4 ms·
Precisely. The OP reaches the wrong conclusion from an excellent point. The fact that they are benefiting as a consumer because of location based salaries is a
by runarberg 6y ago
Precisely. The OP reaches the wrong conclusion from an excellent point.
The fact that they are benefiting as a consumer because of location based salaries is another point against them. Pitting “closing down the ‘sweatshops’” (i.e. unemployment) as the only alternative for the workers is disingenuous. Another alternative is worker control over the factories. Yes OP as a consumer will loose some luxury as the price of consumer products rises along with the workers’ pay, but what natural law states that the OP has the right to that luxury at the cost of foreign workers?
The original point, you deserve the value of your work in salaries regardless of your location still holds. Even more so when it is applied to the global scale. And the fact that it isn’t applied on the global scale is just another fact pointing to the fact that we live in an unequal economy that exploits workers. Instead of rejecting this, OP should have reached the conclusion that there are alternative worker arrangements which would benefits workers globally.
- vslira 6y agoThe author doesn't actually say it out loud, but > OP should have reached the conclusion that there are alternative worker arrangements which would benefits workers globally. This is specifically what he DOESN'T want. What he's saying is that someone from Boise, ID shouldn't complain too loud about location-based pay, because taking the logic to its extreme would mean redistributing all this worker and consumer welfare with the rest of the billions of workers worldwide and, surprise surprise, that would actually suck to essentially every American, doesn't matter how poor. So, basically: "Hey guys, don't rock the boat. We might be crew but you don't want the rowers competing for our place"
- runarberg 6y agoThanks for calling it out. This is what I read as well but I wanted to give the author the benefits of the doubt (don’t attribute malice... and so on). However it is hard to read anything else from this short, concise, and well worded article. In my circles we have a saying that there is no such thing as an ethical consumption under capitalism. What the OP is basically saying is: “That is fine, unethical consumption is good actually. As long as I’m the one benefiting on other’s expense”.
- Aeolun 6y agoWut, how do you read that? I just read: “Can’t you all see what kind of hypocrites we are, arguing against location based pay?!”
- runarberg 6y agoIf that were the case, the conclusion would have been the opposite, and the title would have been something like: “Location-Based Pay is more common then you think, and Bad Actually”, and statements like “maybe we should be careful what we wish for” would rather be something like: > As workers united in the goal for international solidarity we should reject the notion of Location-Based Pay, not only because it devalues our own work, but primarily because this practice is causing mass poverty and underpay among our fellow workers in the poorer regions in the world.
- blackshaw 6y agoAuthor of the original piece here. Wow, I made the front page of HN! Hmmmm... I can see how my vague words could have been read to imply that I advocate the opposite of what you suggest, or that I'm promoting a continuation of the status quo for my own selfish benefit. But that's not what I meant! I was merely trying to draw attention to the hypocrisy of wealthy Western software engineers complaining about "location-based pay" when few of us were complaining when the shoe was on the other foot. I didn't offer much in the way of prescriptive conclusions because I don't know what the solution is; these issues are difficult and I'm just some random Elixir developer. But your suggested conclusion... > As workers united in the goal for international solidarity we should reject the notion of Location-Based Pay, not only because it devalues our own work, but primarily because this practice is causing mass poverty and underpay among our fellow workers in the poorer regions in the world. ... sounds about right, and after reading all this commentary I wish I'd made a bolder statement than the handwavey words I went with. I think I'll write a follow-up piece next week. Thanks for all this smart feedback.
- blackshaw 6y ago
- speleding 6y agoRealistically, if you improve working conditions or pay in Bangladesh, the business will shift to one of 10 other poor countries in the developing world. That's not to say we should give up trying to do that. But the comparison of the low-skilled labour with scarce developers, is simply not a very good one, because most developers have reasonable bargaining power.
- CuriouslyC 6y agoThe answer is to impose environmental and labor based tariffs on countries that enable destructive capitalism, so the cost savings from disregarding the environment and human suffering is offset. Free trade should only be a thing between ethical, responsible states.
- speleding 6y agoThat well intended argument has frequently been used as a protectionist argument to keep out cheaper goods from developing nations. E.g. the EU doesn't allow certain produce from Africa because of these reasons. Most African countries simply won't be able to comply, and the sad thing is that trading produce with the west is one of the only ways for them to escape poverty. So the people you aim to protect are left worse off.
- CuriouslyC 6y agoHistory says that aid to corrupt governments to help the suffering there mostly ends up in the pockets of the people in power, so I'm frankly okay with that. When they get their act together, they can be welcomed into the fold.
- speleding 6y agoTrade is generally accepted as one of the best ways to relieve poverty, precisely because money ends up close to the workers instead of with corrupt governments.