4 ms·

> 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 sudd

> 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 ago
Because 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 ago
  To 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 ago
I 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.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

Because 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 ago
To 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 ago

I 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.