4 ms·
> Also if the value and quality of work is the same... shouldn't the pay remain the same. No, because you will find the same quality of people agreeing to work
by gridlockd 6y ago
> Also if the value and quality of work is the same... shouldn't the pay remain the same.
No, because you will find the same quality of people agreeing to work for less because their expenses are lower.
> Also this leads to income inequality. A person from a poor neighborhood/country gets paid less than someone in a wealthy area.
You have to look at net income after basic expenses. What good is it to earn more money but then also spend more for the same quality of life, because everything is more expensive?
- hobs 6y agoWhat good is it for the company to pay out more money ever? Why pay people to live in expensive neighborhoods at all?
- gridlockd 6y ago> What good is it for the company to pay out more money ever? Prices are set by supply and demand. If I need someone in San Francisco to do a certain kind of work, there's a limited pool of people and they aren't going to show up unless I pay a certain amount. > Why pay people to live in expensive neighborhoods at all? I don't care where people live, they care. They could save money by moving out to nowhere but then have a terrible commute. Again, that's assuming I need them onsite. If it turns out that I don't need people onsite at all, I can hire from anywhere and the pool of people gets much larger. Since many of these people don't have huge expenses because they don't live in expensive cities, they'd do the same job for less. I save money, they earn money, it's win-win. It really only comes down to how much value you put on people being onsite.