[Cambridge Analytica], [Facebook], and Data Security.

14041424446

Posts

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    It's 100% them not wanting everyone to run away from the stupid fuckin tech bro theme park they've turned these cities into.

    It's an effort to enforce the classism they've built into the industry where people at certain levels of the corp echelon are only allowed specific joys. People making the attempt to break out of that treadmill is devastating to the ideologies of the people at the top of the heap so as soon as it seems like they won't be able to keep making the same bullshit overtures about why they can't allow consistent WFH which would allow the lowers to get more with their earnings they figure out how to cut pay for folks trying to make their lives better without having to play the bullshit corp ladder.

    what

    So again, companies do this already. If you work for a big tech company not in the Bay Area or whatever, you get a COL adjustment to your salary. I can't say for certain that every company does this, but it's common. The only thing that's happening here is saying that this will also apply to WFH.

    So, you don't get paid more than your neighbor in Dallas because you WFH and they go into the office. You don't get a Bay Area tech salary while they get a Texas tech salary. That's the proposition.

    Except in this industry one of the biggest costs of living are student loans. It's an industry where you have to pay to play. Those don't change if you move. Moving is one of the only ways to offset that cost.

    painfulPleasance
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    I get paid based on the value I bring to the business.
    Where I live is irrelevant.

    The only reason for cost of living calculations to be "normal" is to allow companies to pay the absolute minimum possible to attract talent in a specific area.
    They know that Jane will work for peanuts out in Montana so that's what is offered despite the fact that Jane brings the same value to the business as Joe who lives in a penthouse in new york.

    I get that COL is a factor today but the practice is actively anti-worker and makes no sense at all in a world where the work you do can be done remotely.

    Man in the MistsHacksawTHAC0Moridin889AistanGnizmoHefflingpainfulPleasance
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    If we want to argue against COL adjustments conpletely, then sure that's one thing. But this Facebook announcement is not a big deal itself.

    PA HotS Group
    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    I hope a ton of people just start sub-leasing (if they rent) or renting out (if the own) their bay area place, using that as the location for their salary rate, and then moving out to wherever they want anyway.

    This just fundamentally feels like a poorly thought out plan that creates stupid incentives. Like how granular are they going to be with COL adjustments (block by block, by zip code, etc)? Are they going to require evidence of your address, or how much your rent is, or some other nonsense?

    Companies already do COL adjustments. They aren't inventing something new.

    And you shouldn't not do something because you expect bad actors will try to find exceptions to exploit the system.

    Honestly these arguments against this are making me think it's a better idea :P

    COL adjustments make sense for work that is location specific. The janitor should get a COL adjustment because they cannot janit in San Fransisco from Montana.

    But things that can WFM should not be getting COL. Rather they exist in places that people want to live because that is the allure.

    wbBv3fj.png
    Man in the MistsSleepAridholKetarMoridin889shryke
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Like your guys framing here is wholly flawed because you're trying to say, "this is how it's always been", about a situation that's not really ever fuckin existed in a wide spread way ever before in the history of the world. This is a continental shift in the very concept of where and how work is done. The idea that anything about it should make sense in the way things have always been is fuckin farcical. The basic concept is that in large swaths of the tech sector everyone's been considering the, "where we do our work", incorrectly for over a decade because the, "where we do our work", is an esoteric place that doesn't actually exist in the physical world. The offices for tech workers have been partially vestigial for a decade or more. All the work is taking place in digital space that spans beyond the fuckin globe. That's why I can do it from pretty much anywhere, and why we can outsource most of the work to Belarus and India. The work I'm doing and the value it brings to the corp doesn't really change because of where my physical ass is sitting. They don't get to extract more value from me because I live in a poor section in order to make my ends meet. My work produces value in the millions, I know because I'm constantly reminded that if I don't hit my deadlines we lose millions, and that doesn't change because I changed where I live so they don't get to change what I'm getting from our mutually beneficial agreement of my work in exchange for their cash. I know what I'm worth, and what I bring to the corp's bottom line, and that doesn't change because of where I live. I've explicitly inserted myself into a form of work that has a value that remains consistent no matter where my physical ass is planted. Yes this is different from a bunch of industries that have come before this. This is also an industry and way of doing things that has pretty much never been available to the human race before, of course it's gonna work different and diverge from the "way things are" in unexpected ways. If I'm doing the exact same work on Monday as I was doing on Friday and the only thing that changed was that I moved over the weekend, then my pay shouldn't change, and pretty much any argument that it should is some owner class bullshit. Its not my fault that for the first time in history the work can remain consistent without me being shackled to a specific geographic region to maintain that employment, and I shouldn't be punished because we've made that advancement as a species.

    AridholMeeqeAngelHedgieZonugalHacksawMan in the MistsMoridin889ElvenshaeAistanJaysonFourMayabirdMrVyngaardHefflingNetscapepainfulPleasance
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    It's 100% them not wanting everyone to run away from the stupid fuckin tech bro theme park they've turned these cities into.

    It's an effort to enforce the classism they've built into the industry where people at certain levels of the corp echelon are only allowed specific joys. People making the attempt to break out of that treadmill is devastating to the ideologies of the people at the top of the heap so as soon as it seems like they won't be able to keep making the same bullshit overtures about why they can't allow consistent WFH which would allow the lowers to get more with their earnings they figure out how to cut pay for folks trying to make their lives better without having to play the bullshit corp ladder.

    what

    So again, companies do this already. If you work for a big tech company not in the Bay Area or whatever, you get a COL adjustment to your salary. I can't say for certain that every company does this, but it's common. The only thing that's happening here is saying that this will also apply to WFH.

    So, you don't get paid more than your neighbor in Dallas because you WFH and they go into the office. You don't get a Bay Area tech salary while they get a Texas tech salary. That's the proposition.

    Except in this industry one of the biggest costs of living are student loans. It's an industry where you have to pay to play. Those don't change if you move. Moving is one of the only ways to offset that cost.

    Student loans aren't even close to the biggest COL for tech folk in big cities. It's rent and housing by a mile.

    This whole WFH from Utah thing is absurd though. Cities aren't expensive because they are bad at providing housing. They are immensely cheap because of how comparatively good they are at providing housing. A big house in Tahoe is cheap for now, because people are living in the cities. But, if a significant fraction of people decided to leave the big cities, then the price of housing outside them would skyrocket higher than it ever had been in the big cities (because of how inefficient non city living is).

    Effectively, people live in cities because it is cheap, despite how expensive it is.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    mrondeauSpoit
  • MeeqeMeeqe Lord of the pants most fancy Someplace amazingRegistered User regular
    Student loans can absolutely be a huge factor for tech workers. Like, sometimes THE largest factor.

    Man in the MistsElvenshaeMosati
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited May 26
    I think the issue I have is entirely implementation. COL is usually just one aspect of the supply and demand that drives wages. If I live in a place that is cheap to live I'm willing to take work that pays less, and the company offers less because they know they can find people willing to take the work.

    Trying to take something holistic and break out just the costs associated with one piece, in a very specific way, is going to create all kinds of weird incentives. That isn't to say it is impossible. The government has to do this because they have strict rules about pay but have branches across the entire nation. But it takes a lot of planning, and a lot of work to make something that is reasonable, which doesn't seem to match what I am seeing from Facebook.

    What's probably going to happen is that you will get a ton of edge cases where people living a few blocks apart now have different pay rates. Or people living in the same neighborhood having different pay because one pays higher rent which includes utilities and on pays less rent but also pays utilities on top. And all of these edge cases will just serve to piss employees off.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    SleepElvenshae
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    Yeah I took that as Zuck wanting everyone back in the office as of 1/1/21

    Reducing existing pay is not a good approach. Baking it into negotiations for new hires with WFH is fine (and allows Sleep to say “lol fuck off” if so desired).

    This is ickier. This just means incoming engineers (or whatever) get paid arbitrarily less than people who happened to graduate a year earlier.

    Current arms race does this, but in the other direction. People who stay with companies are underpaid relative to new hires.


    Anyway, we might want to shift this over to the economy thread.

    Orca
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Moral of the story is: Facebook continues to be unsurprisingly terrible to all but its most privileged workers. Meet the new Facebook, same as the old Facebook.

    SleepJebus314AngelHedgieDoodmannAridholShadowfirekimeMan in the MistsRichyMoridin889ElvenshaeMartini_PhilosopherAistanJaysonFourMayabirdXaquinLord_AsmodeusMrVyngaardthatassemblyguyFencingsaxshrykepainfulPleasance
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Over 140 researchers receiving support from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative have signed a letter opposing Zuckerberg's refusal to do anything about Trump's statements on Facebook.

    Their response was...underwhelming:



    Teddy Schleifer is a reporter for Recode.

    What makes this even more disgusting is that the CZI was established via a grant of the special stock that Zuckerberg uses to maintain control of Facebook. To claim that the two only share a head is a bald faced lie.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Netscape
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus premium Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I get paid based on the value I bring to the business.
    Where I live is irrelevant.

    The only reason for cost of living calculations to be "normal" is to allow companies to pay the absolute minimum possible to attract talent in a specific area.
    They know that Jane will work for peanuts out in Montana so that's what is offered despite the fact that Jane brings the same value to the business as Joe who lives in a penthouse in new york.

    I get that COL is a factor today but the practice is actively anti-worker and makes no sense at all in a world where the work you do can be done remotely.

    Well, about that...

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    ThawmusCantidopainfulPleasance
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    edited June 12
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I get paid based on the value I bring to the business.
    Where I live is irrelevant.

    The only reason for cost of living calculations to be "normal" is to allow companies to pay the absolute minimum possible to attract talent in a specific area.
    They know that Jane will work for peanuts out in Montana so that's what is offered despite the fact that Jane brings the same value to the business as Joe who lives in a penthouse in new york.

    I get that COL is a factor today but the practice is actively anti-worker and makes no sense at all in a world where the work you do can be done remotely.

    Well, about that...

    I don't know what this means.

    edit: edited out assumed snark.

    Aridhol on
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I get paid based on the value I bring to the business.
    Where I live is irrelevant.

    The only reason for cost of living calculations to be "normal" is to allow companies to pay the absolute minimum possible to attract talent in a specific area.
    They know that Jane will work for peanuts out in Montana so that's what is offered despite the fact that Jane brings the same value to the business as Joe who lives in a penthouse in new york.

    I get that COL is a factor today but the practice is actively anti-worker and makes no sense at all in a world where the work you do can be done remotely.

    Well, about that...

    I don't know what this means.

    edit: edited out assumed snark.

    Billionaires become billionaires because they do not pay their employees for the entire value of their work, only some portion of it. The remainder goes to the top, which is what makes them rich. So the idea that you are being paid for the value that you bring the business is flawed, because you are not being compensated for the full value you bring, only some subset of that value.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    CantidoDarkPrimuskimethatassemblyguyAistanMoridin889David WalgasDisruptedCapitalistMan in the MistspainfulPleasance
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I get paid based on the value I bring to the business.
    Where I live is irrelevant.

    The only reason for cost of living calculations to be "normal" is to allow companies to pay the absolute minimum possible to attract talent in a specific area.
    They know that Jane will work for peanuts out in Montana so that's what is offered despite the fact that Jane brings the same value to the business as Joe who lives in a penthouse in new york.

    I get that COL is a factor today but the practice is actively anti-worker and makes no sense at all in a world where the work you do can be done remotely.

    Well, about that...

    I don't know what this means.

    edit: edited out assumed snark.

    Billionaires become billionaires because they do not pay their employees for the entire value of their work, only some portion of it. The remainder goes to the top, which is what makes them rich. So the idea that you are being paid for the value that you bring the business is flawed, because you are not being compensated for the full value you bring, only some subset of that value.

    that's.... still being paid based on the value you bring to a business, in more than one sense of the phrase. The greater the value you bring, the greater you get paid, relatively. In addition, if the value you bring is equal to or less than your cost, then you add no value to the company.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    edited June 13
    Paladin wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I get paid based on the value I bring to the business.
    Where I live is irrelevant.

    The only reason for cost of living calculations to be "normal" is to allow companies to pay the absolute minimum possible to attract talent in a specific area.
    They know that Jane will work for peanuts out in Montana so that's what is offered despite the fact that Jane brings the same value to the business as Joe who lives in a penthouse in new york.

    I get that COL is a factor today but the practice is actively anti-worker and makes no sense at all in a world where the work you do can be done remotely.

    Well, about that...

    I don't know what this means.

    edit: edited out assumed snark.

    Billionaires become billionaires because they do not pay their employees for the entire value of their work, only some portion of it. The remainder goes to the top, which is what makes them rich. So the idea that you are being paid for the value that you bring the business is flawed, because you are not being compensated for the full value you bring, only some subset of that value.

    that's.... still being paid based on the value you bring to a business, in more than one sense of the phrase. The greater the value you bring, the greater you get paid, relatively. In addition, if the value you bring is equal to or less than your cost, then you add no value to the company.

    I think "The greater the value you bring, the greater you get paid, relatively" needs a citation imo

    kime on
    PA HotS Group
    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
    HefflingSpoitAistanMan in the MistsInquisitor77
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I get paid based on the value I bring to the business.
    Where I live is irrelevant.

    The only reason for cost of living calculations to be "normal" is to allow companies to pay the absolute minimum possible to attract talent in a specific area.
    They know that Jane will work for peanuts out in Montana so that's what is offered despite the fact that Jane brings the same value to the business as Joe who lives in a penthouse in new york.

    I get that COL is a factor today but the practice is actively anti-worker and makes no sense at all in a world where the work you do can be done remotely.

    Well, about that...

    I don't know what this means.

    edit: edited out assumed snark.

    Billionaires become billionaires because they do not pay their employees for the entire value of their work, only some portion of it. The remainder goes to the top, which is what makes them rich. So the idea that you are being paid for the value that you bring the business is flawed, because you are not being compensated for the full value you bring, only some subset of that value.

    that's.... still being paid based on the value you bring to a business, in more than one sense of the phrase. The greater the value you bring, the greater you get paid, relatively. In addition, if the value you bring is equal to or less than your cost, then you add no value to the company.

    I think "The greater the value you bring, the greater you get paid, relatively" needs a citation imo

    It's the lie we tell ourselves.

    HacksawthatassemblyguyFencingsaxkimeAistanNyysjanZonugalDavid WalgasKetBraDisruptedCapitalistDarkPrimusMan in the MistsInquisitor77Doodmannragnarok7331Lord_Asmodeus
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I get paid based on the value I bring to the business.
    Where I live is irrelevant.

    The only reason for cost of living calculations to be "normal" is to allow companies to pay the absolute minimum possible to attract talent in a specific area.
    They know that Jane will work for peanuts out in Montana so that's what is offered despite the fact that Jane brings the same value to the business as Joe who lives in a penthouse in new york.

    I get that COL is a factor today but the practice is actively anti-worker and makes no sense at all in a world where the work you do can be done remotely.

    Well, about that...

    I don't know what this means.

    edit: edited out assumed snark.

    Billionaires become billionaires because they do not pay their employees for the entire value of their work, only some portion of it. The remainder goes to the top, which is what makes them rich. So the idea that you are being paid for the value that you bring the business is flawed, because you are not being compensated for the full value you bring, only some subset of that value.

    that's.... still being paid based on the value you bring to a business, in more than one sense of the phrase. The greater the value you bring, the greater you get paid, relatively. In addition, if the value you bring is equal to or less than your cost, then you add no value to the company.

    I think all the stuff this week with regard to Bon Appetit paying their minority employees both less than white employees and not paying them for work in front of the camera shows quite clearly that there is no link between the value you bring to a business and your compensation. It is always in the company's best interest to pay you the least that they possibly can.

    To bring this back on topic, look at what Facebook is threatening. They will lower your salary if you don't work in a high cost of living city. But the people who can remote work will bring the same value regardless of the location in which they live.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    FencingsaxKetarOrcaAistandestroyah87Man in the MistsLord_Asmodeus
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I get paid based on the value I bring to the business.
    Where I live is irrelevant.

    The only reason for cost of living calculations to be "normal" is to allow companies to pay the absolute minimum possible to attract talent in a specific area.
    They know that Jane will work for peanuts out in Montana so that's what is offered despite the fact that Jane brings the same value to the business as Joe who lives in a penthouse in new york.

    I get that COL is a factor today but the practice is actively anti-worker and makes no sense at all in a world where the work you do can be done remotely.

    Well, about that...

    I don't know what this means.

    edit: edited out assumed snark.

    Billionaires become billionaires because they do not pay their employees for the entire value of their work, only some portion of it. The remainder goes to the top, which is what makes them rich. So the idea that you are being paid for the value that you bring the business is flawed, because you are not being compensated for the full value you bring, only some subset of that value.

    that's.... still being paid based on the value you bring to a business, in more than one sense of the phrase. The greater the value you bring, the greater you get paid, relatively. In addition, if the value you bring is equal to or less than your cost, then you add no value to the company.

    I think "The greater the value you bring, the greater you get paid, relatively" needs a citation imo

    On the whole, the concept exists because in a system where job mobility is possible, competing interests will not sit on their hands if your potential value is greater and out of proportion to your current salary. A company that does not obey this rule will get into trouble down the line just because of math. There is variability for a lot of reasons, but I wouldn't say there is no relationship.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    There's a difference between "that's how it's supposed to work" and "that's how it works now"

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    SpoitNyysjanMan in the Mists
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    There's a difference between "that's how it's supposed to work" and "that's how it works now"

    It's not binary, and it's a fundamental principle you can use if you have the capability to negotiate your salary in some fashion

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    1) sounds like you may be overestimating job mobility?
    2) even for careers where that’s decent, companies will literally conspire with each other to make sure they don’t pay employees more
    3) you’re also assuming rational actors, which is.... not the case really

    PA HotS Group
    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
    Moridin889HefflingMan in the MistsDoodmann
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    1) sounds like you may be overestimating job mobility?
    2) even for careers where that’s decent, companies will literally conspire with each other to make sure they don’t pay employees more
    3) you’re also assuming rational actors, which is.... not the case really

    I'm just thinking in terms of continuous factors. My burden of proof is extremely low because I'm arguing against an absolute negative - that value is not a factor at all and shouldn't be considered. I don't think that's true.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    There's a difference between "that's how it's supposed to work" and "that's how it works now"

    It's not binary, and it's a fundamental principle you can use if you have the capability to negotiate your salary in some fashion
    That, right there, is a massive priviledge most people just don't have.
    In some, extremely rare, cases your wages may at some level be tied to the value you bring.
    But in most cases, it is not, because employers will push down the wages as far as they can, the employees have little to no way to actually determine the value they do bring, and the upper management has little to no incentive to loot the value generated as much as they can.

    FencingsaxAistankimeZonugalMan in the MistsLord_Asmodeus
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    There's a difference between "that's how it's supposed to work" and "that's how it works now"

    It's not binary, and it's a fundamental principle you can use if you have the capability to negotiate your salary in some fashion
    That, right there, is a massive privilege most people just don't have.
    In some, extremely rare, cases your wages may at some level be tied to the value you bring.
    But in most cases, it is not, because employers will push down the wages as far as they can, the employees have little to no way to actually determine the value they do bring, and the upper management has little to no incentive to loot the value generated as much as they can.

    Oh, I see. I wasn't using it as a pillar of my argument, and it's not. I was using it to demonstrate that if you do not believe in finding out your worth to your employer to determine your rightful salary, you are depriving yourself of a weapon to use when seeking a raise or knowing when to look for another job if you're stymied.

    Like, if you truly believe that value does not and never will be reflected in salary, then COL adjustments are right and good, because otherwise salary is chaos, and if you're unlucky enough to be stuck with a bad salary you just can't live in certain places, and there is nothing you can do to change that.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    My personal theory is that the amount that you're paid is relative to the damage that you could deal to the company if you went rogue.

  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    1) sounds like you may be overestimating job mobility?
    2) even for careers where that’s decent, companies will literally conspire with each other to make sure they don’t pay employees more
    3) you’re also assuming rational actors, which is.... not the case really

    I'm just thinking in terms of continuous factors. My burden of proof is extremely low because I'm arguing against an absolute negative - that value is not a factor at all and shouldn't be considered. I don't think that's true.

    I don't think anyone was arguing that it has no value?

    steam_sig.png
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Spoit wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    1) sounds like you may be overestimating job mobility?
    2) even for careers where that’s decent, companies will literally conspire with each other to make sure they don’t pay employees more
    3) you’re also assuming rational actors, which is.... not the case really

    I'm just thinking in terms of continuous factors. My burden of proof is extremely low because I'm arguing against an absolute negative - that value is not a factor at all and shouldn't be considered. I don't think that's true.

    I don't think anyone was arguing that it has no value?

    That was my takeaway from the three posts below my first, though I have no argument if that's not the case.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Local cost of living absolutely does factor into salary amounts. Normally that's just based on the location of the business but how to handle it when moving to completely remote work seems like a difficult question.

    I'm a mercenary, a high class code whore as it were, my price doesn't change depending on where you bring me. I got a fuckin price, you pay me, or you don't get the goods.

    And if you make me live somewhere with a stupid cost of living? The price just increased, you assholes.

  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    My personal theory is that the amount that you're paid is relative to the damage that you could deal to the company if you went rogue.

    Then I'm severely underpaid. I have hands-on access to 8 figures worth of physical value on a daily basis.

    First they came for the Muslims and we said...NOT TODAY MOTHERFUCKERS!
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    My personal theory is that the amount that you're paid is relative to the damage that you could deal to the company if you went rogue.

    Then I'm severely underpaid. I have hands-on access to 8 figures worth of physical value on a daily basis.

    Almost everyone outside the owner class is severely underpaid. That's kindof the problem and why all the wealth is concentrating in a select few people.

    kimeBlackDragon480Captain InertiaHefflingAistanIncenjucarFencingsaxMan in the MistsMoridin88938thDoeBullheadNetscapepainfulPleasanceDoodmannStabbity StyleMvrckLord_AsmodeusDavid Walgas
  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    edited June 13
    Sleep wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    My personal theory is that the amount that you're paid is relative to the damage that you could deal to the company if you went rogue.

    Then I'm severely underpaid. I have hands-on access to 8 figures worth of physical value on a daily basis.

    Almost everyone outside the owner class is severely underpaid. That's kindof the problem and why all the wealth is concentrating in a select few people.

    True, gravitational relationship then, inversely proportional.

    BlackDragon480 on
    First they came for the Muslims and we said...NOT TODAY MOTHERFUCKERS!
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    There's a difference between "that's how it's supposed to work" and "that's how it works now"

    It's not binary, and it's a fundamental principle you can use if you have the capability to negotiate your salary in some fashion
    That, right there, is a massive privilege most people just don't have.
    In some, extremely rare, cases your wages may at some level be tied to the value you bring.
    But in most cases, it is not, because employers will push down the wages as far as they can, the employees have little to no way to actually determine the value they do bring, and the upper management has little to no incentive to loot the value generated as much as they can.

    Oh, I see. I wasn't using it as a pillar of my argument, and it's not. I was using it to demonstrate that if you do not believe in finding out your worth to your employer to determine your rightful salary, you are depriving yourself of a weapon to use when seeking a raise or knowing when to look for another job if you're stymied.

    Like, if you truly believe that value does not and never will be reflected in salary, then COL adjustments are right and good, because otherwise salary is chaos, and if you're unlucky enough to be stuck with a bad salary you just can't live in certain places, and there is nothing you can do to change that.

    My employer values the work that my position does. They do not value my worth as an individual in this position. If someone came along tomorrow that would do the same work for a lower salary than I am paid, my employer would fire me and hire them immediately. For employers, it's a race to the bottom.

    As far as seeking a raise, the only time my company will give raises is the annual cost of living increase, or if you change roles. Every job is stymied, by design. And repeated movement between companies is expected if people ever want to get ahead.

    And I recognize that speaking about the above is from an incredible position of privilege. Most Americans are hourly working in retail or food service, and have no opportunities to even look at changing jobs as a way to increase their salary.

    If you're unlucky enough to be stuck with a bad salary, which the system is designed to ensure happens, then a change of location is often likewise impossible because it costs money to move, and you don't have any.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    Man in the MistsMoridin889
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    Honestly, you could just make a more logical COL system. Don't factor COL pay adjustment based on actual cost of living costs in a region. Factor it based on the additional cost to a business to have someone somewhere (if, for example, an employee in Montana has more frequent/higher travel expenses than a worker in a transit hub) and factor it based on the need/demand to have employees in a specific place. You don't have to just tie it directly to actual cost of living, but rather cost of doing business.

    What is this I don't even.
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Honestly, you could just make a more logical COL system. Don't factor COL pay adjustment based on actual cost of living costs in a region. Factor it based on the additional cost to a business to have someone somewhere (if, for example, an employee in Montana has more frequent/higher travel expenses than a worker in a transit hub) and factor it based on the need/demand to have employees in a specific place. You don't have to just tie it directly to actual cost of living, but rather cost of doing business.

    In this particular case, I think the costs in the tech sector to business are equivalent, as remote access costs the same anywhere.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    Remote access costs the same anywhere? What world do you live in?:

    NyysjanBlackDragon480Man in the MistsTynnanHefflingMvrck
  • MeeqeMeeqe Lord of the pants most fancy Someplace amazingRegistered User regular
    Costs of a internet connection to access a VPN don't differ that greatly.

  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Meeqe wrote: »
    Costs of a internet connection to access a VPN don't differ that greatly.

    Oh yes they do - there's some serious urban/rural divide there last I checked, as well as a US/literally the rest of the world one.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    Man in the MistspainfulPleasanceDavid Walgas
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Meeqe wrote: »
    Costs of a internet connection to access a VPN don't differ that greatly.

    Oh yes they do - there's some serious urban/rural divide there last I checked, as well as a US/literally the rest of the world one.

    I think for the purposes of the discussion we're just talking about US urban and suburban areas where software engineers tend to be. I think the differences in networking cost are insignificant compared to the COL difference between places like San Francisco and Akron

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Honestly, you could just make a more logical COL system. Don't factor COL pay adjustment based on actual cost of living costs in a region. Factor it based on the additional cost to a business to have someone somewhere (if, for example, an employee in Montana has more frequent/higher travel expenses than a worker in a transit hub) and factor it based on the need/demand to have employees in a specific place. You don't have to just tie it directly to actual cost of living, but rather cost of doing business.

    In this particular case, I think the costs in the tech sector to business are equivalent, as remote access costs the same anywhere.

    I live in a suburb of Houston, TX (4th largest city in the US) and fiber internet isn't even an option here. And if you're going to tie pay simply to cost of doing business rather than cost of living, then expect to see all of the jobs move to the lowest cost country (as we've seen with manufacturing moving to China and a lot of tech/engineering moving to India and eastern Europe).

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    destroyah87
Sign In or Register to comment.