Facebook is likely to follow the same norm, they are taking it further and asking existing employees to take pay cut, if they go remote!

I am going to play Devil's Advocate here and voice some unpopular views. Disclaimer: I benefit from both currency and geography arbitrage. 1. Geography-independent salaries will decimate the Indian software industry as it stands now. In fact, there would be not be such an extensive Indian software industry if not for the salary arbitrage. And instead of the lakhs of people who have benefited from the industry, the benefits will accrue only to the confident, english-speaking few who have connections to get remote jobs. 2. The only people indignant about discrimination by geography are the ones who are already enjoying some of its benefits (like people on RI) but want more. 😉 Ask anybody outside this teensy group (0.0001%?) and they'd be happy with Indian software industry salaries because it affords them above-average lifestyles in India. e.g. Talk to mechanical engineers, Civil engineers, accountants, teachers, etc. 3. US/EU companies don't owe "equal salaries" for all. Expecting that reflects some sense of entitlement, IMO. Would you have the same expectations from an Indian company? 4. The income disparity in India is already stark between software and everyone else. This already causes friction. 5. We're just lucky to be at the right side of technology trends. Nothing more, nothing less. We don't have any extraordinary skills that entitles us to 3-4 times the salary that a top notch mechanical engineer or teacher deserves. Would you also agree to a much higher tax rate so the less fortunate can benefit from a better social net? US/EU countries gladly accept higher taxes as a part of building society. e.g. Finland has proportional fines: you get fined proportional to the money you make so that it hurts everyone equally. So if a traffic violation is 2 day fines, for a teacher that might be 200 euros, but an exec might pay 20000 euros for the same violation since 200 would not hurt them much. My point, after all this rambling is that there is a flip side to this social experiment of equal pay, universal basic income, etc. and we don't yet know where it'll lead us. 🕊️

A lot of arguments here are coming from a sense of morality/fairness. Not wrong, but the challenge is to apply them consistently. Is it unfair of us when we expect Netflix to offer cheaper prices for India? When Slack gave 60% discount to Indian users, was that bullshit too? Your principles shouldn't be driven by mere self-interest.

Equality and freedom are at odds with each other. If we demand surface equality of compensation, we will end up discriminating against the less fortunate.

DHH is wrong. What's worse is that he thinks he is being morally superior, while causing harm.

Is it unfair of us when we expect Netflix to offer cheaper prices for India? When Slack gave 60% discount to Indian users, was that bullshit too? Your principles shouldn't be driven by mere self-interest.

Netflix and Slack offering cheaper plans has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Netflix has plans for the whole country. Slack offers plans for all workplaces. They have to take economic inequalities into account. We're talking about software salaries here. Luck has it that software is still a high impact profession. Those who are in a position to get a salary from a company that employs people in San Francisco or Seattle (for example) are a very different group from those just purchasing a Netflix plan. Nothing to gain from conflating between these two groups.

In fact, there would be not be such an extensive Indian software industry if not for the salary arbitrage.

No, this isn't true. It might have been true in a pre-Internet world. But in a more connected world, companies will seek talent, skill wherever they can find. Sure, we wouldn't have seen TCS rise like it did in the 80s and 90s, but it's incorrect to attribute the entire growth of the Indian (or any other software industry) to cost arbitration.

Why "equal compensation", when forced - either by law or by moral outrage - is discriminatory and harmful to the disadvantaged groups:

We don't have any extraordinary skills that entitles us to 3-4 times the salary that a top notch mechanical engineer or teacher deserves.

It's about impact. One software engineer with a laptop and internet connection can do a lot more than a far better skilled mechanical engineer in the current world. Like I mentioned earlier, luck has it that we're still a high impact profession. This may change in future.

The resources, focus and energy should be spend on educating and training the disadvantaged groups so that they can compete with others, not limiting others. The former is how we ended up with reservation system and a low quality, technical labor outsourcing software industry.

Employers don't just think in terms of "person X meets our quality bar, and therefore deserves our standard pay - irrespective of geography". They think in terms of "return on investment" - how much it costs to hire X and how much benefit they get out of it. That's exactly what we want if we live in poor economy and are hoping to increase employment opportunities. Opposition to voluntary / free trade takes away such opportunities - especially from people who need it the most.

@dry-waitress-7852 But DHH is exactly suggesting that- limiting others, no?

DHH is saying I should not be able to offer my work to GitLab at lower pay, especially when that's my advantage over others in developed nations?

The reality is that companies can decide how/how much to pay. It is up to the employees/contractors to decide whether or not they are ok with that. What I don’t like is when someone says our pay system is “fair” while differentiating pay by geography. You can say that it’s “company policy” and that would be ok. “Fair” is paying people for the value they bring to the organisation - and that has got nothing to do with geography.

@bitter-salesclerk-57109 That "fair" pay sounds like zero return on investment. Only possible in a perfectly competitive market.

It seems like many people here think economic transactions are zero-sum games. "If you benefited, then I must have lost." This is not true at all. Every voluntary trade benefits BOTH parties. Because if it didn't benefit both, it would not have happened.

If my productivity is 80% of a US counter-part, I can still get the job by offering equal RoI, by taking 80% pay.

But if you prevent this by calling it "unfair", you are harming me.

Again, competence/capability/value delivered is a continuous spectrum, and not a boolean yes-no decision.

There will still be companies which are startups that will pay you those US based salaries if you have the right skills and network. Bigger companies will not pay you because they have lot of applications and they can afford to do so. A lawyer like Ram Jethmalani can earn any amount he likes because he is the best. Same goes with investment bankers. This is still a demand and supply market. You be in demand where supply is less.

My take away is that "fairness" is a nebulous concept. If you think GitLab is being unfair to you, just find a employer who is not. If you think all employers are being unfair, then stop being an employee and become an employer - to compete with them. If you think VCs / investors are exploiting employers, then become an investor instead. It's very easy for a notion of "fairness" to lead to you taking choices away from less advantaged people and therefore cause more harm. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Employers don't just think in terms of "person X meets our quality bar, and therefore deserves our standard pay - irrespective of geography". They think in terms of "return on investment" - how much it costs to hire X and how much benefit they get out of it.

No. Some employers may do. The point is they (or we) don't have to.

There are many ways to build sustainable businesses.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Grandstanding.

I think considering economical outcomes of this is not something we control (Companies control that, not employees) and so are the social impacts of it (on rich and poor alike). But setting a mindset is super important. “Remote work is a level playing field where you compete globally for opportunities.” Global opportunities are going to come with global competition and should come with global benefits. I would consider setting for anything else a compromise and would keep working my way up!

Also, it's time to invoke this article: https://jamesclear.com/why-facts-dont-change-minds

In any case, it's curtains on this discussion from me.

BTW, if I get hired in big metro city (with very high cost of living) and then move to a smaller area (or vice versa) how are organisations suppose to handle that? As a remote worker won't I loose my freedom to move around if my salary is bound to the place I live in?

@victorious-energy-56764 I completely understand what you're saying. My point is that economy is a complex system - and the law of unintended consequences often comes back to bite us. There are entire books about it: • http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html • https://fee.org/media/14946/economicsinonelesson.pdf We should definitely talk about worker compensation. And discuss openly what options exist. But a knee-jerk response based on some moral intuition - especially one that happens to personally benefit ourselves - is dangerous, because we're then incentivized to be blind to the adverse effects. Companies are only pieces in the economic machine. Force applied in one place, ends up having global repercussions (such as increased automation, more prejudice in hiring etc). For eg: if GitLab is able to hire devs from Africa/India of equal skill at a cheaper cost, then that imposes a penalty on every racist employer that refuses to hire Africans/Indians. Taking that ability away from GitLab, takes away that penalty - and therefore encourages racism. As long as all transactions are voluntary, well-informed and free of negative side-effects, they are good because they benefit both parties. Preventing those transactions harms the people who need them the most. Good conversation 🙂 👋

@clean-salesmen-57717 has a poll for you!