5 ms·
I think the problem is that the conversation is "we'll pay you X of which one factor is where you live" when it should be "we'll pay you X if you work for us, d
by carlio 6y ago
I think the problem is that the conversation is "we'll pay you X of which one factor is where you live" when it should be "we'll pay you X if you work for us, do you accept?". The reasons for people offering a salary amount is irrelevant, it's about if the offer is acceptable to an employee. If I move somewhere, I get paid the same, and if it's cheaper I get more spending money, if it's more expensive, I have to swallow the costs.
If the contract says "we can renegotiate if you relocate", that's not a contract I'd sign, but it's up to the company and employee to decide if that's an acceptable clause in the contract.
A contract which says "we'll pay you less if you move somewhere cheaper" must also say "we'll pay you more if you move somewhere more expensive" but then suddenly my employment incentivises my location. I wouldn't move from Warsaw to Bangladesh but it might make economic sense to move to Zurich. If it's in the contract that the employer must honour the movement, then they have unexpected cost recalculations to do. If it's not, and you're just hoping for a "good faith" agreement, again that's not a contract I'd sign, but others might.
- tchalla 6y ago> A contract which says "we'll pay you less if you move somewhere cheaper" must also say "we'll pay you more if you move somewhere more expensive" but then suddenly my employment incentivises my location I believe this is a key point in the argument. Currently, I see only one party having an upside but no downside.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoBecause only one party has the upside when the seller of labor moves to a location where they have few buyers of labor. A seller of labor that has multiple buyers can negotiate for more pay in places where they have lots of buyers for their labors (and their buyers can afford to pay). A buyer of labor will not explicitly state this for obvious reasons, just like a seller of labor will not explicitly state they will accept lower pay if their situation changes, but every transaction in life is possible to be subject to negotiation.
- carlio 6y agoTo be very capitalistic about it, that is a choice that the seller makes. Why should the burden of relocation fall upon the purchaser of goods when it's the decision of the provider of goods? I shouldn't have to pay more for a product because they decided to move their manufacturing process, that's their call not mine. They can price it in to their new rates, but then it's up to me to agree or disagree if I'll pay them. But equally, if their manufacturing costs drop, I have no recourse to demand a rebate. I definitely agree that it's strange that the same labour is worth different amounts depending on point of origin, when the goods sold is essentially information. I don't like it, either. But employers are not beholden to the relocations of their employees, it's the responsibility of the employees to negotiate the agreement.
- jmchuster 6y agoI mean, the way you do it is interview with a local company, get an offer, and go to your boss and ask for a matching raise.
- odessacubbage 6y agofurthermore what's to stop someone from living as a fulltime itinerant within the cheapest parts of the 2nd world while keeping a p.o box within the highest pay bracket and claiming that as their residence?