3 ms·

I agree with you it's horseshit. What you're saying sincerely makes total sense to me. Has to feel terrible. I would feel detached from my work as well, I think

I agree with you it's horseshit. What you're saying sincerely makes total sense to me. Has to feel terrible. I would feel detached from my work as well, I think. You're experiencing alienation from the fruits of your labor. Your labor being exploited to maximize profit. Unfortunately, the comments here are right. It "makes sense" in the sense these experiences are characteristic of life within capitalism as a laborer. Functionally, your location is being "colonized," so to speak, by capital. I don't know if there's a real phrase for it, but I suppose it could be described as "telecolonization." Management has found a resource (your labor) that can be cheaply extracted by alienating you, the "telecolonized," from the value your labor creates. It is bullshit. If you want solutions, your recourse is either collective action/unionization or finding a new job. You're being exploited by capital more than your coworkers. That is the context from which this sense of unfairness arises, I believe.

jsmith99 4y ago
Would it be less exploitative if firms refused to hire people in lower cost countries?
- mattdeboard 4y ago
  Yes, because the workers would not be contributing labor to the company's output. To put it another way: Yes, zero exploitation of OP's labor is less than "some" exploitation of OP's labor. It clarifies things for me to replace "cheaper labor" with "more profitable labor". Why would a company refuse to hire more profitable labor? How could the company not having any relationship with OP exploit his labor more than hiring him as more profitable labor?
  - therealdrag0 4y ago
    The employee is welcome to work for a local company at local rates. It seems they prefer the colonizer? Is that exploitation any more than the US employee not getting paid 2x or 5 or 100 their current rate?
    - mattdeboard 4y ago
      > It seems they prefer the colonizer? Sure, because the foreign company exercises their access to capital to compete at a wage level that local companies can't compete with, but is still as low as possible to extract maximum value from the investment made by purchasing the worker's labor. Why do you think there's such inequality in economic opportunity, such that exploiting labor in this fashion is possible, in the first place? > Is that exploitation any more than the US employee not getting paid 2x or 5 or 100 their current rate? I'm not making any comparative assertions here. You seem to be making the case (by implication of your question) that in your opinion it's good for OP he's getting the opportunity to be exploited. And I'm just saying, it's exploitation. It is what it is.
      - therealdrag0 4y ago
        Actually I agree
matheusmoreira 4y ago
You don't know the worst of it. In my country, it is almost always better to be "exploited" by US companies than to be "treated well" by local employers. Sad but true. The USD exchange rate is just too good for exporation of goods and services. They simply offer more, despite the wage arbitrage. More money, more benefits. The typical US software developer salary is a truly ridiculous amount of money here due to the 5x multiplier, and even a fraction of it outcompetes every local enterprise I've ever seen. I know exactly how it feels to see people in developed countries making 10 times what people here make on average.
- mattdeboard 4y ago
  Yep that uneven competition for labor prices is also exploitation.
UncleEntity 4y ago
> If you want solutions, your recourse is either collective action/unionization or finding a new job. You really think they won’t just stop hiring people from that country if they “took action”? Or if they could get another job at a higher rate they wouldn’t? My take on the subject is they are providing the OP with an opportunity which they otherwise wouldn’t have due to the current job market in their country in exchange for a rate of pay that is relative to said job market. Maybe it sucks, maybe it’s unfair (it isn’t) but it is preferable to the alternative which is to not have a good paying job.

jsmith99 4y ago

Would it be less exploitative if firms refused to hire people in lower cost countries?

mattdeboard 4y ago
Yes, because the workers would not be contributing labor to the company's output. To put it another way: Yes, zero exploitation of OP's labor is less than "some" exploitation of OP's labor. It clarifies things for me to replace "cheaper labor" with "more profitable labor". Why would a company refuse to hire more profitable labor? How could the company not having any relationship with OP exploit his labor more than hiring him as more profitable labor?
- therealdrag0 4y ago
  The employee is welcome to work for a local company at local rates. It seems they prefer the colonizer? Is that exploitation any more than the US employee not getting paid 2x or 5 or 100 their current rate?
  - mattdeboard 4y ago
    > It seems they prefer the colonizer? Sure, because the foreign company exercises their access to capital to compete at a wage level that local companies can't compete with, but is still as low as possible to extract maximum value from the investment made by purchasing the worker's labor. Why do you think there's such inequality in economic opportunity, such that exploiting labor in this fashion is possible, in the first place? > Is that exploitation any more than the US employee not getting paid 2x or 5 or 100 their current rate? I'm not making any comparative assertions here. You seem to be making the case (by implication of your question) that in your opinion it's good for OP he's getting the opportunity to be exploited. And I'm just saying, it's exploitation. It is what it is.
    - therealdrag0 4y ago
      Actually I agree

matheusmoreira 4y ago

You don't know the worst of it. In my country, it is almost always better to be "exploited" by US companies than to be "treated well" by local employers. Sad but true. The USD exchange rate is just too good for exporation of goods and services. They simply offer more, despite the wage arbitrage. More money, more benefits. The typical US software developer salary is a truly ridiculous amount of money here due to the 5x multiplier, and even a fraction of it outcompetes every local enterprise I've ever seen. I know exactly how it feels to see people in developed countries making 10 times what people here make on average.

mattdeboard 4y ago
Yep that uneven competition for labor prices is also exploitation.

UncleEntity 4y ago

> If you want solutions, your recourse is either collective action/unionization or finding a new job. You really think they won’t just stop hiring people from that country if they “took action”? Or if they could get another job at a higher rate they wouldn’t? My take on the subject is they are providing the OP with an opportunity which they otherwise wouldn’t have due to the current job market in their country in exchange for a rate of pay that is relative to said job market. Maybe it sucks, maybe it’s unfair (it isn’t) but it is preferable to the alternative which is to not have a good paying job.