For GitLab it doesn’t matter where their client resides because they don’t charge based on location. A client in Lahore pays the same as a client in Silicon Valley.
It hits pretty hard when you think about it. The "product distribution" cost is the same worldwide on the internet, vs a physical good like a soft drinks can.
in the tech job market generally, the value of the work to the company puts an upper bar on a salary, but competition with other employers for the same worker puts a lower bar on salary (obviously along with other factors like the company's reputation, mission, benefits). In practice all salaries are set by the latter rule, which means they depend on the job market, which varies by location. That salaries should not depend on location is a fantasy based on some weird idea of people getting "paid what they deserve"—a fallacious association between your salary and your worth as a person, which people would do well to get over.
It’s only a global market if there’s a meaningful number of employers treating it as one. From what I’ve seen, and what the comments on this post have been able to show, such employers seem few and far between.
The price of Coke is influenced by logistics but ultimately it's determined by the market (supply and demand), exactly the same as your work, that's capitalism.
What's the market in this context is of course the interesting question.
The market for Coca-Cola is very different from that of software programming labour: Soda pop can only be consumed where it is actually located, so is affected by, as you pointed out, logistics and (local!) supply and demand.
Remote programming work, on the other hand, is the opposite: At least the demand side is, as this whole discussion exemplifies, global -- Gitlab isn't local to all the locations where their remote employees live. (If it were, they wouldn't be remote.)
But then the employees' supply of labour isn't local either: They're offering their labour to Gitlab, a non-local employer (and potentially to other non-local employers too).
It's utterly baffling how much of this discussion seems to be assuming that Gitlab (or other remote employers) play on a global market, but their employees on a local one. If that were the case, how could any of those employees ever be employed by any of these employers? The very fact that any transactions -- i.e. employment contracts -- ever arise shows that both parties are playing on the same market.
Why would you pay two people doing the same job vastly different salaries because one lives in A and the other lives in B? That's the better question to be answered. I am not bottle of coke, and neither are my colleagues, we're humans, so your analogy makes zero sense.
Well, it is great way to make talent in HoCL areas get priced out of the market, should the market reach a point where there's enough talent in LoCL willing to work for lower rates. Theoretically, anyway.
> Why shouldn't payment for work be tied to local price ranges and cost of living?
Why should it be? You pay someone enough to get them to work for you instead of someone else. That's the sole reason you pay someone anything at all. And there's no reason to pay them any more than that. How do local prices and cost of living fit into that equation?
Presumably GitLab will stop using local prices and cost of living when continuing to use them gets in the way of hiring developers they'd like to hire. As of now, it seems that it's working for them.
If we enter a world where most SWEs work remotely and few other companies are paying location-based, we might see GitLab change their tune. For now, they're competing first and foremost against local jobs.
Yes, but that is not a company that should be praised as world leader in remote work.
How do you expect to ever raise the standard of living in poor countries if you exploit their labor for pennies on the dollar. No different from apple and other who move manufacturing to cheap labor.
A real leader in remote work would try to be a part of the solution, not actively fight against it.
Just because a company may not pay salaries compared to say Bay Area, doesn't mean they are not paying great salary for your location. It is a stretch to say that they are exploiting labor for pennies if they are paying a good market rate salary for the area they are hiring in.
The cost of most commodities varies by location. This includes Coke. It is called price discrimination.
The whole reason DVDs had regions was to price the same DVD differently based on location. As long as companies can, they will price and pay different amounts for the same thing based on local factors.
But price discrimination by region doesn't fit great with boasting about "leadership". Say what you want about the MPAA (and RIAA), but who would buy them crowing about anything like "leading the free global market for media"? Leading the world in exploiting the free market, sure.
So, you were saying that's the kind of "leadership" Gitlab is boasting about, or...?
100% absolutely agreed. You're paying me for the work I can do for you. If someone else on the team with the same role and JD as me, gets paid more while you expect the _same level of work_ from us both, that's bullshit. Admit then you the company are paying less because you want the cheaper labor and don't complain when I put in less effort thsn the other person you're paying more. Paid for effort and knowledge, not the goddamn city I live in. If it's the same job, it should pay the same wage. Period.
This line has been repeated ad nauseum but I have never seen any backing data. Why would salaries decrease? Software development, done well, is a highly technical craft. Maybe for the first rung of developers it'll go way down but those Staff/Senior Staff I would expect to still command large salaries.