doing these jobs The only question is "why are rich American companies outsourcing to the poor?". There's no reason why they have to. They can entirely afford paying full market wage in the US. If it's acceptable to outsource, then it should be legal to hire within the US for the same salary. Let Americans make $2/hour if that is the acceptable rate.
  - gravypod 9y ago
    >If it's acceptable to outsource, then it should be legal to hire within the US for the same salary. That's not how economies work. > Let Americans make $2/hour if that is the acceptable rate. I see no reason what that should be disallowed in my moral structure. If you don't think that's a reasonable wage don't take that job. You won't see any takers.

pvg 9y ago

'average' and 'what factor off 10% of US earners' contain some assumptions about distributions that make this a less informative comparison than it might seem. You probably also want 'censor'.

gravypod 9y ago
> contain some assumptions about distributions that make this a less informative comparison I feel the same about this information. If anyone has plots they can through up I'd love to take a look. > You probably also want 'censor'. You are correct. I'll leave that unchanged because it doesn't effect the meaning of the post.
- pvg 9y ago
  Economists have various ways of comparing purchasing power, where a particular income fits in a given distribution, etc, etc. It's probably more sensible to dig up one of their metrics - the chances you're going to come up with a good one on a napkin seem low.

kartan 9y ago

> average annual family income If you get 10% over the "average annual family income" of a USA family, but you live in San Francisco Area, you are screwed. I understand your point, but "Doing this job is the local equivalent of ~$32 USD/HR in USA money for reading Facebook posts and deciding if it is terrorism or not." it's a big jump into conclusions without having more information. With 300,000 km2 and 100 million citizens probably requires more analysis. So maybe is a good job, it doesn't look like a bad one. Bud the "equivalence" is not as easy to get to.

nesu 9y ago

30% more than average take home, in a country where about a quarter of the population are below the poverty line.