3 ms·
I personally have always been against paying people different rates based on geography. if a person offers value, they should be paid for that value regardless
by autokad 6y ago
I personally have always been against paying people different rates based on geography. if a person offers value, they should be paid for that value regardless.
some people say, but shouldnt their cost of living be taken into account? yes previously, but not when we choose to live where we want. I feel like that whole argument goes away once we are choosing where we live.
that being said, I would expect companies to muscle our wages down using this as an excuse. the good side is that there is financial incentive for companies to give us flexibility, as it costs ball park 1500$/month/employee to have a dedicated office space for them.
- bhupy 6y agoBut we already pay people differently based on geography... If you are a software engineer and you show up to work in an office in Alabama, you already make less than the same software engineer showing up to work in an office in Manhattan — even if you are doing the same work for the same number of hours. This is already happening today. The only difference with remote work is that you don't show up to work in an office, you show up to work in your pajamas and the office is at home.
- Wohlf 6y agoif you think the difference within a country is bad try being a developer in Russia, India, or China.
- bhupy 6y agoRight, based on the value I provide to my multi-national employer, I ought to be able to buy a whole new house every year off of my salary, while living in India. It’s only fair!
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- benhurmarcel 6y ago> if a person offers value, they should be paid for that value regardless. That sounds nice on paper, but in practice I guess you wouldn't want to get paid what your equivalent in eastern Europe or Asia currently earns.