Hacker News Reader

Comment by danwee | Hacker News Reader

> And finally, I feel no one else is realizing that they are happily hacking away at the amazingly well-paid branch they're sitting on. As soon as a company's IT department is practically fully remote, why should they page a German wage for someone who is a face on a screen, when they can pay a fraction for that same face broadcasted from a few hundred kilometers further east or south? German is hardly used in business context here anyway and lower-wage countries within ±3 hours timezones abound.

So, it's because of people like you that we cannot have nice things. You see, a decent company will pay the same salary regardless of location. The only thing that matters: skills.

View on HN

If you really want companies to just pay for "skills", then unfortunately that's going to mean a considerable drop in the average salary of a developer in the US and Europe. Globally the average salary of a skilled developer is not what folks are making in the valley.

It's like America's racial desegregation in the 1960s. Life of white workers did not become worse since colored workers joined the professional workforce.

I am in the US. Let it drop then, I will adapt by becoming a digital nomad. Maybe I will move to Mexico or Argentina for the better life there. You can buy much more life quality with half the funds.

I already know some Spanish, it's easy to pick up once I live there. If time zone doesn't matter I can also move to Southwestern China or Thailand.

Rise of wages in developing regions will also create much growth that I can invest into.

We cannot have real social democracy if there is still cheap labor on the planet to outsource to. Closing the pay gap will definitely brew global labor movement that will eventually make life better for everyone.

> I am in the US. Let it drop then, I will adapt by becoming a digital nomad. Maybe I will move to Mexico or Argentina for the better life there.

This is the high technology equivalent of what middle class America has been going through for the last couple decades. Imagine telling a machine operator in Ohio, "sure, we're going to lose all the manufacturing jobs to China. You just need to move there and you'll live like a king!" I suppose it sounds great if you're 26 years old and follow #vanlife on Instagram, but for most of us it's a little more complicated than that.

I know a retired American factory worker who did exactly what you said for his manufacturing career -- relocating to Philippines for introducing American machinery and management practices.

He was a line manager in his late 20s(like a mcdonalds store manager, the bottom level salaried position managing dozens of shift employees) before he went to Philippines. Moved with his wife and kids, and later his parents. His father fought WW2 in Philippines so there is some emotional link.

He ended up making millions(USD) from bonus, investments and sidejobs during 1980-1990s. He said it's impossible to make this much without first hand information of what actually happens in overseas manufacturing.

#vanlife? no, he lived in decent homes and apartments since day 1.

and this is just Philippines, to which China industrialized later but reached much higher levels. I am sure your factory worker relocating to China will have more and better opportunities than him.

I hope you know that the salary of a skilled developer in the valley could afford hundred acre palace estates in parts of the US....

Those salaries can afford to come down.

> So [...] we cannot have nice things

Repeat after me. Corporations do not exist to give you nice things. They exist to enhance shareholder value.

Anything that helps with that is "fair game" from the PoV of a corporation, be it offshoring maintainance work or support, laying off folks, establishing HQs in tax havens.

An entire class of corporations has a name -- "lifestyle business" -- where the value to the shareholders (owners, or owner-employees) is the lifestyle it enables rather than some potential IPO pop.

Such things exist, and do employ people who then enjoy those benefits as well.

I did not see coming how I could offend someone this hard with that sentence. I hope it was clear that I was not speaking from my personal opinion but from the perspective (tech-) companies inevitably take.

But then again, what do you think the consensus among developers in high-wage countries is? Do you think most people gladly see their salary drop by double percentage points because "someone else is just as good who gets paid that amount"? If you extrapolate from your thinking, what do you think would happen eventually?

The same thing that happens when Aldi in Germany tried to sell apples for 2 euro each and Lidl sells for 1 euro each.

If the Aldi apple is so good, then people will buy for 2 euros. If the Aldi apple is not so much better, then Aldi will have to lower the price or find something else to sell.

But no one commiserates with Aldi when they have to do that.

What if you businesses can now find those same skills in a cheaper location?

I'm sure they exist, but it would be a rare business that chooses to pay San Francisco, London or even Berlin wages to someone with the same skills in a much cheaper location.

I said "decent" companies. We all know most of the companies out there are not "decent".

The vast, vast majority of companies in the world would not pay massively over market rates to their staff.

To minimise costs and maximise profits (without exploiting anyone of course) is the raison d'etre for a business, and is in no way unethrical.

I don't disagree with you but I think we may have differing definitions of "exploitation."

To generate more value for a company than you receive in wage is to be exploited, in my book, and is subsequently unethical.

The way out of this situation is unclear but to pretend that this is not the case helps neither man nor beast.

In order for employment to be stable over the long-run, the productive employee has to create more value for the employer than they receive. (Employers have all kinds of overheads, unproductive employees, and friction/loss that has to be covered in order for the employer to not run out of money.)

I hope (and work to ensure) that my employer gets an over-unity multiple of value from me and my team’s work. That keeps everyone happy over the long run.

Oh yeah for sure I am not disputing that this is the way that the system works - the whole thing rests on the compromise point between the employer's margin and the employee's wage. Both need each other to some degree and so a compromise is reached which is the market value of labour.

That said, other models of system are available - worker coops and other models of employee-owned business can and do exist. They have their own merits and flaws though - nothing in this world is perfect.

Make it a worker-owned coop; the productive worker still has to create more value than they get paid unless someone else is continually putting money into the coop.

I agree with you in some ways and disagree in others. In yet more ways, I am undecided. However, I am convinced that this is probably not the best setting for a discussion like this that will achieve anything more than raising people's blood pressure - I hope you'll agree with me on that.

I am using the investors’ assets to amplify the value of my work, and they are bearing all the risk for me. It would be unethical not to compensate them.

> most of the companies out there are not "decent"

So you've defeated your own point. If most companies are willing to outsource then the majority of jobs will be outsourced. Maybe you'll be fine if you happen to work for a decent company but this still means the majority of people will be screwed.

Yes, they’ll pay the same. There’s no reason to think for most companies that that “same” will be the current Silicon Valley or even Western Europe rate.

> a decent company will […]

Having worked for a bunch of decent companies in the past, the only consistent pattern I’ve seen is “A decent company will be put out of business by a similar but more-willing-to-cut-corners company”. Thanks, capitalism ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As a veteran of ten startups and three larger companies, I don't think this is necessarily true. Companies that fail to provide a good work environment often pay a penalty in lost knowledge, hiring/training costs, internal dissension, etc. Continuity and familiarity can bring tangible benefits in addition to just feeling good. It might well be true that the benefits of being decent are outweighed by other factors, but it doesn't mean they're absent or negative.

Also, the portrayal of hiring workers from cheaper locales as an unqualified negative is quite flawed. Bad for the incumbents, perhaps, but good for the new entrants. Many might say that increasing the role of merit vs. accidents of birth in hiring is a good thing. Who's to say that the "decent" company is the one perpetuating global inequity?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com