4 ms·

This is a silly false dichotomy. We've built our own business, profitably, from the start, by paying prevailing wages to top-tier talent who are located where w

This is a silly false dichotomy. We've built our own business, profitably, from the start, by paying prevailing wages to top-tier talent who are located where we are. It benefits our community and our country, but it also means that we're getting the best possible talent, locally, without the overhead of managing and communicating with remote non-native speakers. The author simply wanted higher margins, and achieved them by externalizing costs onto their community. That's not to say that such a thing can't be successful; look at WalMart. However, it's fallacious to state that they couldn't have built their business otherwise. Lastly, it was this line that really got my goat: > At the time of launch, I wasn’t even making that much, so I could I justify paying someone more than I was making myself as a business owner? It was a hard pill to swallow. You, the business owner, have all the upside. That's how you justify it.

austenallred 14y ago
It's not really fair to say that a particular business could have done something because yours did. Comparing two arbitrary businesses is really apples and oranges.
nateabele 14y ago
> This is a silly false dichotomy. Um, who's really creating the silly false dichotomy here? I'm based on the east coast (US), I run a (very) small development shop, and I work with contractors all over the world, including some locally. I prefer to work with contractors rather than hire employees for the same reasons the author prefers to hire remotely instead of locally: employees have much higher maintenance costs. However, I hire based on experience in relevant Open Source communities, not on hourly rates. I have never, ever negotiated with anyone over their rate. I ask them how much they want to make, and that's how much I pay them as their base. I love paying my contractors higher rates and bonuses. > However, it's fallacious to state that they couldn't have built their business otherwise. This is complete guesswork at best. You have no idea what this person's situation is. Further, one could probably infer from this comment that you've never had kids or a mortgage. > You, the business owner, have all the upside. That's how you justify it. This is exactly as it should be! As a business owner, I also have all the risk. Whether or not a client decides to pay me (on time or at all), I'm bound by the terms I agreed to with my contractors to make sure their cheques show up, no matter what. This risk/reward balance exists in every employer/employee relationship. I fail to see how it's a problem.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
MetaCosm 14y ago
A huge number of businesses fail, business owners go bankrupt, no one wins. They lose all their money, everyone who they owe a debt to takes a bath, the community is impoverished. Just because company X worked one way doesn't mean company Y will.

austenallred 14y ago

It's not really fair to say that a particular business could have done something because yours did. Comparing two arbitrary businesses is really apples and oranges.

nateabele 14y ago

> This is a silly false dichotomy. Um, who's really creating the silly false dichotomy here? I'm based on the east coast (US), I run a (very) small development shop, and I work with contractors all over the world, including some locally. I prefer to work with contractors rather than hire employees for the same reasons the author prefers to hire remotely instead of locally: employees have much higher maintenance costs. However, I hire based on experience in relevant Open Source communities, not on hourly rates. I have never, ever negotiated with anyone over their rate. I ask them how much they want to make, and that's how much I pay them as their base. I love paying my contractors higher rates and bonuses. > However, it's fallacious to state that they couldn't have built their business otherwise. This is complete guesswork at best. You have no idea what this person's situation is. Further, one could probably infer from this comment that you've never had kids or a mortgage. > You, the business owner, have all the upside. That's how you justify it. This is exactly as it should be! As a business owner, I also have all the risk. Whether or not a client decides to pay me (on time or at all), I'm bound by the terms I agreed to with my contractors to make sure their cheques show up, no matter what. This risk/reward balance exists in every employer/employee relationship. I fail to see how it's a problem.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

MetaCosm 14y ago

A huge number of businesses fail, business owners go bankrupt, no one wins. They lose all their money, everyone who they owe a debt to takes a bath, the community is impoverished. Just because company X worked one way doesn't mean company Y will.