Item — HN Reader

The author doesn't actually say it out loud, but

> OP should have reached the conclusion that there are alternative worker arrangements which would benefits workers globally.

This is specifically what he DOESN'T want. What he's saying is that someone from Boise, ID shouldn't complain too loud about location-based pay, because taking the logic to its extreme would mean redistributing all this worker and consumer welfare with the rest of the billions of workers worldwide and, surprise surprise, that would actually suck to essentially every American, doesn't matter how poor.

So, basically: "Hey guys, don't rock the boat. We might be crew but you don't want the rowers competing for our place"

1 comments

Thanks for calling it out. This is what I read as well but I wanted to give the author the benefits of the doubt (don’t attribute malice... and so on). However it is hard to read anything else from this short, concise, and well worded article.

In my circles we have a saying that there is no such thing as an ethical consumption under capitalism. What the OP is basically saying is: “That is fine, unethical consumption is good actually. As long as I’m the one benefiting on other’s expense”.

Wut, how do you read that? I just read: “Can’t you all see what kind of hypocrites we are, arguing against location based pay?!”

If that were the case, the conclusion would have been the opposite, and the title would have been something like: “Location-Based Pay is more common then you think, and Bad Actually”, and statements like “maybe we should be careful what we wish for” would rather be something like:

> As workers united in the goal for international solidarity we should reject the notion of Location-Based Pay, not only because it devalues our own work, but primarily because this practice is causing mass poverty and underpay among our fellow workers in the poorer regions in the world.

Author of the original piece here. Wow, I made the front page of HN!

Hmmmm... I can see how my vague words could have been read to imply that I advocate the opposite of what you suggest, or that I'm promoting a continuation of the status quo for my own selfish benefit. But that's not what I meant! I was merely trying to draw attention to the hypocrisy of wealthy Western software engineers complaining about "location-based pay" when few of us were complaining when the shoe was on the other foot.

I didn't offer much in the way of prescriptive conclusions because I don't know what the solution is; these issues are difficult and I'm just some random Elixir developer. But your suggested conclusion...

... sounds about right, and after reading all this commentary I wish I'd made a bolder statement than the handwavey words I went with. I think I'll write a follow-up piece next week.

Thanks for all this smart feedback.

Update: I have written a follow-up post in response to the above thread

https://blackshaw.substack.com/p/pay-2