4 ms·
This is wage discrimination. The problem is that it is, so far, legal discrimination. If an employee gets married, is that a legal reason to cut their salary?
by iandanforth 6y ago
This is wage discrimination. The problem is that it is, so far, legal discrimination.
If an employee gets married, is that a legal reason to cut their salary? No.
If an employee has a child, is that a legal reason to cut their salary? No.
If an employee comes out as gay, or updates their gender identity, is that a legal reason to cut their salary? No.
The first two could logically be tied to decreases in productivity, but even if it did decrease a workers productivity you can't cut their salary. It's illegal.
So what's the real problem here? Taxes.
Let's say that we correctly argue that the product of ones output should be compensated at the agreed upon rate and that if efficiencies of production are found by the producer they are under no obligation to 1. Disclose that fact or 2. Pass on savings to their customer.
Despite the fact that this is logically and economically sound the reality is that legislators will balk at legislation which would make their state less economically attractive. Convincing them is not an impossible task, but it's a hard one.
The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not naturally embraced by industry. Almost any distinguishing characteristic that could be used as an excuse to reduce wages has been used to do so. Laws championed by labor movements have been the only way to curb the natural tendencies of companies.
So is it normal and natural for a capitalist CEO to take this position? Yes. The moral and logical ramifications have little power. It's only when those ramifications are instantiated by law advocated for by impacted populations that we should expect change.
- Barrin92 6y agoIf you think this is illegitimate wage discrimination I have a question for you, if you order coffee in bumfuck idaho, do you pay the barrista, who does the same work as one in Palo Alto, the same price for their coffee?
- iandanforth 6y agoThis is not a valid analogy. There are two decisions 1. Do I pay the price asked? If I'm in Idaho and I want coffee and they are asking for Bay Area Starbucks prices the answer is "Yes." But that's because I'm used to it, and its not the point. The question is: 2. If the store buys a machine that decreases their costs by 20% am I entitled to demand a lower price? No.
- Barrin92 6y agoEntitlement has nothing to do with it. If there is a machine that lowers the costs of production by 20% the price will drop, because there's now an opportunity for competition to drive down the cost of coffee. That's how things become more affordable in a market economy. And this is the actual point of the analogy. When people can suddenly work from locations that have lower costs of living, then the cost of labour drops, that is to say more people are willing to do the same work for lower wages than before. That means that firms can purchase that labour more cheaply. Nobody is entitled to anything here, the price discrimination is simply the result of the market correctly allocating resources, and that's a good thing, because it really does not make much sense to hand surplus profits to starbucks or to tech workers. One very simple reason why the latter is really bad, if a lot of tech workers suddenly sit in regions with lower costs of living their high salaries will rise the costs of living, creating a huge problem for all the people in the regional economy who don't work at Facebook.
- Markoff 6y agoif they deliver me same coffee through email then yes, I'd expect both coffee to cost same since i don't really care where they make it, i just want coffee same as employer should care only about productivity of WFH employees
- neonate 6y agoBay Area salaries are partly about location to begin with. This seems obvious, so I'm surprised by arguments that assume the contrary, usually in the form of "my salary reflects my value to the company, which doesn't go down when I move". The antecedent is a false assumption (the salary doesn't just reflect the employee's value to the company) so the argument is invalid.
- iandanforth 6y agoHave you ever heard of a pay scale? Why on earth would you pay a senior engineer more than a junior engineer unless you believed their value to the company was greater?
- neonate 6y agoMy comment already answered this, that's why I said "partly" and "just".