8 ms·

Remote work benefits workers too, though: 1. It enables them to live in lower cost of living cities. This makes them more competitive relative to outsourcing b

Remote work benefits workers too, though: 1. It enables them to live in lower cost of living cities. This makes them more competitive relative to outsourcing because a lower wage in a cheaper city goes farther. 2. It opens up the job pool. If you work remote, you can work at any company that takes remote workers regardless of where you live. 3. It reduces the cost of switching jobs. Many people are stuck in jobs they don't want because there are few other local opportunities and switching jobs means uprooting and moving. For a single 20-something in an apartment, that doesn't sound so bad. But once you have a partner with their own career, kids with meaningful friendships, a mortgage, etc. then moving can be extremely disruptive. In general, more job flexibility increases the efficiency of the job market for employees.

gruez 11mo ago
>In general, more job flexibility increases the efficiency of the job market for employees. It increases the efficiency of the market as a whole, but that's not the same as saying that first world software engineers (already highly paid and previously protected from foreign competition) would be better off.
hshdhdhj4444 11mo ago
1. The cheapest American city is maybe half thr cost of the most expensive. Meanwhile in the most expensive Indian city, one could live like a king at 1/3 the cost of the cheapest American city with far more culture and things to do. And if you were willing to move to the cheapest Indian cities you could halve that again. 2. Correct. Given that the majority of SW jobs, especially the highest paying ones, were located in the U.S. this is a net benefit to anyone living outside the U.S. even before you take cost into consideration. More American jobs opened up to a Londoner than global jobs opened up to someone living in SF. 3. Efficiency approximately = lower costs. In this case costs = developer salaries. So you’re right. We got more efficient. We reduced the average cost of developer salaries per job. Since very few people are willing to take a pay cut this means jobs are moving/will move to places where people are willing to work for less.
- citadel_melon 11mo ago
  Efficiency does not necessarily mean lower costs. More efficient workers could mean more valuable workers, and thus something employers are willing to pay more for in a competitive labor market.
- makingstuffs 11mo ago
  Just a note on point 1: As someone who is Indian and frequently visits the sub continent (writing this from a suburb in Delhi) I can categorically tell you that no one actively wants to live in the cheapest Indian cities (just left my family’s home city which falls into this bracket). I’m not sure if you’ve travelled much around the sub continent but I’d say you’re quite badly romanticising it. Yes we have our own culture which is different to that of the USA but, as with all things, there are A Lot of aspects of the culture here which are not admirable.
  - leosanchez 11mo ago
    > I can categorically tell you that no one actively wants to live in the cheapest Indian cities Sorry to burst your bubble but, I love living in my T3 city I was born in. Don't talk for 1.4 billion people. Thanks.
    - sumedh 11mo ago
      > Don't talk for 1.4 billion people. The data for Indians moving out of India does the talking.
      - leosanchez 11mo ago
        The phrase was: > I can categorically tell you that no one actively wants to live in the cheapest Indian cities It is pretty easy to disprove it, as me and my friends that are living in T3 cities are pretty content with our lives.
      - cuteboy19 11mo ago
        very few people move out permanently. if you exclude the gulf workers that is.
hirako2000 11mo ago
Claims 1 would be difficult to back with evidence. Some may accept a significantly lower pay (to go such a long way), but many wouldn't. Overall my observation is that costs of living doesn't proportionally follow compensation. The far stretched example is how offshore staff often live in countries with costs of living at about a fifth, earning a third of their counterparts in the U.S or other top paying countries Of course for skilled jobs perfectly doable remote such as software engineers. I may be biased by the fact it also makes sense, a worker understands the value provided to the business is more or less equal, and since we live in a market society, why wouldn't it be expected to earn the same. In effect we don't earn the same no matter the location, but it is somewhere between that and aligned to location comp.
nandomrumber 11mo ago
> It enables them to live in lower cost of living cities. … > switching jobs means uprooting and moving. … moving can be extremely disruptive. This one thing has two aspects that you claim is both a benefit and a drawback simultaneously. Everything is trade-offs.
throw234234234 11mo ago
I find that some tech workers don't understand economics that well. In general more efficiency for an industry means less wages per unit of output worked across a whole industry. The benefit of "efficiency" usually accrues to customers of a service, not providers. Efficiency benefits society at large, at the expense of the people being made more efficient. This is just capitalism and the result of price (and also sometimes societal respect) being a function of scarcity of a product/skill. There's a reason construction unions, doctor's associations, and the like exist - to promote members interests (i.e. predominately money). If you can cartel an industry to produce lower efficiencies; assuming that a disruptor can't break into your market and ruin your party your members will accrue higher salaries and usually given our system more respect from peers in society. Locally I'm hearing "get a trade"; and when I say I'm a SWE people sneer - the respect for the profession IMO due to "efficiency/AI" has crashed over the last decade.
- alephnerd 11mo ago
  > when I say I'm a SWE people sneer - the respect for the profession IMO due to "efficiency/AI" has crashed over the last decade. Tbf, a lot of SWEs sneered at other professions getting automated by AI - even on HN. There isn't much sympathy to be given to SWEs and techies simply because we are paid significantly higher than other white collar roles with comparable or worse working hours like accounting, marketing, other engineering disciplines, dentistry, nursing, and even various subfields of medicine like primary care physicians. A lot of techies who are complaining on HN need to realize that in reality they are the elite even though they don't think they are. Why does Jeff in Cary NC deserve a $200K TC working 40 hours and remote first and just a BS in CS when a CPA at PwC makes $120K TC with added debt from a masters in accounting, a Management Consultant at BCG makes $175K TC with added MBA debt, an Biomedical Engineer at Biogen earning around $120K TC with added debt from bio undergrad and grad school, a journalist working for a local newspaper earning $30k-50k with debt from journalism school, and a teacher earns $50K with debt from getting an education credential on top of a bachelors?
  - throw234234234 11mo ago
    That may be true in the US, but isn't that true worldwide in general. In fact in many countries techies are a bit of a underclass. But I get your point. My comment was more I think that "sneer" is more around the profession's worth. A few years ago people would go "wow, that's cool". Very different now which shows status of a job is determined by perceived job prospects, security, and impact.

gruez 11mo ago

>In general, more job flexibility increases the efficiency of the job market for employees. It increases the efficiency of the market as a whole, but that's not the same as saying that first world software engineers (already highly paid and previously protected from foreign competition) would be better off.

hshdhdhj4444 11mo ago

1. The cheapest American city is maybe half thr cost of the most expensive. Meanwhile in the most expensive Indian city, one could live like a king at 1/3 the cost of the cheapest American city with far more culture and things to do. And if you were willing to move to the cheapest Indian cities you could halve that again. 2. Correct. Given that the majority of SW jobs, especially the highest paying ones, were located in the U.S. this is a net benefit to anyone living outside the U.S. even before you take cost into consideration. More American jobs opened up to a Londoner than global jobs opened up to someone living in SF. 3. Efficiency approximately = lower costs. In this case costs = developer salaries. So you’re right. We got more efficient. We reduced the average cost of developer salaries per job. Since very few people are willing to take a pay cut this means jobs are moving/will move to places where people are willing to work for less.

citadel_melon 11mo ago
Efficiency does not necessarily mean lower costs. More efficient workers could mean more valuable workers, and thus something employers are willing to pay more for in a competitive labor market.
makingstuffs 11mo ago
Just a note on point 1: As someone who is Indian and frequently visits the sub continent (writing this from a suburb in Delhi) I can categorically tell you that no one actively wants to live in the cheapest Indian cities (just left my family’s home city which falls into this bracket). I’m not sure if you’ve travelled much around the sub continent but I’d say you’re quite badly romanticising it. Yes we have our own culture which is different to that of the USA but, as with all things, there are A Lot of aspects of the culture here which are not admirable.
- leosanchez 11mo ago
  > I can categorically tell you that no one actively wants to live in the cheapest Indian cities Sorry to burst your bubble but, I love living in my T3 city I was born in. Don't talk for 1.4 billion people. Thanks.
  - sumedh 11mo ago
    > Don't talk for 1.4 billion people. The data for Indians moving out of India does the talking.
    - leosanchez 11mo ago
      The phrase was: > I can categorically tell you that no one actively wants to live in the cheapest Indian cities It is pretty easy to disprove it, as me and my friends that are living in T3 cities are pretty content with our lives.
    - cuteboy19 11mo ago
      very few people move out permanently. if you exclude the gulf workers that is.

hirako2000 11mo ago

Claims 1 would be difficult to back with evidence. Some may accept a significantly lower pay (to go such a long way), but many wouldn't. Overall my observation is that costs of living doesn't proportionally follow compensation. The far stretched example is how offshore staff often live in countries with costs of living at about a fifth, earning a third of their counterparts in the U.S or other top paying countries Of course for skilled jobs perfectly doable remote such as software engineers. I may be biased by the fact it also makes sense, a worker understands the value provided to the business is more or less equal, and since we live in a market society, why wouldn't it be expected to earn the same. In effect we don't earn the same no matter the location, but it is somewhere between that and aligned to location comp.

nandomrumber 11mo ago

> It enables them to live in lower cost of living cities. … > switching jobs means uprooting and moving. … moving can be extremely disruptive. This one thing has two aspects that you claim is both a benefit and a drawback simultaneously. Everything is trade-offs.

throw234234234 11mo ago

I find that some tech workers don't understand economics that well. In general more efficiency for an industry means less wages per unit of output worked across a whole industry. The benefit of "efficiency" usually accrues to customers of a service, not providers. Efficiency benefits society at large, at the expense of the people being made more efficient. This is just capitalism and the result of price (and also sometimes societal respect) being a function of scarcity of a product/skill. There's a reason construction unions, doctor's associations, and the like exist - to promote members interests (i.e. predominately money). If you can cartel an industry to produce lower efficiencies; assuming that a disruptor can't break into your market and ruin your party your members will accrue higher salaries and usually given our system more respect from peers in society. Locally I'm hearing "get a trade"; and when I say I'm a SWE people sneer - the respect for the profession IMO due to "efficiency/AI" has crashed over the last decade.

alephnerd 11mo ago
> when I say I'm a SWE people sneer - the respect for the profession IMO due to "efficiency/AI" has crashed over the last decade. Tbf, a lot of SWEs sneered at other professions getting automated by AI - even on HN. There isn't much sympathy to be given to SWEs and techies simply because we are paid significantly higher than other white collar roles with comparable or worse working hours like accounting, marketing, other engineering disciplines, dentistry, nursing, and even various subfields of medicine like primary care physicians. A lot of techies who are complaining on HN need to realize that in reality they are the elite even though they don't think they are. Why does Jeff in Cary NC deserve a $200K TC working 40 hours and remote first and just a BS in CS when a CPA at PwC makes $120K TC with added debt from a masters in accounting, a Management Consultant at BCG makes $175K TC with added MBA debt, an Biomedical Engineer at Biogen earning around $120K TC with added debt from bio undergrad and grad school, a journalist working for a local newspaper earning $30k-50k with debt from journalism school, and a teacher earns $50K with debt from getting an education credential on top of a bachelors?
- throw234234234 11mo ago
  That may be true in the US, but isn't that true worldwide in general. In fact in many countries techies are a bit of a underclass. But I get your point. My comment was more I think that "sneer" is more around the profession's worth. A few years ago people would go "wow, that's cool". Very different now which shows status of a job is determined by perceived job prospects, security, and impact.