5 ms·

It should be of no concern to the employer where I live; that's my decision and deciding my salary based on that is nothing but pure discrimination, no better t

It should be of no concern to the employer where I live; that's my decision and deciding my salary based on that is nothing but pure discrimination, no better than discriminating based on race or ethnicity. If you can afford to pay a certain amount of money to someone living near you then you can afford to pay the same amount of money to someone living in Romania. There's also the issue of calculating the cost of living - why should I trust a US based employer to be able to correctly calculate my cost of living if I live in Saudi Arabia?

haakonhr 6y ago
Except for legal reasons I agree that it shouldn't matter. However, where you live defines the frames around any salary negotiation, both because it affects what you are willing to accept, but also because it affects your opportunity cost. If my prospective employer knows that I live in Romania they probably wouldn't offer me a bay area salary, even if I am equally valuable for the company, since they can be pretty sure that I would accept something lower (that's not to say that you cannot negotiate a similar salary if you are able to prove your value somehow). If I live in the Bay Area I have plenty of options around me so they know that I probably wouldn't be willing to accept the same salary that I would if I lived in Romania.
kostarelo 6y ago
Discrimination would be to treat those employees in a worse manner that others. Paying them the above the local rate salary is not treating them "worse". Not providing them with equal opportunities to grow on the company, that would be discrimination. Apple is making products that the majority of the country that they operate in, simply cannot afford. Let alone the rest of the planet. Are we considering that to be discrimination?
giantg2 6y ago
This is not the same as discrimination on race or ethnicity. Most of the legally protected attributes are not something you choose to be or can change. Even religion, while being a choice, is protected because a person's religion is regarded as a strong moral conviction and is widely accepted as a concept. Within the United States, the choice to live in a low cost of living area could easily be changed by moving. Millions of people move each year in the US, many of them due to work. In fact, I had to move from a low-cost area that is considered depressed in order to find a job. Now I can see that living outside the US can bring challenges to moving, like visas, and national origin is a protected trait. But if their policy is to pay local rates, then that does not discriminate based on anyone's individual traits and is wholly based on the market. Does it suck? Sometimes. I would have gladly stayed in my low-cost depressed area if there was a job for me there. The best play for me would be to move to an expensive area (done), make a lot of money (I wish), and move back to the cheap area to retire early. But my wife doesn't want to ever move.
jamesjguthrie 6y ago
This is the comment I have agreed with most in this thread. The employer should pay based on what the employee is worth, not where they live IMO. Why is somebody in California worth more? Is it because they’re in the office? Are they doing a different job than the remote worker?

haakonhr 6y ago

Except for legal reasons I agree that it shouldn't matter. However, where you live defines the frames around any salary negotiation, both because it affects what you are willing to accept, but also because it affects your opportunity cost. If my prospective employer knows that I live in Romania they probably wouldn't offer me a bay area salary, even if I am equally valuable for the company, since they can be pretty sure that I would accept something lower (that's not to say that you cannot negotiate a similar salary if you are able to prove your value somehow). If I live in the Bay Area I have plenty of options around me so they know that I probably wouldn't be willing to accept the same salary that I would if I lived in Romania.

kostarelo 6y ago

Discrimination would be to treat those employees in a worse manner that others. Paying them the above the local rate salary is not treating them "worse". Not providing them with equal opportunities to grow on the company, that would be discrimination. Apple is making products that the majority of the country that they operate in, simply cannot afford. Let alone the rest of the planet. Are we considering that to be discrimination?

giantg2 6y ago

This is not the same as discrimination on race or ethnicity. Most of the legally protected attributes are not something you choose to be or can change. Even religion, while being a choice, is protected because a person's religion is regarded as a strong moral conviction and is widely accepted as a concept. Within the United States, the choice to live in a low cost of living area could easily be changed by moving. Millions of people move each year in the US, many of them due to work. In fact, I had to move from a low-cost area that is considered depressed in order to find a job. Now I can see that living outside the US can bring challenges to moving, like visas, and national origin is a protected trait. But if their policy is to pay local rates, then that does not discriminate based on anyone's individual traits and is wholly based on the market. Does it suck? Sometimes. I would have gladly stayed in my low-cost depressed area if there was a job for me there. The best play for me would be to move to an expensive area (done), make a lot of money (I wish), and move back to the cheap area to retire early. But my wife doesn't want to ever move.

jamesjguthrie 6y ago

This is the comment I have agreed with most in this thread. The employer should pay based on what the employee is worth, not where they live IMO. Why is somebody in California worth more? Is it because they’re in the office? Are they doing a different job than the remote worker?