Hacker News Reader

Comment by t571882899 | Hacker News Reader

> Offering equal pay for equal work [...] Pay people for their contribution and treat all humans with equal respect.

That demand reads like a double-standard to me: people from the western world are happy to buy clothes, hardware, or food from foreign countries with low labour cost. They do that to cut down their own expenses, because the same goods would be much more expensive when produced domestically. This is the exact same mechanism at play, just with reversed roles. In one case it’s considered okay, in the other unfair. It only depends on which side of the table you sit at.

View on HN

That's because it is a double standard. However, people in low labour cost countries have usually preferred to get something rather than nothing, and they held virtually no power. People in low labour cost countries would need to collectively unionise/strike/fight for their rights, in countries that don't always have the best human rights laws, much less political will to defend their citizens. And if they win? Well, they might get those big companies to leave, because some other country makes it cheaper, or if they have to pay the same as back home, why not move the business back home?

People who are capable of working remotely from low CoL areas/countries are, in contrast, more empowered. Generally better educated, often English-speaking, sometimes fairly well-connected. And it's just as easy to work for <CoL-Adjusting company #1> as it is to work for <CoL-uncaring company #1>.

We're seeing a lot of people who thoroughly enjoyed full-remote work during COVID make it a dealbreaker to work remotely now. Those people often don't even consider on-site positions. This whole CoL-adjusted thing will depend on whether a good % of those people will consider CoL-adjustments a dealbreaker or not. I suspect some might, but not enough that it'll change the balance sheet, and so we'll see larger companies who can "afford" the bureaucracy of CoL-adjustment do it, whereas other companies will use CoL-neutrality as (one of the) carrots to attract talent from CoL-adjusters.

What do you think when someone with 3 years experience gets paid more than someone with 12 years experience simply because they live in California, when the 12 year lives in Alabama?

Not OP, but isn’t that the reality of labour markets? The alternative is that everyone in non-SF areas of the world is competing for SF salary remote positions.

It’s even worse at established tech giants like FAANG, where everyone working at anywhere other than SF would optimally declare fully remote for the free salary increase

>everyone in non-SF areas of the world is competing for SF salary remote positions

They're mostly not. It's really not a race to the top. If you can get a job with FB and get a Bay Area salary from them, most companies will effectively tell you to go for it. (So they are competing in a sense. But many are opting out.)

People frequently demand equal pay for equal performance when it comes to receiving the cheque themselves, while taking advantage of unequal pay for equal performance when it comes to giving the cheque to others. The only two options I see are 1) you accept that markets are different across the globe, and sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, or 2) you want equal treatment regardless of location, but then you also have to live up to your own standards.

And just to make that clear: I don’t know or assume how the author goes about that, I’m just pointing that out as a general pattern.

I think about how strange it is we measure level of ability by years on the job, rather than level of achievement during those years.

I believe it’s because the latter is simply too easy to lie about and too hard to verify.

It’s not even about lying, you can think you’ve done amazing things and just not be in sync with what the interviewer’s expectations. “Led a project” can mean anything from actually being critical to the project’s success to pushing some papers around so other people could do the work.

Sure, but for sake of conversation here it's a decent metric. Another way to frame it: one was recently promoted to senior, the other is an engineering lead who has been managing teams of seniors for 7 tears.

This happened notably for example where the creator of Redux Dan Abramov, who is also one of the main maintainers of React and Create React App was employed by Facebook in London. Discussing salary it appeared that he was making less than your average React developer in San Francisco:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22331478

On the face of it, if they're doing the same work, it seems like there's another problem there - either the 12-year has been coasting for 9+ years or the company doesn't offer interesting opportunities for advancement to senior employees.

Of course, it's hard to generalise about situations where specifics are key.

You would never default to thinking that a surgeon, plumber, athlete, etc, with 12 years of experience may demonstrate these problems, so why would you with software engineering?

Maybe you are are just ignorant to the fact that so many companies default to actually paying remote employees double, and even more, if their location is in the right spot in the USA... for the SAME years of experience, job, and work. I personally know people who pay rent in a 1:1 in New York just for the salary, but actually live and work from South America.

> You would never default to thinking that a surgeon, plumber, athlete, etc, with 12 years of experience may demonstrate these problems, so why would you with software engineering?

Thanks for telling me what I would think, but honestly it would be no different for any of those professions. If you're still doing exactly the same job 9 years later, the real problem is elsewhere.

And CoL-adjusted salaries kind of make sense and have always seemed fair to me when I've been offered one. If people are scamming the system, that would be something for the company to worry about, no?

I guess a better question would be: what would be fairer?

Sorry, I should have said "I presume you would never...". Honestly didn't mean it to come off that way.

> it would be no different for any of those professions

Do you want a surgeon with 12 years of experience or 3?

The issue at hand, unequal pay, has nothing to with experience in the first place, so making up an imaginary scenario where the experienced employee is a slacker is a strawman fallacy anyway. The point is that if someone from a low pay area moves 50 miles in one direction they could suddenly be worth 2-3x as much to the company?

Additionally, most tech companies don't actually pay based on cost of living, they pay based off of cost of the local competition. There are generally* 3 pay tiers in the United States; Hawaii is a Tier 3 state (lowest pay) despite being one of the most expensive places to live. The most expensive zip code in the USA is in Florida, but again: it's a Tier 3.

Anything above the cost of living is money the employee can choose to spend on quality-of-life improvements that are generally the same price no matter where in the USA you live (think investments, tuition, cars, boats, shopping, etc). The Tier 1 employee gets more money for those fixed-price items than the Tier 3.

I'm just saying it doesn't make sense; it's an artificial constraint made even worse when companies exploit the timezones of an employee because they desire a globally diverse workforce.

* Note: I only have experience with two businesses that collect salaries from mid to large (100+ employees) business subscribers in exchange for information about what others in their sector pay their own employees on average. It's a legal form of wage fixing.

I would want the surgeon of 12 years, on the proviso that I imagine (having no idea) that a surgeon by then would be some sort of senior surgeon. If they are still a surgeon-under-supervision (or whatever the surgeon's equivalent is) I would take my chances with the 3 year rookie. There's obviously something going on that the veteran still has 3 year status despite being 12 years on the tools.

I'm sorry you think this is a strawman, but I'm just addressing the scenario you originally posed.

I still can't see what you think would be fairer - the labour market is always going to be subject to demand and supply dynamics. I believe a fair minimum wage should be established (and seriously enforced) for every job, but if employers want to pay above that to attract what they perceive is a better quality of applicant I don't have a problem.

Where it gets admittedly weird is comparing two otherwise equal employees, fully remote - why the company cares where they live is a mystery for them to answer, but considering that wages aren't really a zero sum game, isn't this a case of some employees earning more as much as it is of some earning less (being that all these jobs are above minimum wage, so the question of what a SWE, for example is "worth" is even more at the mercy of the market)?

Some people are unhappy buying clothing, hardware, or food made by exploited labor that could never afford the things that they are making.

Absolutely agree! What I've seen as a good compromise for startups is to pay generously (~30-40%) above the best local rates but of course below US/SV rates. You can be confident that you're earning more than you could in basically any local job around you, and the company is still better off than hiring only SV (or US) folks.

What I see in my experience is that most fully remote companies only want to pay you the local rate - which doesn't make a lot of sense. Some are willing to pay more, and only a few advertise paying equally regardless of location.

It's understandable because it just doesn't make much economical sense.

Obviously, I'd switch jobs any day for another 30-40% pay increase, and I'm curious how the last approach is going to get adopted by fully remote companies.

As (fully) remote jobs become more prevalent, that also pushes up local rates, though, and local jobs usually offer some better benefits because you're not a contractor. It's an interesting market!

I'm really torn on this issue. On the hand, it seems to make sense to pay people based on the value they deliver for the company, not where they live while delivering it. On the other hand, the reality is that some regions have higher costs of living than others. Somehow, the salary needs to take that into account.

Imagine if all tech companies went fully remote and kept paying about the same salary level as they do now. Employees moving to lower income regions would no doubt upheaval the local economy (e.g., housing).

But then again, this would probably regulate itself in the longer run.

Finally, why would only remote companies be upheld to this standard?

> On the other hand, the reality is that some regions have higher costs of living than others. Somehow, the salary needs to take that into account.

Why? If I want an expensive car or a large house, should my salary also include that? It's also a lifestyle choice.

IMO, paying people differently (especially in the same country) just creates an incentive for people to spend more money.

As someone that lives in a HCOL area (and generally likes it) I think I agree.

If I reduced my “quality of life” by eating out less and saving money, my company’s not going to pay me any less. Why should they start paying me less if I reduce my QoL by moving to somewhere I’d enjoy living in less that’s cheaper.

Sure. But if you're working for a non-remote company, you need to live in the area where the company offices are. In that case, your expenses naturally go up.

There is potentially also some premium companies should be willing to pay to employ people who live in locations that have reliable infrastructure, strong legal institutions, and stable government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com