46 ms·

Location still matters, even for remote employees in the US. You can get on a flight to anywhere in the continental US in a few hours, usually much less (In my

Location still matters, even for remote employees in the US. You can get on a flight to anywhere in the continental US in a few hours, usually much less (In my case I'm about 1.5 hours from SF). US citizens don't need to apply for a visa and can travel on a moment's notice to attend a meeting, or sync up with coworkers, or interview at a company. The other issue is regulatory. I'm sure companies would pay higher compensation overseas, if overseas governments were more business-friendly. If you think the pay isn't competitive in your country, petition your government to have lower taxes and less regulations for a business entity that wants to operate there. You might have to compromise and give up some of the benefits like free healthcare, that we have to pay enormous amounts of money for in the USA.

kkfx 5y ago
It's not a matter of being free and able to travel, wages are a matter of supply and demand: too few workers? => skyrocketing wages. Too much workers? => very poor wages. Now look at population density of, let's say India. How many Indians have enough knowledge to apply for some positions respect of let's say the ratio of French? You easy see that potential number of workers climb exponentially, so wages go to the bottom. You might say "hey, but also the offer became far bigger", true, but now look at the entire world: in the west/JP/SK we have the highest wages and cost of living in the planet. We have had in the past a certain "mean culture" thanks to developed schools systems witch WAS around the highest of the planet, we have dominated tech sectors. In the past. Now mean culture is plummeted, thanks to those who have pushed the Ford model to the extreme because people without culture, especially without a generic culture, are easy to govern. Tech is still a bit higher than the rest of the world but not so much anymore and so on MEANWHILE cost of living do not lower and will not in a more globalized world. As a result pay-the-same means for some countries pay much, for some others pay too little. As a result we would see another mass disruption from a war between about-to-be-poorer vs about-to-be-less-poor that, summed to all other ongoing crisis will just push more people toward wars and extremism. As I said anything can and should change, but at a certain slow peace, to avoid too much collateral damages during the change. That's valid if you are thirsty almost dead of thirst and you drink too much once new water arrive to die of water indigestion and equally valid if you consuming too much water daily and suddenly stop: your kidneys will be the source of huge health problems. You might say "hey, but some will got rich quickly". Yes. Very few multi-national giants surely would be more rich in a quick time. Workers who get rich quickly from poverty in most of the cases will be equally or even more poor in a nick of a time because getting rich quickly means being unable to handle richness and so squander quickly as we regularly see with young generations too quickly substituting rich parents, that even if being born wealthy they have studied well and have had good examples and practice at home, in theory. Always consider a thing: from chaos there are very few who can really profit, like the same ration of lottery winners, from the "poor" classes, while the topmost rich being outside the chaos observing normally profit very well. See the French Revolution: the real winners were the bankers who have substituted an impoverished nobleness, not much differently than so many other revolutions. Simply because those who see the big picture being a bit outside and resourceful can maneuver, those in the fray can only elbow hoping to save their life in skin.

kkfx 5y ago

It's not a matter of being free and able to travel, wages are a matter of supply and demand: too few workers? => skyrocketing wages. Too much workers? => very poor wages. Now look at population density of, let's say India. How many Indians have enough knowledge to apply for some positions respect of let's say the ratio of French? You easy see that potential number of workers climb exponentially, so wages go to the bottom. You might say "hey, but also the offer became far bigger", true, but now look at the entire world: in the west/JP/SK we have the highest wages and cost of living in the planet. We have had in the past a certain "mean culture" thanks to developed schools systems witch WAS around the highest of the planet, we have dominated tech sectors. In the past. Now mean culture is plummeted, thanks to those who have pushed the Ford model to the extreme because people without culture, especially without a generic culture, are easy to govern. Tech is still a bit higher than the rest of the world but not so much anymore and so on MEANWHILE cost of living do not lower and will not in a more globalized world. As a result pay-the-same means for some countries pay much, for some others pay too little. As a result we would see another mass disruption from a war between about-to-be-poorer vs about-to-be-less-poor that, summed to all other ongoing crisis will just push more people toward wars and extremism. As I said anything can and should change, but at a certain slow peace, to avoid too much collateral damages during the change. That's valid if you are thirsty almost dead of thirst and you drink too much once new water arrive to die of water indigestion and equally valid if you consuming too much water daily and suddenly stop: your kidneys will be the source of huge health problems. You might say "hey, but some will got rich quickly". Yes. Very few multi-national giants surely would be more rich in a quick time. Workers who get rich quickly from poverty in most of the cases will be equally or even more poor in a nick of a time because getting rich quickly means being unable to handle richness and so squander quickly as we regularly see with young generations too quickly substituting rich parents, that even if being born wealthy they have studied well and have had good examples and practice at home, in theory. Always consider a thing: from chaos there are very few who can really profit, like the same ration of lottery winners, from the "poor" classes, while the topmost rich being outside the chaos observing normally profit very well. See the French Revolution: the real winners were the bankers who have substituted an impoverished nobleness, not much differently than so many other revolutions. Simply because those who see the big picture being a bit outside and resourceful can maneuver, those in the fray can only elbow hoping to save their life in skin.