8 ms·

s/remote/female/g Or really, use any other marginalized group with limited negotiation power and see how your comment turns out. Only difference is remote is n

by a_imho 6y ago

s/remote/female/g Or really, use any other marginalized group with limited negotiation power and see how your comment turns out. Only difference is remote is not protected class, but that is simply an implementation detail. Everybody argues this issue from the POV of their very own salary and it is understandable. It is fair to say you think you are at the good end of the deal and you like it there. But the moral argument about equal work should be equally compensated is nigh unchallengable. https://elsajohansson.wordpress.com/2017/09/13/what-does-a-wage-gap-look-like/ https://elsajohansson.wordpress.com/2017/09/13/what-does-a-w...

zepto 6y ago
Except remote/female is not interchangeable. Remote = lower costs. Female ≠ lower costs. I’m not arguing against equal pay for equal work. I’m arguing that it’s a bad analogy to compare being remote with being female.
- a_imho 6y ago
  If you are not arguing against equal pay for equal work Remote = lower costs does not hold. It also depends on what you think about wage gaps and why do we need equal employment laws in the first place?
  - zepto 6y ago
    Facts don’t depend on what I’m arguing for. I’m arguing against comparing remote work to the gender pay gap. Being female is not comparable to being remote. Most people have more choice about where they live than their sex or gender, for example. I assume you are not arguing that sex and gender are just preferences.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - a_imho 6y ago
      Let's agree to disagree. Imo it is very much comparable from a negotiation power point. The fact that it is not something you can change easily is orthogonal. If you want to be pedantic you can use religion as an example.
      - zepto 6y ago
        I agree to disagree. It is not comparable from a negotiation power point - negotiation is all about what you can and can’t trade. Therefore whether something is a choice or not is absolutely critical to any negotiation. Religion is a good example to consider. Can you change it? Clearly some people do. What is the cost of changing religion? Obviously very different from person to person, very different from even the concept of changing sex, and very different from changing location.
NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
>But the moral argument about equal work should be equally compensated is nigh unchallengable. I don't the think premise is at all clear, never mind 'unchallengeable', especially if you take 'be equally compensated' to mean 'have the same nominal cash pay'. Why is 'nominal cash' equivalence superior to 'purchasing power parity' from a moral perspective, for example? Is it moral for some workers to receive rewards that are richer than others (in terms of what they will buy) purely on the basis of local economics? Why is it moral for workers in locations with generous government programs to receive the same nominal cash pay as those who might have to pay out of pocket for some of those same services in different locations? "All other things being equal, equal pay for equal work" sounds reasonable, but when you're not holding all other things equal, the moral position is more tenuous.
- a_imho 6y ago
  Because purchasing power parity has nothing to do with selling labour and work is what should be compensated. Purchasing power is none of the employer's business. Purchasing power means what you want it to mean. Will Apple adjust it prices to reflect on the local markets?
  - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
    You said this was a compelling moral argument. I don't believe the moral content is at all clear and give examples of why not. Would you mind responding to those? Apple prices have converged quite a lot - but note that the labor content of their products prices changes very little as everything is made in same factories in China. McDonalds (another multinational with a quite standardized product offering across markets) charges very different prices for the same product depending on local markets.
    - a_imho 6y ago
      I'm not sure I understand your concerns. Why would it not be OK to receive the same compensation for the same work?
jerf 6y ago
Legal protections for marginilized or protected classes is generally based on categorizations that can not be changed about a person. You can't just wake up one day and change your perceived race, or decide to be 20 years younger. Geographic location is not a category for protection, nor is it going to become one. First, it simply isn't something that can't be changed, and second, our elites in general want us to be able to move around freely, so they aren't going to make it one.
- a_imho 6y ago
  Religion or Veteran status* are obvious counterexamples, people are very much in control for those. Point is, just because an outgroup can be discriminated (legally) it is not fair morally.
pc86 6y ago
> Only difference is remote is not protected class, but that is simply an implementation detail. Of course it's not a protected class, and that's by design. Protected classes are things you cannot change (with the exception of religion), and thus you shouldn't be able to discriminate based on them. You wanting to live in Kansas doesn't (shouldn't) afford you some protected status giving you an artificial pay increase.
- a_imho 6y ago
  You can't just discount the exceptions to make an argument. Uprooting a family and moving to a different country while being in the mercy of a work visa is not something to be taken lightly either in practice. Anyway the point is not who should belong into a protected class, in fact when there were no legal protections it was still not fair to underpay some folks just because companies could get away with it. It just happens companies can do it with remote workers as of today.

by a_imho 6y ago

zepto 6y ago

Except remote/female is not interchangeable. Remote = lower costs. Female ≠ lower costs. I’m not arguing against equal pay for equal work. I’m arguing that it’s a bad analogy to compare being remote with being female.

a_imho 6y ago
If you are not arguing against equal pay for equal work Remote = lower costs does not hold. It also depends on what you think about wage gaps and why do we need equal employment laws in the first place?
- zepto 6y ago
  Facts don’t depend on what I’m arguing for. I’m arguing against comparing remote work to the gender pay gap. Being female is not comparable to being remote. Most people have more choice about where they live than their sex or gender, for example. I assume you are not arguing that sex and gender are just preferences.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - a_imho 6y ago
    Let's agree to disagree. Imo it is very much comparable from a negotiation power point. The fact that it is not something you can change easily is orthogonal. If you want to be pedantic you can use religion as an example.
    - zepto 6y ago
      I agree to disagree. It is not comparable from a negotiation power point - negotiation is all about what you can and can’t trade. Therefore whether something is a choice or not is absolutely critical to any negotiation. Religion is a good example to consider. Can you change it? Clearly some people do. What is the cost of changing religion? Obviously very different from person to person, very different from even the concept of changing sex, and very different from changing location.

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago

>But the moral argument about equal work should be equally compensated is nigh unchallengable. I don't the think premise is at all clear, never mind 'unchallengeable', especially if you take 'be equally compensated' to mean 'have the same nominal cash pay'. Why is 'nominal cash' equivalence superior to 'purchasing power parity' from a moral perspective, for example? Is it moral for some workers to receive rewards that are richer than others (in terms of what they will buy) purely on the basis of local economics? Why is it moral for workers in locations with generous government programs to receive the same nominal cash pay as those who might have to pay out of pocket for some of those same services in different locations? "All other things being equal, equal pay for equal work" sounds reasonable, but when you're not holding all other things equal, the moral position is more tenuous.

a_imho 6y ago
Because purchasing power parity has nothing to do with selling labour and work is what should be compensated. Purchasing power is none of the employer's business. Purchasing power means what you want it to mean. Will Apple adjust it prices to reflect on the local markets?
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  You said this was a compelling moral argument. I don't believe the moral content is at all clear and give examples of why not. Would you mind responding to those? Apple prices have converged quite a lot - but note that the labor content of their products prices changes very little as everything is made in same factories in China. McDonalds (another multinational with a quite standardized product offering across markets) charges very different prices for the same product depending on local markets.
  - a_imho 6y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your concerns. Why would it not be OK to receive the same compensation for the same work?

jerf 6y ago

Legal protections for marginilized or protected classes is generally based on categorizations that can not be changed about a person. You can't just wake up one day and change your perceived race, or decide to be 20 years younger. Geographic location is not a category for protection, nor is it going to become one. First, it simply isn't something that can't be changed, and second, our elites in general want us to be able to move around freely, so they aren't going to make it one.

a_imho 6y ago
Religion or Veteran status* are obvious counterexamples, people are very much in control for those. Point is, just because an outgroup can be discriminated (legally) it is not fair morally.

pc86 6y ago

> Only difference is remote is not protected class, but that is simply an implementation detail. Of course it's not a protected class, and that's by design. Protected classes are things you cannot change (with the exception of religion), and thus you shouldn't be able to discriminate based on them. You wanting to live in Kansas doesn't (shouldn't) afford you some protected status giving you an artificial pay increase.

a_imho 6y ago
You can't just discount the exceptions to make an argument. Uprooting a family and moving to a different country while being in the mercy of a work visa is not something to be taken lightly either in practice. Anyway the point is not who should belong into a protected class, in fact when there were no legal protections it was still not fair to underpay some folks just because companies could get away with it. It just happens companies can do it with remote workers as of today.