4 ms·

Why indeed? Is this supposed to be a dunk? If you're paying based on value derived from their work, what does it matter where they live (assuming remote work is

Why indeed? Is this supposed to be a dunk? If you're paying based on value derived from their work, what does it matter where they live (assuming remote work is acceptable, of course)?

brianwawok 5y ago
The entire argument of "There shouldn't be different pay scales based on where you live" is often given by, say someone who lives in Florida. And a rather big hole in that argument is "If you think Florida should make SF money, why don't we just skip both and get someone out of China/India/Russia"
- notreallyserio 5y ago
  I'm not sure how that counts as a hole in the argument. Sure, get someone out of any country if they can do the job. That's the promise of the public Internet, connecting folks around the world. Seems like that would be a net benefit.
- strikelaserclaw 5y ago
  You choose to live in SF, NYC or wherever, you get all the advantages of opportunity and networking with that, what makes someone deserve that?
jdlshore 5y ago
> If you're paying based on value derived from their work You're not. You're paying based on how much it would cost to find somebody to do the work. You're paying for time, not value. Profit comes from the difference between the two.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Unless you only ever hire people for extremely short periods of time, this is absurd on its face. The cost of finding somebody to do with work is always going to be tiny compared to the cost of paying someone to do the work. If their work does not have a value at least as high as what it will cost to pay them to do the work, you're not likely to hire them. If their work does have a value equal to or higher than what you will pay them, you have a reason to hire them. The cost of finding an employee can be significant, but pales compares to the actual cost of paying them.
  - jdlshore 5y ago
    I was unclear. I meant the cost to hire somebody to do the work, including their salary.

Why indeed? Is this supposed to be a dunk? If you're paying based on value derived from their work, what does it matter where they live (assuming remote work is acceptable, of course)?

brianwawok 5y ago

The entire argument of "There shouldn't be different pay scales based on where you live" is often given by, say someone who lives in Florida. And a rather big hole in that argument is "If you think Florida should make SF money, why don't we just skip both and get someone out of China/India/Russia"

notreallyserio 5y ago
I'm not sure how that counts as a hole in the argument. Sure, get someone out of any country if they can do the job. That's the promise of the public Internet, connecting folks around the world. Seems like that would be a net benefit.
strikelaserclaw 5y ago
You choose to live in SF, NYC or wherever, you get all the advantages of opportunity and networking with that, what makes someone deserve that?

jdlshore 5y ago

> If you're paying based on value derived from their work You're not. You're paying based on how much it would cost to find somebody to do the work. You're paying for time, not value. Profit comes from the difference between the two.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Unless you only ever hire people for extremely short periods of time, this is absurd on its face. The cost of finding somebody to do with work is always going to be tiny compared to the cost of paying someone to do the work. If their work does not have a value at least as high as what it will cost to pay them to do the work, you're not likely to hire them. If their work does have a value equal to or higher than what you will pay them, you have a reason to hire them. The cost of finding an employee can be significant, but pales compares to the actual cost of paying them.
- jdlshore 5y ago
  I was unclear. I meant the cost to hire somebody to do the work, including their salary.