4 ms·

I don't really have a positive or negative take on the situation. It's the workers' rights to try and fight for a higher salary and it's the companies' rights t

I don't really have a positive or negative take on the situation. It's the workers' rights to try and fight for a higher salary and it's the companies' rights to either pay them or tell them no. The majority of the workers affected by this are making well above the poverty line, so I'm happy to let the free market handle this. What I do have a very negative view on is articles like this that try and frame it as some big moral argument and hide behind things like discrimination to get people on their side. Like I said, I feel like most people complaining about this saw an opportunity to increase their take home pay by a lot and are now just angry that their plans have been foiled. If the author want to live in India, but thinks he can provide more value (and thus should be paid more) than everyone in his local market, then let him make his case. If that isn't the case and he doesn't provide any more value that the other people in his local market, then why should the company continue to pay him an above market salary when theres a ton of other potential applicants out there? Basically, I find him pretending that this isn't about money very disingenuous.

arrosenberg 6y ago
I don't think the author is pretending it isn't about money - that seems to be the central thesis of the entire article. The point they are making is that if the author wants to live in India, if the work is entirely remote anyways, they shouldn't have to provide additional value. If his work was worth $100K when he lived in SF, why isn't the equivalent work worth $100K in Wichita? To me it seems like a recognition of the fact that for remote work, location doesn't really matter, so the market rate is national or global. If Starbucks wants to hire, they can base their pay rate on the local labor market, but software companies should expect to pay a national rate for those types of jobs going forward if remote work is going to be more of a standard.
- superfrank 6y ago
  > The point they are making is that if the author wants to live in India, if the work is entirely remote anyways, they shouldn't have to provide additional value They should because there is nothing stoping their company from hiring someone else in India for the Indian market rate. > If his work was worth $100K when he lived in SF, why isn't the equivalent work worth $100K in Wichita? His work wasn't worth $100k. It cost $100k to hire someone who was willing/able to do his work and come into the office. > but software companies should expect to pay a national rate for those types of jobs going forward if remote work is going to be more of a standard I couldn't agree with you more, but I think a lot of people have things backwards. People in the Bay Area (etc) were being payed wages far, far above the national rate. These companies aren't cutting wages below the national rate, they're attempting to remove the premium they were paying to local employees.
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    > They should because there is nothing stoping their company from hiring someone else in India for the Indian market rate. They already could do that. Nothing about the situation has changed. > It cost $100k to hire someone who was willing/able to do his work and come into the office. Well, see, now you are adding a thing. That's the entire point of this article. The company didn't outsource the job before. Plus, with lower office space requirements and fewer commuters, companies will save money without touching salaries. If being in an office is a requirement, then sure, but the premise of the argument is that these jobs are being done just as productively without physical presence. > People in the Bay Area (etc) were being payed wages far, far above the national rate. Says you. Bay Area pay rates were at a premium because the best talent went there for the network effects. Now there is a diaspora happening. The talent is still worth the premium rate (otherwise the employer already would have looked to lower their basis), so why should it go down just because the IP that connects to their company VPN is in Arizona instead of California? That seems backwards to me. I completely understand the motives of the company, but the employees should absolutely not accept that. One day good software engineers (etc.) might be that fungible, but they aren't today.

arrosenberg 6y ago

I don't think the author is pretending it isn't about money - that seems to be the central thesis of the entire article. The point they are making is that if the author wants to live in India, if the work is entirely remote anyways, they shouldn't have to provide additional value. If his work was worth $100K when he lived in SF, why isn't the equivalent work worth $100K in Wichita? To me it seems like a recognition of the fact that for remote work, location doesn't really matter, so the market rate is national or global. If Starbucks wants to hire, they can base their pay rate on the local labor market, but software companies should expect to pay a national rate for those types of jobs going forward if remote work is going to be more of a standard.

superfrank 6y ago
> The point they are making is that if the author wants to live in India, if the work is entirely remote anyways, they shouldn't have to provide additional value They should because there is nothing stoping their company from hiring someone else in India for the Indian market rate. > If his work was worth $100K when he lived in SF, why isn't the equivalent work worth $100K in Wichita? His work wasn't worth $100k. It cost $100k to hire someone who was willing/able to do his work and come into the office. > but software companies should expect to pay a national rate for those types of jobs going forward if remote work is going to be more of a standard I couldn't agree with you more, but I think a lot of people have things backwards. People in the Bay Area (etc) were being payed wages far, far above the national rate. These companies aren't cutting wages below the national rate, they're attempting to remove the premium they were paying to local employees.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  > They should because there is nothing stoping their company from hiring someone else in India for the Indian market rate. They already could do that. Nothing about the situation has changed. > It cost $100k to hire someone who was willing/able to do his work and come into the office. Well, see, now you are adding a thing. That's the entire point of this article. The company didn't outsource the job before. Plus, with lower office space requirements and fewer commuters, companies will save money without touching salaries. If being in an office is a requirement, then sure, but the premise of the argument is that these jobs are being done just as productively without physical presence. > People in the Bay Area (etc) were being payed wages far, far above the national rate. Says you. Bay Area pay rates were at a premium because the best talent went there for the network effects. Now there is a diaspora happening. The talent is still worth the premium rate (otherwise the employer already would have looked to lower their basis), so why should it go down just because the IP that connects to their company VPN is in Arizona instead of California? That seems backwards to me. I completely understand the motives of the company, but the employees should absolutely not accept that. One day good software engineers (etc.) might be that fungible, but they aren't today.