Hacker News Reader

Comment by Thaxll | Hacker News Reader

This is such a bad idea, why would someone earning 150k in sf should earn the same in Deroit? It will just increase the price of living in cheaper area which will create the same problem as in SF, you work in IT you're ok otherwise life gets too expensive.

View on HN

Typical shortsighted viewpoint... cost of living increases along with the economy. Those higher paid workers will then spend their dollars in the economy thus bolstering local businesses. So many places in the US would kill for an influx of high paid individuals to kickstart their economy.

It works until too many people are paid big salary, it increases the cost of living because of demand. You should talk to the people in the bay area.

You already refuted this in your original statement.

>why would someone earning 150k in sf should earn the same in Deroit?

Just replace Detroit with [Some other place] and replace SF with Detroit

Why should two people adding the same amount of value to a company be compensated differently?

> Why should two people adding the same amount of value to a company be compensated differently?

You're not paid based on the value you create. You're paid as little as a company can get away with paying you.

Assuming a competitive labor market where employees have multiple offers, why should a company not offer as much for someone who works remotely and adds the same amount of value?

So why should this be limited to the US?

If the same person relocates to Bermuda why is Reddit not giving them the same money they would give in the top tier US cities? Even better, Reddit will save even more money on them because they wont have to pay payroll taxes.

Or if an employee moves to Mexico City, or even Canada, why would their pay be adjusted down?

It shouldn't, but international borders are a lot harder to cross (for both people and goods) and so this prevents prices from normalizing across countries.

The same reason why states have different taxes, minimum wage etc... Then why working for Google in the UK is 2x lower than in SF?

I don't know a single compagny that pay the same wage worldwide.

I don't know a single compagny that pay the same wage worldwide.

Basecamp.

According to the current status quo it is OK to discriminate remote workers, but that is not an inherent property of the system, just an implementation detail. People are pro/con whether they think they are benefiting from the current state of things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_union

Everything you mentioned is directly related to your physical location. Your state taxes you a certain amount, and (hopefully) spends it on services. Different states have different laws/politics/philosophies, so they tax you differently.

Whether you work for Google from SF or Chicago makes no difference to the company as long as you are doing the same work. I'd argue that someone working for Google in the UK should also be paid the same.

> I'd argue that someone working for Google in the UK should also be paid the same.

Tax rates are very different in the UK and SF or Chicago. Level of social services provided to people is very different, nearly everything is different. I am not saying whether person should or should not be paid the same, but rather pointing out the fact that things are different between UK and SF/Chicago. Most of Google Engineers in the UK pay 40-45% income tax https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates

What is that reason?

e: removed the fluff, see child post

> I'm from the UK so we just have one tax

You mean, you're from England. The other parts of the UK set their own taxes.

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/scottish-i...

>The other parts of the UK set their own taxes.

That's not the case. Scotland is the only constituent country of the UK where powers to set income tax have been devolved. Income tax in Wales and Northern Ireland is still controlled by Westminster.

Because salaries are based off not just demand but also supply?

You're only thinking about it from one side. Assuming two excellent employees are on offer and both are remote so location is no issue, the employer will typically choose the cheaper option. Someone with a lower cost of living will generally not need to demand as much money.

Along with that, why shouldn't I try to get as much cash out of the employer as possible. It's not my friend, I don't owe it anything.

Exactly. You should be compensated based on how valuable you are to the company, not based on how much you spend on rent.

> It will just increase the price of living in cheaper area

Also seen by some as the value of their houses rising, which they might welcome; and this only happens if there's some demand from other workers to work remotely from their area, which brings money into the area's service sectors. This could breathe new life into many parts of the country that are currently without any particular reason to go on existing.

I could see smaller townships deliberately incentivizing remote workers and designing things around them as a primary source of monetary influx.

You can already live in a cheap place and work in an expensive one.. it's called a commute. Companies don't pay less just cause you live 1.5 hours away. Why should they pay less for you to live 6 hours away?

If tech was actually paying enough to raise the cost of living significantly over the entire country than people would flood to it lowering the pay enough that this was not an issue.

>people would flood to it lowering the pay enough that this was not an issue.

This is already in progress and we'll get there before you know it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com