5 ms·

> also typically considerably below what's normal elsewhere in the EU (let alone beyond, e.g. here in the US) Behind US - yes. However you don't get local US s

> also typically considerably below what's normal elsewhere in the EU (let alone beyond, e.g. here in the US) Behind US - yes. However you don't get local US salary anyway, because then US Corp would hire in US. Why bother to recruit overseas? Behind UE - depends which part. Norway? Probably yes. Spain? Not so much. Anyway aparat from rare outliners, differences aren't that much, because then nobody would work locally. >if push comes to shove and you gotta pick one or the other, it's gonna be the better-paying one that gets prioritized Exactly my point for this whole discussion(except sometimes it is not about money, but just who screams more). That's the moment, where you commit a fraud. > I guess what I'm getting at is it's possible (probable, even) that you have met folks working multiple jobs without visible issues Well, what's certain - I know people, who in private conversation (outside of my work context), admitted that they used swinging fan to move mouse in order to look active on their work laptop. Sadly I never met anyone who said they have two creative jobs and haven't to lie about their task progress. Maybe they are just humble and exist somewhere. Along with copy of Half Life 3. I want to believe :-)

yellowapple 4y ago
> Behind US - yes. However you don't get local US salary anyway, because then US Corp would hire in US. Why bother to recruit overseas? If the US average is $60k/year while the Polish average is $30k/year, then a US company offering $45k/year to a Polish employee would represent a $15k/year savings for the US company and a $15k/year raise for the Polish employee. Win-win. Even if there's a middleman (like an outsourcing/consulting agency) in between, there's more than enough margin in that arbitrage for it to be mutually beneficial for everyone. > Behind UE - depends which part. Norway? Probably yes. Spain? Not so much. Same thing here. If it's 60k€/year v. 30k€/year, offering 45k€/year means savings for the employer and a raise for the employee. > Anyway aparat from rare outliners, differences aren't that much, because then nobody would work locally. Or they'd do both jobs and simply not care if the local one fires them. Further, there are supply and demand constraints that result in demand for local labor. For example, even remote-only companies tend to prefer employees who work in approximately the same time zone. > Exactly my point for this whole discussion(except sometimes it is not about money, but just who screams more). That's the moment, where you commit a fraud. The volume knob on those screams tends to correlate with the money behind them. In any case, this brings me back to one of my points: be the one paying the most, and you have far less to worry about. If employers get to maximize the output:pay ratio (withholding raises, not backfilling empty roles, not hiring more employees to handle growing workloads, etc.), then it's only fair for employees to maximize the pay:output ratio. That ain't fraud; that's simply capitalism at work. (And I guess you could argue that capitalism itself is fraud, and I'd wholeheartedly agree with you, but if employers are allowed to commit that fraud then so should employees be allowed to do so.)

yellowapple 4y ago

> Behind US - yes. However you don't get local US salary anyway, because then US Corp would hire in US. Why bother to recruit overseas? If the US average is $60k/year while the Polish average is $30k/year, then a US company offering $45k/year to a Polish employee would represent a $15k/year savings for the US company and a $15k/year raise for the Polish employee. Win-win. Even if there's a middleman (like an outsourcing/consulting agency) in between, there's more than enough margin in that arbitrage for it to be mutually beneficial for everyone. > Behind UE - depends which part. Norway? Probably yes. Spain? Not so much. Same thing here. If it's 60k€/year v. 30k€/year, offering 45k€/year means savings for the employer and a raise for the employee. > Anyway aparat from rare outliners, differences aren't that much, because then nobody would work locally. Or they'd do both jobs and simply not care if the local one fires them. Further, there are supply and demand constraints that result in demand for local labor. For example, even remote-only companies tend to prefer employees who work in approximately the same time zone. > Exactly my point for this whole discussion(except sometimes it is not about money, but just who screams more). That's the moment, where you commit a fraud. The volume knob on those screams tends to correlate with the money behind them. In any case, this brings me back to one of my points: be the one paying the most, and you have far less to worry about. If employers get to maximize the output:pay ratio (withholding raises, not backfilling empty roles, not hiring more employees to handle growing workloads, etc.), then it's only fair for employees to maximize the pay:output ratio. That ain't fraud; that's simply capitalism at work. (And I guess you could argue that capitalism itself is fraud, and I'd wholeheartedly agree with you, but if employers are allowed to commit that fraud then so should employees be allowed to do so.)