11 ms·

>> "But one thing that's critical in our line of work is to not pay wages that would distort local labour markets. If we were to pay people substantially more t

>> "But one thing that's critical in our line of work is to not pay wages that would distort local labour markets. If we were to pay people substantially more than that, we would throw everything off. That would have a potentially negative impact on the cost of housing, the cost of food in the communities in which our workers thrive." What a joke! We don't to pay them more because they will be able to buy decent house/invest in infrastructure or god forbid even start a small business...that would totally distort local labour markets, right?

knieveltech 8y ago
Agreed, that is a particularly offensive line of bullshit. Labor arbitrage is a thing, sure, but it takes a special flavor of insipid shithead to try to unfurl that kind of tortured logic to handwave past the obvious exploitation taking place.
- zeroname 8y ago
  How is it exploitation? These are some of the best jobs available to people coming from the slums. The real reason that they don't pay more is of course: They don't have to. That's not what the white media people (desperate for yet another "exploitation" story) want to hear though, so you gotta make up some "social" reason. If these people were paid more, the whole business would just move to the next cheapest place, possibly in another country. That's the peril of unskilled labor everywhere. You can't fix it by fiat.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >That's the peril of unskilled labor everywhere. You can't fix it by fiat. Actually you can. Forbid companies to outsource labor outside their target market country, or impose heavy tariffs, and voila. That will mean less cheap gadgets in said market country (e.g. US), but more actual jobs, and a healthier middle class (and thus economy), and thus better access to necessities. This will also force third world countries to actually become competitive in quality and delivery, not just throw sweatshop-like labor (including from children and in some cases, slaves) and cheaper dangerous working conditions at the problem.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      There is an overwhelming consensus among people who study the subject that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Even interventionist economists like Paul Krugman strongly agree, and they have tried to explain why free trade is a good thing to an ignorant public. It is shameful that so many people feel obligated to opine strongly on a subject which they don't understand, causing bad policies to be enacted. Protectionism makes society worse off. The policy you are proposing would make the world poorer. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/upshot/economists-actually-agree-on-this-point-the-wisdom-of-free-trade.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/upshot/economists-actuall... [2] https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2004/09/01/free-trade-why-are-economists-and-noneconomists-so-far-apart https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2004/09/... [3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117691 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117691 [4] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade [5] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/import-duties http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/import-duties [6] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/trade-within-europe http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/trade-within-europe
      - coldtea 8y ago
        >There is an overwhelming consensus among people who study the subject that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare Yes, establishment economists all agree on establishment practices are good and want more of them. News at 11. It's not like economics is a science the way physics or chemistry are.
        zeroname 8y ago
        > Yes, establishment economists all agree on establishment practices are good and want more of them. News at 11. It's not the "establishment", economists from all sides disagree over almost everything except for this. That's how you know there's something to it.
        coldtea 8y ago
imtringued 8y ago
Yes especially the last sentences reads as "our workers only thrive in poor communities and we are doing them a favor by keeping them poor" Western food aid has distorted the price of food in African countries already and resulted in local farmers losing their job. The housing market is only problematic in cities that restrict new construction. All these companies are doing is hiding their greed. They don't care about the well-being of the workers at all.
cossray 8y ago
My heart sunk on reading that. Overall, the whole initiative is positive. But given the working conditions lightly touched in the article, this is amounting to pure exploitation
- Fricken 8y ago
  Is the person who assembled your phone or sewed your T-shirt exploited? Whether or not it is exploitation, it is capitalism, and it has worked this way since the beginning.
CPLX 8y ago
The answer is smarmy and disingenuous for sure. With that said they appear to be paying people 4.5x more money than they had been making before, so it’s hard to get mad at them. I’m sure they’re in it for money and glory too but bringing modern employment prospects to Sub Saharan African slums is hard and it’s a lot easier to snipe from a distance.
- iguy 8y ago
  In fairness to the article, it's quite clear about this: "Samasource targets those currently earning around $2 a day, or less, in the so-called informal economy of odd - or dangerous - jobs. Samasource instead provides a living wage of around $9 a day." Only after that do we get the dubious justifications. And the guy they're interviewing probably spends an unhealthy amount of time hanging out in NGO circles, where I'm sure this kind of thing goes down much more smoothly than mutually beneficial exchange.
  - ejanus 8y ago
    At 9USD/per that's pretty good
ozim 8y ago
Or become target for local mob that did not get the job. Become target for police which might also be corrupt. In some places you can get badly beaten up, robbed and whatever else for having only a bit more than others. I am not saying they are entirely right with what they do, but there are legitimate reasons for that kind of approach.
- paulryanrogers 8y ago
  If cultures are that toxic to self improvement then what can be done?
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    You can pay them in line with the local economy?
- luch 8y ago
  Exactly if you're disrupting existing power structures either by "overpaying" employees (see recent PSG football leaks) or unfairly cutting costs (Uber/Taxis or Airbnb/Hotels), you're going to make enemies of a lot of angry people. I'm not saying Samasource does not profit from this situation, they clearly do, but Silicon Valley taught me that money spent paying developers through the nose ends up mainly in the landlord's pocket.
  - themihai 8y ago
    >> Exactly if you're disrupting existing power structures either by "overpaying" employees (see recent PSG football leaks) or unfairly cutting costs (Uber/Taxis or Airbnb/Hotels), you're going to make enemies of a lot of angry people. This is pure BS. What "power structures" are you talking about? Well paid jobs bring money which is spent in the local economy. I doubt the nearby shop owner will be angry because now you can buy food instead to beg for it. The Uber/Airbnb model is a totally different issue because they compete with the local market and enjoy unfair advantages which is not the case here.
- themihai 8y ago
kelvin0 8y ago
Isn't this what happens in SF an SV? Big tech money certainly 'disrupted' the local housing market to name only that facet of the economy and social life. So the article is right about the local disruption, but who are they to decide what's good and what's not for local people who deserve a fair compensation?
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
If that were the reason, then using the wage savings they could fund a local charity to run infrastructure projects - build schools, say; maybe wind/solar farms owned by the local communities. That way the whole country will develop and they'll be able to pay their workers more without distorting things anymore than is the case elsewhere. Depressing wages locally will just lead to economic migration and brain-drain, surely? Ultimately that seems much worse.
ashelmire 8y ago
The truth is, the annotation being done does not require much skill. If the cost of paying people rises too much, companies will just turn to mturk and get it done for cheaper (in academia we already do this).
bko 8y ago
If the going wage of an employee with some skill is X and you decide to pay some arbitrary amount above X, how do you fill your ranks? What's a fair system? You have 10 equally qualified people going for 1 job. One way is to make decisions based on non-economical conditions, such as attractiveness or familial connection. Another way is lottery, which I admit is more fair, but it's still not fair to those that are willing to do the job for a lower wage than someone who got the job. It's okay to compete for a job by promising to work harder, but somehow negotiating a lower salary is unacceptable? And the other big problem with paying above market wages is that it often introduces a middle man. Since you're swamped with applications, you hire a firm to sort everything out. The firm takes a cut as well and normally ends up bringing down the employees wage to the market wage. On the extreme, if the job is so lucrative, the middle man requires payment or a portion perpetual of the salary for the job placement. This happens in cruise lines: > Long hours and subsistence wages are part of their contracts, as is the threat of being fired without notice or cause. Yet people from some of the world's poorest nations are so eager for work that some pay middlemen the equivalent of a month's wages to get these jobs, a fee that violates international law. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/24/us/sovereign-islands-special-report-for-cruise-ships-workers-much-toil-little.html https://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/24/us/sovereign-islands-spec...
otras 8y ago
Although a much less extreme example, this brings to mind GitLab's model of location-based pay [0]: "Market rates for roles are different for different regions and countries. We pay market rates instead of paying the same wage for the same role in different regions." [0]: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-compensation/#paying-local-rates https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-c...
umichguy 8y ago
I was literally cringing when she spouted this nonsense. If that's the case, maybe they should do the same in the Bay Area as well. It won't distort the housing market etc.

knieveltech 8y ago

Agreed, that is a particularly offensive line of bullshit. Labor arbitrage is a thing, sure, but it takes a special flavor of insipid shithead to try to unfurl that kind of tortured logic to handwave past the obvious exploitation taking place.

zeroname 8y ago
How is it exploitation? These are some of the best jobs available to people coming from the slums. The real reason that they don't pay more is of course: They don't have to. That's not what the white media people (desperate for yet another "exploitation" story) want to hear though, so you gotta make up some "social" reason. If these people were paid more, the whole business would just move to the next cheapest place, possibly in another country. That's the peril of unskilled labor everywhere. You can't fix it by fiat.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >That's the peril of unskilled labor everywhere. You can't fix it by fiat. Actually you can. Forbid companies to outsource labor outside their target market country, or impose heavy tariffs, and voila. That will mean less cheap gadgets in said market country (e.g. US), but more actual jobs, and a healthier middle class (and thus economy), and thus better access to necessities. This will also force third world countries to actually become competitive in quality and delivery, not just throw sweatshop-like labor (including from children and in some cases, slaves) and cheaper dangerous working conditions at the problem.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    There is an overwhelming consensus among people who study the subject that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Even interventionist economists like Paul Krugman strongly agree, and they have tried to explain why free trade is a good thing to an ignorant public. It is shameful that so many people feel obligated to opine strongly on a subject which they don't understand, causing bad policies to be enacted. Protectionism makes society worse off. The policy you are proposing would make the world poorer. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/upshot/economists-actually-agree-on-this-point-the-wisdom-of-free-trade.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/upshot/economists-actuall... [2] https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2004/09/01/free-trade-why-are-economists-and-noneconomists-so-far-apart https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2004/09/... [3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117691 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117691 [4] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade [5] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/import-duties http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/import-duties [6] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/trade-within-europe http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/trade-within-europe
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >There is an overwhelming consensus among people who study the subject that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare Yes, establishment economists all agree on establishment practices are good and want more of them. News at 11. It's not like economics is a science the way physics or chemistry are.
      - zeroname 8y ago
        > Yes, establishment economists all agree on establishment practices are good and want more of them. News at 11. It's not the "establishment", economists from all sides disagree over almost everything except for this. That's how you know there's something to it.
        coldtea 8y ago

imtringued 8y ago

Yes especially the last sentences reads as "our workers only thrive in poor communities and we are doing them a favor by keeping them poor" Western food aid has distorted the price of food in African countries already and resulted in local farmers losing their job. The housing market is only problematic in cities that restrict new construction. All these companies are doing is hiding their greed. They don't care about the well-being of the workers at all.

cossray 8y ago

My heart sunk on reading that. Overall, the whole initiative is positive. But given the working conditions lightly touched in the article, this is amounting to pure exploitation

Fricken 8y ago
Is the person who assembled your phone or sewed your T-shirt exploited? Whether or not it is exploitation, it is capitalism, and it has worked this way since the beginning.

CPLX 8y ago

The answer is smarmy and disingenuous for sure. With that said they appear to be paying people 4.5x more money than they had been making before, so it’s hard to get mad at them. I’m sure they’re in it for money and glory too but bringing modern employment prospects to Sub Saharan African slums is hard and it’s a lot easier to snipe from a distance.

iguy 8y ago
In fairness to the article, it's quite clear about this: "Samasource targets those currently earning around $2 a day, or less, in the so-called informal economy of odd - or dangerous - jobs. Samasource instead provides a living wage of around $9 a day." Only after that do we get the dubious justifications. And the guy they're interviewing probably spends an unhealthy amount of time hanging out in NGO circles, where I'm sure this kind of thing goes down much more smoothly than mutually beneficial exchange.
- ejanus 8y ago
  At 9USD/per that's pretty good

ozim 8y ago

Or become target for local mob that did not get the job. Become target for police which might also be corrupt. In some places you can get badly beaten up, robbed and whatever else for having only a bit more than others. I am not saying they are entirely right with what they do, but there are legitimate reasons for that kind of approach.

paulryanrogers 8y ago
If cultures are that toxic to self improvement then what can be done?
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  You can pay them in line with the local economy?
luch 8y ago
Exactly if you're disrupting existing power structures either by "overpaying" employees (see recent PSG football leaks) or unfairly cutting costs (Uber/Taxis or Airbnb/Hotels), you're going to make enemies of a lot of angry people. I'm not saying Samasource does not profit from this situation, they clearly do, but Silicon Valley taught me that money spent paying developers through the nose ends up mainly in the landlord's pocket.
- themihai 8y ago
  >> Exactly if you're disrupting existing power structures either by "overpaying" employees (see recent PSG football leaks) or unfairly cutting costs (Uber/Taxis or Airbnb/Hotels), you're going to make enemies of a lot of angry people. This is pure BS. What "power structures" are you talking about? Well paid jobs bring money which is spent in the local economy. I doubt the nearby shop owner will be angry because now you can buy food instead to beg for it. The Uber/Airbnb model is a totally different issue because they compete with the local market and enjoy unfair advantages which is not the case here.
themihai 8y ago

kelvin0 8y ago

Isn't this what happens in SF an SV? Big tech money certainly 'disrupted' the local housing market to name only that facet of the economy and social life. So the article is right about the local disruption, but who are they to decide what's good and what's not for local people who deserve a fair compensation?

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

If that were the reason, then using the wage savings they could fund a local charity to run infrastructure projects - build schools, say; maybe wind/solar farms owned by the local communities. That way the whole country will develop and they'll be able to pay their workers more without distorting things anymore than is the case elsewhere. Depressing wages locally will just lead to economic migration and brain-drain, surely? Ultimately that seems much worse.

ashelmire 8y ago

The truth is, the annotation being done does not require much skill. If the cost of paying people rises too much, companies will just turn to mturk and get it done for cheaper (in academia we already do this).

bko 8y ago

If the going wage of an employee with some skill is X and you decide to pay some arbitrary amount above X, how do you fill your ranks? What's a fair system? You have 10 equally qualified people going for 1 job. One way is to make decisions based on non-economical conditions, such as attractiveness or familial connection. Another way is lottery, which I admit is more fair, but it's still not fair to those that are willing to do the job for a lower wage than someone who got the job. It's okay to compete for a job by promising to work harder, but somehow negotiating a lower salary is unacceptable? And the other big problem with paying above market wages is that it often introduces a middle man. Since you're swamped with applications, you hire a firm to sort everything out. The firm takes a cut as well and normally ends up bringing down the employees wage to the market wage. On the extreme, if the job is so lucrative, the middle man requires payment or a portion perpetual of the salary for the job placement. This happens in cruise lines: > Long hours and subsistence wages are part of their contracts, as is the threat of being fired without notice or cause. Yet people from some of the world's poorest nations are so eager for work that some pay middlemen the equivalent of a month's wages to get these jobs, a fee that violates international law. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/24/us/sovereign-islands-special-report-for-cruise-ships-workers-much-toil-little.html https://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/24/us/sovereign-islands-spec...

otras 8y ago

Although a much less extreme example, this brings to mind GitLab's model of location-based pay [0]: "Market rates for roles are different for different regions and countries. We pay market rates instead of paying the same wage for the same role in different regions." [0]: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-compensation/#paying-local-rates https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-c...

umichguy 8y ago

I was literally cringing when she spouted this nonsense. If that's the case, maybe they should do the same in the Bay Area as well. It won't distort the housing market etc.