| Bringing up points like the second/third world wages in a conversation about first-world pay will benefit neither first-world workers nor any other worker (which begs the question -- qui bono?). Their arguments are not even consistent: 1. They claim that it is just about bringing an awareness to the issue. 2. It’s not about stiffing any worker (so-called first-world or otherwise). 3. You shouldn’t be a hypocrite. 4. But in order to be consistent (not to violate (3)) you need to also argue that you yourself shouldn’t be able to, say, work remotely for a Bay Area company and get the same pay as the locals. Therefore (1) can’t be true since you actually have to forfeit the negotiation on the altar of your own relative privilege (see (2)). Then they close this new article by saying that: 1. We shouldn’t argue against location-based pay. 2. Then they approvingly quote someone who claims that “we should reject the notion of Location-Based Pay”. But that contradicts (1) since this means that you should actively combat the idea of location-based pay. |