3 ms·

Currently we've hired more than 0 people through a global outsourcing company. The outsourcing company sends us invoices, we wire them dollars, they charge us 3

Currently we've hired more than 0 people through a global outsourcing company. The outsourcing company sends us invoices, we wire them dollars, they charge us 3% on top of extremely bad forex rates plus 10% for their services, then a local company who's hired "our staff" processes payroll, pays local taxes and insurance, etc. The whole process of getting the money to the recipient takes days to a month. Currently we have more than 0 staff who have been displaced by a war and do not have good access to local banking, so we pay them in dollar stablecoins. This does not cost ~15% and does not have a latency of days to a month.

aerovistae 4y ago
The specifier "more than 0" strikes me as odd. Both sentences would have been the same without it. > we've hired people through a global outsourcing company > we have staff who have been displaced by a war
- 676234e117 4y ago
  Maybe it is just 1 recipient. Which I think is still a fine display of the value of a decentralized payment option.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    That they can pay people remotely ignoring employment laws in a way that can be tracked and prosecuted?
    - anonymoushn 4y ago
      I'm not sure why there's some assumption that anything illegal is going on.
      - lern_too_spel 4y ago
        You stated that you are directly paying these employees without the facilitator who was previously paying the payroll taxes on your behalf.
        anonymoushn 4y ago
        You should perhaps read the comment again? The comment mentions two disjoint sets of people who are presently paid in different ways. It does not mention any transition of any people between the sets.
        lern_too_spel 4y ago
        The second set of people must also be paid according to the laws of the country they are currently residing in. By paying them without informing the country, you are skirting its laws and doing so in a way that is easily tracked.
        anonymoushn 4y ago
        I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that I have discovered that it is in fact legal to pay contractors in these countries. The bad news is that I also recently paid a local moving company for a move and purchased some onigiri at a convenience store without personally verifying that these businesses and their employees pay their taxes. Feel free to report me to the kōban.
        lern_too_spel 4y ago
        If you paid with real money that went into a real bank account, the government knows if they paid their taxes. If you paid them with crypto because they shadily asked you to, don't be surprised if you get caught up in an investigation. Your payments are easily tracked.
        anonymoushn 4y ago
        I paid cash :(
- n4bz0r 4y ago
  It's quite unlikely to see such a liberal use of numbers from an English native speaker, but this is a somewhat popular way of describing similar situations in Russian (and probably some other languages). Using numbers in this fashion is a way of specifying the perfect condition while simultaneously letting the listener/reader know that the situation is either less or more than ideal. Plus, it adds a subtle comical effect. Puts some supererogatory emphasis on things, so to speak :) Combo x3!
JamesBarney 4y ago
It seems like the majority of the cost savings is due to skipping outsourcing and a company that pays local taxes and insurance. The only times I've transferred dollars -> crypto -> transfer -> crypto -> foreign currency the costs were much higher than 3%, not to mention there was far more risk because you couldn't reverse the transactions if you fat fingers an amount or a recipient.
- anonymoushn 4y ago
  > It seems like the majority of the cost savings is due to skipping outsourcing and a company that pays local taxes and insurance. None of the cost savings are related to local taxes and insurance since they still need to pay for these things. ~15% is what's charged collectively by the outsourcing company, their bank, and their local partner. I agree that they provide a valuable service, but it's not clear to me that the service is worth 15% of the otherwise-gross cost of employing someone. One thing they could do to convince me it is worth more would be to transmit the funds promptly to the recipient. > The only times I've transferred dollars -> crypto -> transfer -> crypto -> foreign currency the costs were much higher than 3%, not to mention there was far more risk because you couldn't reverse the transactions if you fat fingers an amount or a recipient. Some centralized crypto exchanges currently have pretty competitive forex rates. You'd basically have to go to IBKR to do better.
jeltz 4y ago
What you are paying for is not the ability to transfer money but for the ability to do local taxes and local insurance correctly. Just moving to crypto will not solve this.

aerovistae 4y ago

The specifier "more than 0" strikes me as odd. Both sentences would have been the same without it. > we've hired people through a global outsourcing company > we have staff who have been displaced by a war

676234e117 4y ago
Maybe it is just 1 recipient. Which I think is still a fine display of the value of a decentralized payment option.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  That they can pay people remotely ignoring employment laws in a way that can be tracked and prosecuted?
  - anonymoushn 4y ago
    I'm not sure why there's some assumption that anything illegal is going on.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      You stated that you are directly paying these employees without the facilitator who was previously paying the payroll taxes on your behalf.
      - anonymoushn 4y ago
        You should perhaps read the comment again? The comment mentions two disjoint sets of people who are presently paid in different ways. It does not mention any transition of any people between the sets.
        lern_too_spel 4y ago
        The second set of people must also be paid according to the laws of the country they are currently residing in. By paying them without informing the country, you are skirting its laws and doing so in a way that is easily tracked.
        anonymoushn 4y ago
        I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that I have discovered that it is in fact legal to pay contractors in these countries. The bad news is that I also recently paid a local moving company for a move and purchased some onigiri at a convenience store without personally verifying that these businesses and their employees pay their taxes. Feel free to report me to the kōban.
        lern_too_spel 4y ago
        If you paid with real money that went into a real bank account, the government knows if they paid their taxes. If you paid them with crypto because they shadily asked you to, don't be surprised if you get caught up in an investigation. Your payments are easily tracked.
        anonymoushn 4y ago
        I paid cash :(
n4bz0r 4y ago
It's quite unlikely to see such a liberal use of numbers from an English native speaker, but this is a somewhat popular way of describing similar situations in Russian (and probably some other languages). Using numbers in this fashion is a way of specifying the perfect condition while simultaneously letting the listener/reader know that the situation is either less or more than ideal. Plus, it adds a subtle comical effect. Puts some supererogatory emphasis on things, so to speak :) Combo x3!

JamesBarney 4y ago

It seems like the majority of the cost savings is due to skipping outsourcing and a company that pays local taxes and insurance. The only times I've transferred dollars -> crypto -> transfer -> crypto -> foreign currency the costs were much higher than 3%, not to mention there was far more risk because you couldn't reverse the transactions if you fat fingers an amount or a recipient.

anonymoushn 4y ago
> It seems like the majority of the cost savings is due to skipping outsourcing and a company that pays local taxes and insurance. None of the cost savings are related to local taxes and insurance since they still need to pay for these things. ~15% is what's charged collectively by the outsourcing company, their bank, and their local partner. I agree that they provide a valuable service, but it's not clear to me that the service is worth 15% of the otherwise-gross cost of employing someone. One thing they could do to convince me it is worth more would be to transmit the funds promptly to the recipient. > The only times I've transferred dollars -> crypto -> transfer -> crypto -> foreign currency the costs were much higher than 3%, not to mention there was far more risk because you couldn't reverse the transactions if you fat fingers an amount or a recipient. Some centralized crypto exchanges currently have pretty competitive forex rates. You'd basically have to go to IBKR to do better.

jeltz 4y ago

What you are paying for is not the ability to transfer money but for the ability to do local taxes and local insurance correctly. Just moving to crypto will not solve this.