"Employers might start trying to scale your salary to match your local cost of living"
I really hate this, on a superficial levels seems like something fair and whatnot, but employers are not paying living expenses to their employees -usually-, they are paying for a service, if that service is valued 4k/month it can't be now reduced to 1k because you're moving to India.
The same way if I want to buy for example, a hosting service, clothes, a switch, is going to cost me the same no matter where I'm living.
What would be the next, if the person owns the house where they're living, cutting off the salary a bit more because they don't have to pay renting/mortgage?
The is fair to everyone because blabla seems like sugarcoating the fact that the company is going to save money at the cost of the workers.
Someone mentioned -I'm not sure if it was you- that a base salary with extra compensation for expenses, i.e. rent, would work and I'd see that as fairer solution to the workers.
Been using UNIX since the late 80s; Linux since the mid-90s; virtualization since the early 2000s and spent the past few years working in the cloud space.
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Education
B.S. Psychology from Pennsylvania State University
It's generally seemed to me that entities that try to make the argument that something is "fairn" are typically trying to give themselves cover for shitty actions by using an emotionally-loaded term.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
"Employers might start trying to scale your salary to match your local cost of living"
I really hate this, on a superficial levels seems like something fair and whatnot, but employers are not paying living expenses to their employees -usually-, they are paying for a service, if that service is valued 4k/month it can't be now reduced to 1k because you're moving to India.
The same way if I want to buy for example, a hosting service, clothes, a switch, is going to cost me the same no matter where I'm living.
What would be the next, if the person owns the house where they're living, cutting off the salary a bit more because they don't have to pay renting/mortgage?
The is fair to everyone because blabla seems like sugarcoating the fact that the company is going to save money at the cost of the workers.
Someone mentioned -I'm not sure if it was you- that a base salary with extra compensation for expenses, i.e. rent, would work and I'd see that as fairer solution to the workers.
It's generally seemed to me that entities that try to make the argument that something is "fairn" are typically trying to give themselves cover for shitty actions by using an emotionally-loaded term.