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.
I've used VueFormulate in the past, and it was extremely powerful albeit somewhat bloated. FormKit seems like a step in the right direction. Good Luck!
https://flightcontrol.dev gives you some sort of `your own Heroku on your own AWS acct` very interesting concept, also can be a replacement for Heroku.
https://fly.io has been amazing for me. Dunno how their docs used to look but IMHO today it is very detailed they are especially forward-thinking regarding documenting some nice edge use-cases for the platform.
Glad to hear that. Giving them another look is on my list, I could tell they cared about their docs but it was clear they were still filling in the gaps in some areas.
> Vue offers an interface that is extremely heavily transpiled and modified before it actually resembles code that can run on the browser, and uses an entirely magic (read: opaque) rendering system
Not entirely true. If you're looking to code that "resembles code that can run in the browser" without that much "magic", Vue has an interface for directly declaring render functions, also for the possibility of using JSX.
> Why did they store PII, Identity documents unencrypted?
Because it’s easier to store and retrieve them unencrypted than encrypted
> Why did it take VPNOverview's team a day to notify them?
Sure, shoot the messenger. It does not say 24 hours. Maybe they discovered the breach at 10:00 PM local time and sent a notification at 6:00 AM the next morning.
I think Musk might just make it public again, or turn it into a nonprofit.
True, I'm going a little out on a limb here but IMHO makes total sense.
Since Twitter is - in Musk's words - the “de facto public town square” - it doesn't make sense for it to be a private company at all (which is much less open to outside scrutiny and/or criticisms).
Which is kind of an oxymoron given the fact that the changes he supposedly wants to implement will only be possible if he takes it private.
All of this leads me to believe he might just implement the changes he wants and promptly go public again, keeping control of the board or as CEO (prob also at a much higher eval). This, or maybe he'll turn it into a nonprofit.
I honestly don't see how being publicly owned—i.e. beholden to the profit motive—is anything other than objectively worse for a "de facto public town square".
Twitter is addicted to engagement. Solving for this in the long term cannot be squared with modern capitalism.
The reason this bothers me in principle, is that whatever the side of politics you are, the "public" will have effectively zero control on affecting any board decisions at Twitter, moderation-wise or otherwise.
Its true that the public had little say in that regard till now but at least this buyout threat shows that it is "possible" to stand up to whatever decisions their board makes.
As an aside, I doubt people and governments would have the same confidence in Twitter were it a private company, which leaves me to believe that this whole buyoff thingy is just a power play by Musk to gain some power over the board without actually joining the board.
It's such a dichotomy. Twitter's main assets are its users. Twitter is valuable only because of its user base. And the users do have a say. If majority of the users decide against this takeover, they can boycott the platform. But a collective action at this scale is pretty difficult to orchestrate. It's quaint, users have the power to shut down Twitter, but still they can't do it.
Recent studies show that a very small percentage is responsible for some 97% of all tweets. And worse, 80% of those 97% of tweets are retweets.
There's almost no original content of any value on Twitter. You could now delete half of all Twitter users and absolutely nothing will happen.
Twitter is a bunch of celebrities/politicians saying things that fuel division and outrage, which generates the bulk of activity. They won't ban anything as because without Twitter richly rewarding them for idiotic takes, they are nothing.
> But a collective action at this scale is pretty difficult to orchestrate.
maybe, maybe not. Mastodon & the Fediverse has been around long enough to establish itself as a Twitter-like "alternative". it's crossed the scope at which it's hard to get concrete numbers about how many people actively use it, but lower bound's around 500k MAUs across 10k instances. we get waves of new users _every_ time something controversial happens around Twitter. the largest instance (which accounts for about 15% of all users) gained 12k new users in the past week [1], so figure 50-80k across the board; some of which leave after a week, some of which properly embed themselves.
no, these aren't big-tech-co numbers, but it's a large enough base to be accommodating to certain types of today's Twitter users. not _every_ Twitter user cares about having 300M peers v.s. 500k peers, and bridging between Twitter and ActivityPub works ok enough to ease that a bit, especially if you were primarily using Twitter as a glorified RSS feed.
This dichotomy is as old as the dictatorship. A king/emperor/tzar/<dictator variation #923>'s assets are the people he commands. All his value comes from taxation of the people or extraction of natural resources by the people. The people can decide to overthrow the king, but it is hard to orchestrate.
I don’t see any connection between ownership and moderation. Perhaps Elon does. But he can be called on by the Senate just as any board appointed CEO. Curious if someone can explain the connection.
Why shouldn't payment for work be tied to local price ranges and cost of living?