6 ms·
This is a good thing, it's not healthy to have all your wealth in one small region of a country.
by tonyedgecombe 5y ago
This is a good thing, it's not healthy to have all your wealth in one small region of a country.
- ch4s3 5y agoGood thin the US has several huge, wealthy metro areas 8 or 9 states.
- minikites 5y agoFinding cheaper labor elsewhere further concentrates wealth. The only way to spread out the wealth would be to mandate the same salary across regions.
- namdnay 5y agoThat sounds good, but how do you determine this new universal salary? It's either going to be absurdly over market (are you going to pay fresh grads in Hyderabad 150k USD a year?) or absurdly under market (are you going to pay fresh grads in Mountain View 30k USD a year?)
- gowld 5y agoSame way oil is priced, at the market clearing rate. Maybe it's $60K/yr and we have happy Indians and Romanians and no Californians.
- namdnay 5y agoYes indeed, at that price you could hoover up all the talent in India, China, Russia, Ukraine etc
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y agoYou won't get top talent in Ukraine for 60k.
- namdnay 5y agoFor fresh grads?
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y agoFor fresh grads yes, assuming they don't work for another US-based company.
- eru 5y agoYes. And how do you determine which two jobs are similar enough to warrant the same salary by law? Where do you draw the lines?
- gmadsen 5y agowait till the even wider proliferation of offshoring of remote technical roles. The wealth will be even more concentrated, except only the executives, while the workers will have even less
- namdnay 5y agowhy even less? remote work has been a great boost for lots of workers. I see the effect of it here in Europe, in the past year average hire salaries have gone up by at least 10% due to the competition with fully remote orgs
- chrisco255 5y agoYeah been waiting for that to happen for the past 20 years...
- gmadsen 5y agowell the last 20 years didn't have a mass forced remote work event
- eru 5y agoWhy would the company splurge on executives, and not drive down their wages, too, if that's so easy? Executive cost money, too. They are also employees.
- RestlessMind 5y agoIf you come up with a way to spread that wealth in the different regions of a country, shareholders and execs will leverage that to get work done from even cheaper countries. A worker in Colombia or Mexico is much cheaper than someone in Kansas or Maryland. Btw, I am seeing this happening at my current workplace where a majority of the new headcount is for non-US countries. So be careful what you wish for. We have seen this movie before with manufacturing. The winners of this move will be the shareholders / execs and the middle class in cheap countries. The losers will be the American middle class.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago>So be careful what you wish for. I see that as a good thing as well. If it is a problem to have all the wealth of a country in a few regions then it is equally bad to have the wealth of the world in a few countries. It might have been painful for some Americans but globalisation has been a success for most of the world.
- RestlessMind 5y agoGood for whom? Definitely not for American middle class. So if you are a middle class person in the US, do not root for WFH trend or globalization of Silicon Valley. It will only hurt you while benefiting poorer countries and the shareholders (aka top 1%-ers) in the US. > globalization has been a success for most of the world It has led to decimation of big industries in the US / Western Europe, fueling the rise of demagogues (Trump, Le Pen, AfD, ...). It has also given power to despot regimes like Chinese Communist Party.