12 ms·

Its just part of negotiation, The reason I will accept lower pay is to entice you to continue using my service, rather than replacing me with other people. Its

by matz1 6y ago

Its just part of negotiation, The reason I will accept lower pay is to entice you to continue using my service, rather than replacing me with other people. Its not about the location, employer should always try maximize profit, if they can get the same service with lower expense, they should.

biztos 6y ago
OK, but if "lower pay" is a main enticing tactic, don't be shocked when someone else in a cheaper locale makes them a "better" offer and they accept it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- stevegalla 6y ago
  They don’t even need to be in a cheaper location. I have worked with two kinds of employees that are willing to accept lower pay. - those moving for a better lifestyle who have earned and saved considerably more elsewhere. I call these “working retirees”. - those who have family sending them money to subsidize their cost of living in an expensive city.
dmitryminkovsky 6y ago
That is right, one can chose to accept any offer that works for them for whatever reason. If you have no leverage, you may need to accept an offer just to avoid being replaced by other people. But, I am saying, that if you accept an offer that is based on what your employer thinks is an appropriate lifestyle for you, adjusted to the cost of living in your area, and not on the value of your work, that will immediately establish what I consider is a particularly inappropriate relationship between employer and employee. Of course this happens all the time for many reasons, but what we're seeing now is employers inventing and normalizing yet another, new tactic to deploy when trying to get you to accept less compensation. It's just another trick. But what's particularly insidious about this trick is that what they're doing is openly laying claim to your lifestyle by saying that: suppose you're a senior developer, you are entitled to organic groceries, whereas a junior developer is entitled to conventional produce, regardless of where you live, that's what you deserve. But that's wholly inappropriate: your compensation should depend on what you produce, and your lifestyle should be none of their business. If I want to move to Thailand or the middle of a field in Nebraska and save money, that's none of their business. There is no "objective" lifestyle that a senior developer should be entitled to. But that's this new trick they are trying to pull, and it's nothing short of disturbing and creepy.
- matz1 6y ago
  Its nothing disturbing and creepy, it is expected that employer to use all available 'tricks' they have. The same way employee should use whatever 'tricks' at their disposal to get a higher pay.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Every single reason given for why the pay is what it is is just a veneer for the reality that the buyer and seller couldn’t (or think they couldn’t) get a better deal elsewhere. For a buyer, that means a lower price. For the seller, that means a higher price. Not a single other factor matters.
    - xyzelement 6y ago
      This is the ground truth of how life works. Like gravity. I keep repeating this on HN whenever a comp conversations come up. Unless lotsofpulp's comment resonates deeply with your bone marrow level intuition of what gets you paid, you're totally missing the point (and making bad choices.)
  - true_religion 6y ago
    If you're going to say that, then you ought to accept that labeling the employer action creepy and disturbing is a great 'trick'. If we can remove location-based pay as a negotiation tactic, merely by creating social disapproval because its 'invasive', and the like then that's wonderful for us as as employees. Why shouldn't we work together to hobble employers at the negotiation table? They have enough power as it is.

by matz1 6y ago

biztos 6y ago

OK, but if "lower pay" is a main enticing tactic, don't be shocked when someone else in a cheaper locale makes them a "better" offer and they accept it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
stevegalla 6y ago
They don’t even need to be in a cheaper location. I have worked with two kinds of employees that are willing to accept lower pay. - those moving for a better lifestyle who have earned and saved considerably more elsewhere. I call these “working retirees”. - those who have family sending them money to subsidize their cost of living in an expensive city.

dmitryminkovsky 6y ago

That is right, one can chose to accept any offer that works for them for whatever reason. If you have no leverage, you may need to accept an offer just to avoid being replaced by other people. But, I am saying, that if you accept an offer that is based on what your employer thinks is an appropriate lifestyle for you, adjusted to the cost of living in your area, and not on the value of your work, that will immediately establish what I consider is a particularly inappropriate relationship between employer and employee. Of course this happens all the time for many reasons, but what we're seeing now is employers inventing and normalizing yet another, new tactic to deploy when trying to get you to accept less compensation. It's just another trick. But what's particularly insidious about this trick is that what they're doing is openly laying claim to your lifestyle by saying that: suppose you're a senior developer, you are entitled to organic groceries, whereas a junior developer is entitled to conventional produce, regardless of where you live, that's what you deserve. But that's wholly inappropriate: your compensation should depend on what you produce, and your lifestyle should be none of their business. If I want to move to Thailand or the middle of a field in Nebraska and save money, that's none of their business. There is no "objective" lifestyle that a senior developer should be entitled to. But that's this new trick they are trying to pull, and it's nothing short of disturbing and creepy.

matz1 6y ago
Its nothing disturbing and creepy, it is expected that employer to use all available 'tricks' they have. The same way employee should use whatever 'tricks' at their disposal to get a higher pay.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Every single reason given for why the pay is what it is is just a veneer for the reality that the buyer and seller couldn’t (or think they couldn’t) get a better deal elsewhere. For a buyer, that means a lower price. For the seller, that means a higher price. Not a single other factor matters.
  - xyzelement 6y ago
    This is the ground truth of how life works. Like gravity. I keep repeating this on HN whenever a comp conversations come up. Unless lotsofpulp's comment resonates deeply with your bone marrow level intuition of what gets you paid, you're totally missing the point (and making bad choices.)
- true_religion 6y ago
  If you're going to say that, then you ought to accept that labeling the employer action creepy and disturbing is a great 'trick'. If we can remove location-based pay as a negotiation tactic, merely by creating social disapproval because its 'invasive', and the like then that's wonderful for us as as employees. Why shouldn't we work together to hobble employers at the negotiation table? They have enough power as it is.