Hacker News Reader

Comment by rschachte | Hacker News Reader

Well that would be fine and all but there are a zillion tech companies that allow remote work that pay reasonably well. It doesn’t mean they’re a world leader in remote work.

I worked at a small company that paid me a lot, gave me free stuff, perks etc. It doesn’t mean they’re a world leader in remote work. It just means they offer those things.

The point is — they are not a world leader in remote work. They are a tech company with perks and this is good marketing for them to convince people like you otherwise.

View on HN

> They're only asking for an explanation of your metric: that location based pay grades preclude leadership in remote working. I have yet to see any reasonable case for why this should be?

Not sure how I reply to the comment below by lucideer, I guess HN has a limit on children?

Anywho, this is for him, not you :)

Isn't the burden of proof on the one making the claim?

I have yet to see a reasonable case for why they should be called a global leader when they treat their workers differently for the same output.

Inequality is never going to be associated with a leader in my mind. Maybe from a c-level suit perspective they seem like leaders because they are getting away with making more money at the expense of the people building the product.

> Isn't the burden of proof on the one making the claim?

Yes. It is.

> I have yet to see a reasonable case for why they should be called a global leader when they treat their workers differently for the same output.

My point was no-one has made that claim (nor any similar positive claim - your rephrasing uses weasel words* to bias the interpretation)

The claim being made is as follows: "paying workers geo-adjusted wages precludes a company from being a global leader in remote work".

Noone has claimed that geo-adjusted wages do make them a leader, nor that GL even is a leader. Only one commenter has made a claim: that is that geo-adjusted wages preclude leadership.

* Aside to explain my comment on weasel words: paying the same wage could be as easily interpreted "treating workers differently" given spending power is actually a product of wage / cost-of-living ratio; the value of money is geographically variable

> The claim being made is as follows: "paying workers geo-adjusted wages precludes a company from being a global leader in remote work".

That's just a counter-claim; a denial of the original claim, which was Gitlab's "We are a global leader".

With quite a lot of people saying"No, your behaviour is by definition not that of a leader", I'd say the burden of proof still lies squarely on Gitlab's shoulders: They made a rather bold claim, they get to show that it isn't BS.

> to convince people like you otherwise

Nobody here is "convinced by their marketing" or has even mentioned they believe GLs claim. They're only asking for an explanation of your metric: that location based pay grades preclude leadership in remote working. I have yet to see any reasonable case for why this should be?

Can you name a couple?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com