[chrisseaton]

> 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?

[lolinder]

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.

[b4je7d7wb]

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.

[codegeek]

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.

[b4je7d7wb]

Ah, so exactly the same model like the sweatshops in Asia. Pay just good enough that they can't afford to not do the job. Very generous.

[codegeek]

Nice but wrong. Sweatshops pay like shit. I am talking about good Pay in your area (greater than average cost of living). Apples and Oranges.

[chrisseaton]

> Sweatshops pay like shit.

Like Gitlab then?

[chrisseaton]

> For now, they're competing first and foremost against local jobs.

'We keep up with mediocre local jobs' is hardly 'world leader' is it?