4 ms·

I think this is part of the dilemma(and I am not arguing right or wrong here), but there will be a subset of employees who are okay with giving ground to the em

by mym1990 4y ago

I think this is part of the dilemma(and I am not arguing right or wrong here), but there will be a subset of employees who are okay with giving ground to the employer on this issue, in exchange for job security and some financial security. And this ultimately takes away some of the ground from the people trying to fight the inequality. I believe economics will have the last say in the long run.

malfist 4y ago
Is it an inequality though? Everyone's seen the baseball game equality comic with the different high people. Equality is when everyone can see the ballgame, not that everyone gets the same height boxes to stand on. I'd argue that this is the same here. I'm the "taller" person because my cost of living is lower, if you give me the same size box (income) as the person in the HCOL area, they might not be equal to me, because I start with an advantage.
- mym1990 4y ago
  In the literal term, I think it is inequality if one is just comparing the salary numbers. BUT, once variables start to get added(location, personal preferences, the availability of replacements) then you start getting into murkier territory. There are also significant impacts of standardizing pay across regions. There will obviously be a flow of people from HCOL > LCOL/MCOL areas, consumption will increase, local inflation will happen...these things benefit some groups and hurt others. No idea how it would all shake out in the end though.
BlargMcLarg 4y ago
Ultimately, I'd be far, far more concerned about a race to the bottom. That race to the bottom is possible regardless of location-based pay or not. Once people discover how to navigate remote work across big timezone differences en masse and mentality shifts, things will truly get interesting.
- mym1990 4y ago
  Is this from a consumer or producer standpoint(or both)? A race to the bottom ultimately hurts everyone. In a simplistic world, if wages go down, people will consume less, causing decreased revenue. Its in the best interest for companies to have a competitive wage floor that still allows for quality goods and services to be created. Remote work will certainly shift dynamics, I am quite interested in if the concept of 'hybrid' work will take off, and how that would shape cities/communities.
  - causi 4y ago
    A race to the bottom ultimately hurts everyone. It's already a race to the bottom. It's just the fact that "doing the job well" hasn't been the only factor in the race. Strip off "being able to move to and tolerate living in the right place" and the race gets a lot more fair in my opinion.
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    Consumer. And frankly, I believe most producers do not realize it will hurt everyone, or are hoping some form of automation/AI will take off so they can massively minimize the downsides.

malfist 4y ago

Is it an inequality though? Everyone's seen the baseball game equality comic with the different high people. Equality is when everyone can see the ballgame, not that everyone gets the same height boxes to stand on. I'd argue that this is the same here. I'm the "taller" person because my cost of living is lower, if you give me the same size box (income) as the person in the HCOL area, they might not be equal to me, because I start with an advantage.

mym1990 4y ago
In the literal term, I think it is inequality if one is just comparing the salary numbers. BUT, once variables start to get added(location, personal preferences, the availability of replacements) then you start getting into murkier territory. There are also significant impacts of standardizing pay across regions. There will obviously be a flow of people from HCOL > LCOL/MCOL areas, consumption will increase, local inflation will happen...these things benefit some groups and hurt others. No idea how it would all shake out in the end though.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago

Ultimately, I'd be far, far more concerned about a race to the bottom. That race to the bottom is possible regardless of location-based pay or not. Once people discover how to navigate remote work across big timezone differences en masse and mentality shifts, things will truly get interesting.

mym1990 4y ago
Is this from a consumer or producer standpoint(or both)? A race to the bottom ultimately hurts everyone. In a simplistic world, if wages go down, people will consume less, causing decreased revenue. Its in the best interest for companies to have a competitive wage floor that still allows for quality goods and services to be created. Remote work will certainly shift dynamics, I am quite interested in if the concept of 'hybrid' work will take off, and how that would shape cities/communities.
- causi 4y ago
  A race to the bottom ultimately hurts everyone. It's already a race to the bottom. It's just the fact that "doing the job well" hasn't been the only factor in the race. Strip off "being able to move to and tolerate living in the right place" and the race gets a lot more fair in my opinion.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  Consumer. And frankly, I believe most producers do not realize it will hurt everyone, or are hoping some form of automation/AI will take off so they can massively minimize the downsides.