3 ms·

I think it is not fair that everyone earns the same regardless where they live. Cost of living must (and probably already is) included. If everyone would earn t

by skeeks 6y ago

I think it is not fair that everyone earns the same regardless where they live. Cost of living must (and probably already is) included. If everyone would earn the same amount, consequence would be more people moving to areas with lower living cost . Why not even move into a 3th world country and live like a king with your first world salary? Of course, one could argue, that Zuckerberg & co only want to make more money by decreasing salaries for their workforce. Instead of giving this money to shareholders, why not donate it? Especially now, when millions of people lost their jobs..

NullPrefix 6y ago
>Why not even move into a 3th world country and live like a king with your first world salary? And that's a bad thing why exactly?
- skeeks 6y ago
  Well, it would not be a bad thing per se. But if everyone would start doing that, costs will rise again and in the end, situation (high living cost, rents, etc.) will be the same. It is just not sustainable. You may also think, that people in 3rd world countries do not have good access to education, so basically you take advantage of them, only because you were born in a first world country and they were not... Of course, you could be a really generous king and even help the people there to have better access to education. That would be sustainable.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    > You may also think, that people in 3rd world countries do not have good access to education, so basically you take advantage of them, only because you were born in a first world country and they were not How are people born in developed countries not already doing this via importing from countries with little or no labor laws and environmental protections? If anything, an educated person going to an undeveloped place and sharing their resources that would have gone to an already developed place is a huge benefit for the undeveloped place.
  - mewpmewp2 6y ago
    It seems like it would help out low cost areas and the poor and all in all help equalize the world. With proper regulations, taxes, that is.
- michaelcampbell 6y ago
  I don't know that it is, but there is a lot of anguish over gentrification in areas in the US which seems to me to be exactly this, just on a smaller scale. The assumption that "rich" moving into "poor areas" lifts all boats in the area is not necessarily true.
skeeks 6y ago
I just found an interesting article about the topic, where GitLab explains why they do not pay everyone the same salary [1] [1] https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2019/02/28/why-we-pay-local-rates/ https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2019/02/28/why-we-pay-local-ra...
rumanator 6y ago
> If everyone would earn the same amount, consequence would be more people moving to areas with lower living cost . What's supposed to be the downside, exactly?
- skeeks 6y ago
  Sooner or later, costs would begin to rise in that area, because the infrastructure, healthcare, etc. must be improved (due to population growth). Meanwhile, in the former high living cost area, prices would drop. Unskilled low wage employees would loose their jobs because of decreasing demand. And somewhere in the future, everyone starts recognizing that the tables have turned and people would start moving back. It's an endless game... And in the case of gitlab, they state an interesting reason: [1] > Paying the same wage in different regions would lead to: [...] > - A concentration of team members in low-wage regions, since it is a better deal for them, while we want a geographically diverse team. [1] https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation/#paying-local-rates https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation...
  - lagadu 6y ago
    Why is that a bad thing? Expensive areas over time becoming more accessible and vice versa effectively means that no place is permanently off-limits from the less wealthy.
  - mewpmewp2 6y ago
    And what is the downside of that? Seems like the col of world would equalize and in general things would become more optimal.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > Sooner or later, costs would begin to rise in that area, because the infrastructure, healthcare, etc. must be improved (due to population growth). How many towns were forced to upgrade their infrastructure because you moved in? It seems to me you are making up extreme slippery slope-type catastrophical scenarios. Getting back to the real world, I know a few IT workers who had to move to an extremely expensive city when they were hired by FAANGs but since then they were able to move back to their home town while keeping their salary. Could you please explain how your scare story applies to this type of case, which represents most if not practically all cases?
mewpmewp2 6y ago
You can choose where you live so it is fair. If you want to live at certain area it should be worth it to you. This would optimize the world and make resource usage more optimal. I believe it is unavoidable anyway. As time goes on companies will start to pay based on actual value brought as this is more optimal and competitive. If there truly is a need for there to have at least n persons in each city then they will fill that quota, but rest of the pay will be fair.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  No 'fairness' argument visible in that? Why is it OK to discriminate because it's 'voluntary'? (Which is not obviously true). Need some explanation.
LudwigNagasena 6y ago
> If everyone would earn the same amount, consequence would be more people moving to areas with lower living cost . And this is bad because?..
- _wldu 6y ago
  One reason is that wealthy tech outsiders move to poorer areas and drive up real estate values to the point that only wealthy tech outsiders can afford to buy houses (shutting out many/most of the local residents).
sytelus 6y ago
In principle, it is fair to get paid same regardless of where you live because you should be getting paid for your contributions, not where you happen to connect your laptop. However, in current form of capitalism, you don’t get paid in proportion to your yield but rather in proportion to what your employer thinks you will need to maintain living standards they deem you are worthy of. This, in fact, is the cause of inequality where chain of command can decide to keep vast majority of value generated for themselves regardless of true value of their own yield. We often try to justify this inverted economics under the disguise of risk taking or leadership or making big decisions but if you look closely this singular aspect is the cause of why 1%ers exist at all in current system.

by skeeks 6y ago

NullPrefix 6y ago

>Why not even move into a 3th world country and live like a king with your first world salary? And that's a bad thing why exactly?

skeeks 6y ago
Well, it would not be a bad thing per se. But if everyone would start doing that, costs will rise again and in the end, situation (high living cost, rents, etc.) will be the same. It is just not sustainable. You may also think, that people in 3rd world countries do not have good access to education, so basically you take advantage of them, only because you were born in a first world country and they were not... Of course, you could be a really generous king and even help the people there to have better access to education. That would be sustainable.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > You may also think, that people in 3rd world countries do not have good access to education, so basically you take advantage of them, only because you were born in a first world country and they were not How are people born in developed countries not already doing this via importing from countries with little or no labor laws and environmental protections? If anything, an educated person going to an undeveloped place and sharing their resources that would have gone to an already developed place is a huge benefit for the undeveloped place.
- mewpmewp2 6y ago
  It seems like it would help out low cost areas and the poor and all in all help equalize the world. With proper regulations, taxes, that is.
michaelcampbell 6y ago
I don't know that it is, but there is a lot of anguish over gentrification in areas in the US which seems to me to be exactly this, just on a smaller scale. The assumption that "rich" moving into "poor areas" lifts all boats in the area is not necessarily true.

skeeks 6y ago

I just found an interesting article about the topic, where GitLab explains why they do not pay everyone the same salary [1] [1] https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2019/02/28/why-we-pay-local-rates/ https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2019/02/28/why-we-pay-local-ra...

rumanator 6y ago

> If everyone would earn the same amount, consequence would be more people moving to areas with lower living cost . What's supposed to be the downside, exactly?

skeeks 6y ago
Sooner or later, costs would begin to rise in that area, because the infrastructure, healthcare, etc. must be improved (due to population growth). Meanwhile, in the former high living cost area, prices would drop. Unskilled low wage employees would loose their jobs because of decreasing demand. And somewhere in the future, everyone starts recognizing that the tables have turned and people would start moving back. It's an endless game... And in the case of gitlab, they state an interesting reason: [1] > Paying the same wage in different regions would lead to: [...] > - A concentration of team members in low-wage regions, since it is a better deal for them, while we want a geographically diverse team. [1] https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation/#paying-local-rates https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation...
- lagadu 6y ago
  Why is that a bad thing? Expensive areas over time becoming more accessible and vice versa effectively means that no place is permanently off-limits from the less wealthy.
- mewpmewp2 6y ago
  And what is the downside of that? Seems like the col of world would equalize and in general things would become more optimal.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > Sooner or later, costs would begin to rise in that area, because the infrastructure, healthcare, etc. must be improved (due to population growth). How many towns were forced to upgrade their infrastructure because you moved in? It seems to me you are making up extreme slippery slope-type catastrophical scenarios. Getting back to the real world, I know a few IT workers who had to move to an extremely expensive city when they were hired by FAANGs but since then they were able to move back to their home town while keeping their salary. Could you please explain how your scare story applies to this type of case, which represents most if not practically all cases?

mewpmewp2 6y ago

You can choose where you live so it is fair. If you want to live at certain area it should be worth it to you. This would optimize the world and make resource usage more optimal. I believe it is unavoidable anyway. As time goes on companies will start to pay based on actual value brought as this is more optimal and competitive. If there truly is a need for there to have at least n persons in each city then they will fill that quota, but rest of the pay will be fair.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
No 'fairness' argument visible in that? Why is it OK to discriminate because it's 'voluntary'? (Which is not obviously true). Need some explanation.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago

> If everyone would earn the same amount, consequence would be more people moving to areas with lower living cost . And this is bad because?..

_wldu 6y ago
One reason is that wealthy tech outsiders move to poorer areas and drive up real estate values to the point that only wealthy tech outsiders can afford to buy houses (shutting out many/most of the local residents).

sytelus 6y ago

In principle, it is fair to get paid same regardless of where you live because you should be getting paid for your contributions, not where you happen to connect your laptop. However, in current form of capitalism, you don’t get paid in proportion to your yield but rather in proportion to what your employer thinks you will need to maintain living standards they deem you are worthy of. This, in fact, is the cause of inequality where chain of command can decide to keep vast majority of value generated for themselves regardless of true value of their own yield. We often try to justify this inverted economics under the disguise of risk taking or leadership or making big decisions but if you look closely this singular aspect is the cause of why 1%ers exist at all in current system.