4 ms·

> 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

> 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?
- mrep 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) I don't see why that is as the extra infrastructure will come with more tax revenue. For example, Dallas-Forth-Worth and the Houston metro populations are the 4th and 5th largest in the US and have each grown a estimated 19% in the past decade [0] and yet their cost of living still sits right at the national average [1, 2]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistic... [1]: https://www.payscale.com/cost-of-living-calculator/Texas-Dallas https://www.payscale.com/cost-of-living-calculator/Texas-Dal... [2]: https://www.payscale.com/cost-of-living-calculator/Texas-Houston https://www.payscale.com/cost-of-living-calculator/Texas-Hou...
tim333 6y ago
Presumably there are some benefits to people coming to the office.
- mewpmewp2 6y ago
  If there truly is then pay extra for coming to office, but not because of their col choices which everyone can choose best themselves.
ptttr 6y ago
The downsides are not clear to me as well. The only argument I could think of is a nationalistic sentiment that nations should live & work together but I find it poorly motivated in a global world. I see, however, a lot of benefits of easing out the wealth distribution geographically. And you rarely want to live in the cheapest 3rd world country far away from your family. It's a CoL-vs-comfort balance you need to figure out for yourself - no calculator will be 100% accurate here. I've been riding this ride through most of my career, working remotely for western startups mostly from Poland. In the end, I don't care how "fair" your compensation policy is - it all comes down to the best alternative offer.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Continued overcrowding of cities. Continued discrimination between nationalities.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > Continued overcrowding of cities. Continued discrimination between nationalities. Where do you see your "continued overcrowding of cities" if anyone is free to live wherever they want, provided there is a reliable high-speed internet connection? And exactly where do you see any discrimination if anyone is free to worke everywhere?
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Did I miss a left turn somewhere? The thread is about better pay in cities, vs the pay cut if one leaves the city. Better pay for locals (read Americans) vs pay for remote workers which includes all people living in other countries. But this is obvious. What is the question?

> 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?
mrep 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) I don't see why that is as the extra infrastructure will come with more tax revenue. For example, Dallas-Forth-Worth and the Houston metro populations are the 4th and 5th largest in the US and have each grown a estimated 19% in the past decade [0] and yet their cost of living still sits right at the national average [1, 2]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistic... [1]: https://www.payscale.com/cost-of-living-calculator/Texas-Dallas https://www.payscale.com/cost-of-living-calculator/Texas-Dal... [2]: https://www.payscale.com/cost-of-living-calculator/Texas-Houston https://www.payscale.com/cost-of-living-calculator/Texas-Hou...

tim333 6y ago

Presumably there are some benefits to people coming to the office.

mewpmewp2 6y ago
If there truly is then pay extra for coming to office, but not because of their col choices which everyone can choose best themselves.

ptttr 6y ago

The downsides are not clear to me as well. The only argument I could think of is a nationalistic sentiment that nations should live & work together but I find it poorly motivated in a global world. I see, however, a lot of benefits of easing out the wealth distribution geographically. And you rarely want to live in the cheapest 3rd world country far away from your family. It's a CoL-vs-comfort balance you need to figure out for yourself - no calculator will be 100% accurate here. I've been riding this ride through most of my career, working remotely for western startups mostly from Poland. In the end, I don't care how "fair" your compensation policy is - it all comes down to the best alternative offer.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Continued overcrowding of cities. Continued discrimination between nationalities.

rumanator 6y ago
> Continued overcrowding of cities. Continued discrimination between nationalities. Where do you see your "continued overcrowding of cities" if anyone is free to live wherever they want, provided there is a reliable high-speed internet connection? And exactly where do you see any discrimination if anyone is free to worke everywhere?
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Did I miss a left turn somewhere? The thread is about better pay in cities, vs the pay cut if one leaves the city. Better pay for locals (read Americans) vs pay for remote workers which includes all people living in other countries. But this is obvious. What is the question?