Reply
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Reply

I will pay you $2/hour.

Community Guru
Rene K Member Since: Jul 10, 2014
11 of 29

If a company based in the US or in the EU hires someone at $3/hour in places where this wage is decent, it's not immoral at first glance. Let's put aside that I don't believe that you can buy a computer and an Internet access if you're paid $3 the hour even in Southern Cheapia and let's keep with the reasoning.

 

If the said company lays off their local staff, or never hire locally because they can hire for $3 an hour in Southern Cheapia, one can say it's a rational business decision. 

 

Sometimes, the company simply cannot afford to operate otherwise because they're not making enough money. This is usually the case with small businesses with limited budgets. But often, it's the big corporations who do that. To them, ach dollar saved this way is a dollar that goes into the pockets of the shareholders instead of the pockets of local workers. Which is seen as a good thing.

 

Is it acceptable? Yes, of course. It's capitalism, the lesser of all the evils we have tried so far.

 

Is it healthy? Yes, on the short-term. On the long-term, maybe not that much. If the people in a country find themselves working two jobs only so they can get by, if the middle class in the country shrinks too much, well a social disaster may happen. People can get angry. Politicians can get elected. Wars can erupt. It happens. It has in the past.

 

 

-----------
"Where darkness shines like dazzling light"   —William Ashbless
Community Guru
Phyllis G Member Since: Sep 8, 2016
12 of 29

Rene K wrote:

If a company based in the US or in the EU hires someone at $3/hour in places where this wage is decent, it's not immoral at first glance. Let's put aside that I don't believe that you can buy a computer and an Internet access if you're paid $3 the hour even in Southern Cheapia and let's keep with the reasoning.

 

If the said company lays off their local staff, or never hire locally because they can hire for $3 an hour in Southern Cheapia, one can say it's a rational business decision. 

 

Sometimes, the company simply cannot afford to operate otherwise because they're not making enough money. This is usually the case with small businesses with limited budgets. But often, it's the big corporations who do that. To them, ach dollar saved this way is a dollar that goes into the pockets of the shareholders instead of the pockets of local workers. Which is seen as a good thing.

 

Is it acceptable? Yes, of course. It's capitalism, the lesser of all the evils we have tried so far.

 

Is it healthy? Yes, on the short-term. On the long-term, maybe not that much. If the people in a country find themselves working two jobs only so they can get by, if the middle class in the country shrinks too much, well a social disaster may happen. People can get angry. Politicians can get elected. Wars can erupt. It happens. It has in the past.

 

 


Yes. But the way to address it is not by trying to implement a global minimum wage on UW. It needs to be addressed through policy in the corp's home country--in this example, the US--which eliminates incentives (perhaps to the extent of imposing penalties -- tomato, to-mah-to) to move production offshore.

Community Guru
Scott B Member Since: Nov 20, 2015
13 of 29

You also have to look at things in terms of purchasing power. In my earlier example you can have someone living in San Francisco making loads more money than someone doing the same job in a small town in Mississippi. However, what that doesn't speak to is purchasing power. The reality is that they each might have the same purchasing power or the small town USA person might have more purchasing power than Silicon Valley Suzy.  Just talking about a dollar amount is fairly meaningless until it's put against the cost of living of the person making it. No matter how someone may try to homogenize the world, the reality is that certain places will always be more desirable to live. For example, places with good weather or where a popular and successful company happens to make its roots, etc. Supply and demand will then dictate a higher cost of living because there is only so much real estate.  This is in turn will require higher salary in order to afford the same things some one else in a less desirable area has to make in order to buy it.

 

Besides the above, I will say again that there is no gun. These are public postings that are available to everyone in the world to see, ignore or jump at. If you don't like it, wait for the next one which has a higher value attached. I am pretty sure there is no UW algo that decides to filter out higher paying jobs to countries that have a smaller hourly wages on average. Those folks can see and bid on any sized job just like anyone else. Sites like this one promote opportunity globally better then any brick and mortar has been able to do. 

Community Guru
Luce N Member Since: Oct 9, 2016
14 of 29

Rene K wrote:

If a company based in the US or in the EU hires someone at $3/hour in places where this wage is decent, it's not immoral at first glance. Let's put aside that I don't believe that you can buy a computer and an Internet access if you're paid $3 the hour even in Southern Cheapia and let's keep with the reasoning.

 

If the said company lays off their local staff, or never hire locally because they can hire for $3 an hour in Southern Cheapia, one can say it's a rational business decision. 

 

Sometimes, the company simply cannot afford to operate otherwise because they're not making enough money. This is usually the case with small businesses with limited budgets. But often, it's the big corporations who do that. To them, ach dollar saved this way is a dollar that goes into the pockets of the shareholders instead of the pockets of local workers. Which is seen as a good thing.

 

Is it acceptable? Yes, of course. It's capitalism, the lesser of all the evils we have tried so far.

 

Is it healthy? Yes, on the short-term. On the long-term, maybe not that much. If the people in a country find themselves working two jobs only so they can get by, if the middle class in the country shrinks too much, well a social disaster may happen. People can get angry. Politicians can get elected. Wars can erupt. It happens. It has in the past.



I'll add that another bad side of making sure freelancers in "poor" countries don't get a decent pay is that this encourages people from those countries to want to live in "wealthy" ones.

 

In my opinion, the best way to stop economic migration is to help people make a decent living in their own country. 

Community Guru
Preston H Member Since: Nov 24, 2014
15 of 29

re: "In my opinion, the best way to stop economic migration is to help people make a decent living in their own country."

 

Okay. But that isn't Upwork's job.

Community Guru
Luce N Member Since: Oct 9, 2016
16 of 29

Preston H wrote:

re: "In my opinion, the best way to stop economic migration is to help people make a decent living in their own country."

 

Okay. But that isn't Upwork's job.


Who said it was Upwork's job? 

Community Guru
Luce N Member Since: Oct 9, 2016
17 of 29

Preston H wrote:

re: "In my opinion, the best way to stop economic migration is to help people make a decent living in their own country."

 

Okay. But that isn't Upwork's job.


Why are you so obsessed with Upwork, Preston? 

Community Guru
Preston H Member Since: Nov 24, 2014
18 of 29

re: "Why are you so obsessed with Upwork, Preston?"

 

Neurochemical addiction.

 

It's not a secret.

Community Guru
Scott B Member Since: Nov 20, 2015
19 of 29

Luce N wrote:

 

I'll add that another bad side of making sure freelancers in "poor" countries don't get a decent pay is that this encourages people from those countries to want to live in "wealthy" ones.

 

In what way are freelancers in poor or otherwise countries being made sure not to get "decent" pay? Exactly who is making sure they cannot and how do you define "decent"?

Community Guru
Luce N Member Since: Oct 9, 2016
20 of 29

Scott B wrote:

Luce N wrote:

 

I'll add that another bad side of making sure freelancers in "poor" countries don't get a decent pay is that this encourages people from those countries to want to live in "wealthy" ones.

 

In what way are freelancers in poor or otherwise countries being made sure not to get "decent" pay? Exactly who is making sure they cannot and how do you define "decent"?


To me, a pay is "decent" if it allows you to feel that your hard work has been appreciated and that it was worth the effort you made. If some CLIENT, who could give that feeling of fair, decent reward prefers to ASSUME that a freelancer in one country is worth five/ten/twenty times less than a freelancer in his own country, chances are the freelancer won't get that feeling thet he's being treated fairly, but rather that he's being taken advantage of.  

 

And I repeat, this is how people get the idea that their only chance of getting ahead in life is to move out of their own country, which is seen as a problem by many.

TOP KUDOED MEMBERS