[PradeetPatel]

It depends.

The appropriate wage should be a reflection of the remote location's market rate, since that is a decisive business advantage in using human resources in nations with diverse standards of living.

Let's put it another way, one would expect an increase in salary should a Kenyan technology company seek to hire resources from San Francisco instead of hiring locally.

I believe that this model is ultimately beneficial to both parties - the employer gets to enjoy cheaper labour, with the additional bonus of corporate cultural enrichment, while the employees receive a competitive salary as well as gaining necessary skills to get a better life.

Some may claim thst this is an act of exploitation, but I see it as an effect of globalisation. Without the reduced wages, there's a good chance at those workers may never had the opportunity to upskill and learn, leading to a stagnancy in the remote nation's technical prowess.

[washadjeffmad]

The distortion (and reality of exploitation) occurs in the value created by employees. Skill is a resource, and they deserve to set the price on it, collectively if they choose.

When their compensation is only a small fraction of the value they create, is their obligation to themselves, their families, neighbors, and governments not to extract the best possible deal? Or is the unfairness of their wage only set so low to subsidize the salaries of highly compensated employees?

The challenges of globalized workforces are not only written from the wealthiest's perspectives. Otherwise, how would Google defend itself from the accusation that they only come to Kenya to take advantage of its minerals and relative poverty?