Rate/Hour = $1.00????????? It's unfair!

I hope this (Rate Distributions By Job Categories) gives us a better data..

Again thanks to oDesk for the data...

Regards,

Pothi.

I agree that a minimum wage would probable not work. BUT, 9 out of 10 jobs I come a crossed  are ALL under $3.00 / hour.  

You see I really like odesk over other freelance sites.  And the hourly amount is pretty much the same at all freelance sites.  All very low.  But the bad thing is now that if almost all jobs listed only want low bidders than there is not much choice left for a regular wage.  I don't agree on extremely high bidding unless the job requires the amount (SEO,Webdesign)  Something like Data entry is obviously cheaper than those.  But it also is worth more than just $0.50/hour or even anything under $5.   I would not even turn my computer on for those prices.  

So like some others I just laugh and move on. Nevertheless it would be nice if there would be some jobs available that pay a reasonable amount and they are hard to come by.  

He, in this economy we all need money.   Buyer, Provider:  All of us but on both parts in needs to be fair and reasonable.

I agree there shouldn't be a minimum hourly rate imposed.  Still, I like being able to post (not in a suggestion area, rather in an off-topic forum) how incredulous I am over some really puny rate.  It sort of allows you to vent without being penalized, you know? 

And I look a bit insane when I start yelling at my monitor "YOU HAVE GOT TO BE JOKING!!??"

Susanne Bullo
sbullo@odesk.com

I agree with this one.

Fact is a lot of beginners would like to get their feet wet with easy jobs, and paying $1 an hour or $0.10 per line for Data Entry is pretty fair.  It's easy stuff.  I refuse to do a lot of work for a low wage; it's not fair to me, but I know there are plenty people who would love the opportunity just to get work.  So, they can have those jobs.  Now, I realize to get to higher paying jobs and better fixed rates, I will have to take the worse jobs, so I will probably do that. 

Also a buyer will be required to uncheck "Confirm the opening is  > US$5/h rate" checkbox.

Though, the side effect would be that some buyers initially willing to pay US$20/h would start thinking that US$5/h is good.

I have gone down to $5 an hour and still never even gotten a rejection.

I agree with the minimum wage on odesk. If not $5, little less than that, to be justified by the category, but not too low as $1 or less than that. We are not going to become dinosaurs and extinct away without work because of minimum wage policy. There is minimum wage every where except on freelance sites. It is a right of any employee.

So if beginners will be happy if they even get work for $1, then for how long can they be called as beginners. I mean, if the job is extended for 2 months, 3 months..6 months.. and the same applied rate will be paid, then can they be happy?????

 And this topic comes often because maximum providers like it happen.

Hi Nouman, you are right!

And you know, many  providers have posted the same topic and will post in future also. But as I know, this will not be considered by oDesk. The only answer will be-- "You may not  apply for those jobs if you don't like to work at low wages".

I am a newbie and it is hard to get a job here at odesk if you got no experience. I got one now, but the effort I am putting into it is not commensurate to the pay I am receiving. I can not do anything, I had to swallow this  if only to got some experience and be marketable. However, I have to agree that there should be a minumum wage. What is happening now is labor exploitation.

I am deleting the bulk of your comments because I'd like to focus on a few things that you said not the entire thing.... 

I think that there is some clarification that I'd like to make to some of your points. 

First most other freelance sites that I've reviewed tend to focus on 'one stop wonder' jobs (that's what I call them - the one timer who's looking to get a project done and move on).  These sites do not encourage you to develop a long working relationship with buyers.

Second: I've been on oDesk as long as you have.  We both got started at about the same time.  Here's the contrast: you have 37 hours while I have nearly 1,000.  If you look at my profile, you won't really see that because from September until March I did strictly freelancing and now I'm an affiliate company (which I did to accommodate my clients). I've closed out more jobs as an affiliate since March than you've actually worked since September. Yes, I do take the 'one shot' deals (as you can see in my history), but the fact of the matter is that my longer term assignments are my bread and butter.   They pay my bills and they keep my other team members working as well.

My understanding of oDesk was not necessarily to promote the 'one shot' deals but rather to develop long term working relationships with buyers.  When you are able to do that you can collect hours with a single buyer over time. 

My rates are not the lowest in my category - I have different clients I charge different rates for reasons I won't bore you with - but the fact of the matter  is that for longer term relationships oDesk, buyers and providers all win.

I will concede one thing: Because I write content/articles etc., chances are that I have a better chance of developing longer term relationships than perhaps a programmer or a graphics person does so perhaps that has an effect as well.

I strongly disagree with your assessment that at some point we'll all be making lower wages because the buyers are demanding to pay less. I also am a buyer - In fact I make a point of reviewing the work of the team members at least once a month and making an increase if it's appropriate based on their work, effort and time put in.

Remember: broad statements paint false pictures.

Doreen

I understand that it is an open market but the tales of the minimum wage depressing rates, for all providers, are very misleading.

In the UK, a few years ago, the government decided to bring in a minimum wage to prevent companies paying peanuts. The business leaders were full of woe, moaning to the media that this would make the economy collapse and companies go out of business.

This did not happen. In fact, the economy actually grew stronger as people had more money to spend. One of the basic rules of economics is that your employees are also your customers, so better wages means that they are better consumers.

When you talk about 'Open Markets', you need to look at the whole picture, not just one ODesk sized slice. Companies in the 'Western World' are trying to expand into new markets, but this must be a two way process. If wages are kept artificially low, then the potential market is smaller and everybody suffers.

Whilst I agree that $5 per hour may be too high for a minimum wage, there should be a base level, or outsourcing becomes exploitation. Paying $2 per hour instead of 50 cents is not going to bankrupt anybody, but can make an immense difference in the quality of life for a provider living in a developing nation.

Running a good business is not just about saving money, but making a contribution to society. Improving society improves life for all of us, and to shut ourselves away behind the phrase, 'Open Market', is to shut ourselves away from our responsibilities to others.

We all complain at companies that use 'sweatshops' to make cheap consumer goods, so we are failing in our duty if we allow this type of labor on ODesk. It is easy to point a finger at the Wal-Marts and Primarks of this world, but 50 cents an hour is exploitation too.

Anyway, that is my rant over

A naive fool.

The UK currently has a minimum wage equivalent to 10.22 per hour with an average unemployment rate of 2.4%

It's impossible to compare manufacturing businesses to service businesses, you'd need to compare apples to apples to get a good feel for this.

The fact remains - I don't say that minimum wage depresses the market, what it does it it 'shuts' people who are not working for minimum wage out of the market if they want to make more than minimum.

Doreen 

The UK, like many Northern European countries, has a tiny manufacturing industry and is almost entirely service based, so I am comparing apples to apples.

I understand what you are saying about the 'shutting out', but there is more than one way of looking at this.

As discussed on other threads, there are buyers who want cheap and buyers who want quality. The ones who want cheap will find it, whether it is 50 cents p/h or $2 per hour. There is an argument that enforcing a minimum would affect job creation, but any 'western' employer who cannot find an extra few dollars a day, to pay a reasonable wage, should not be allowed near a business. I agree that $5 per hour may be counter-productive, but $2 per hour is not going to cause ODesk to go into an irreversible meltdown.

I understand that it is an open market and that providers must compete on price as well as quality. This works both ways, with the buyers wanting high quality competing for a much smaller pool of highly skilled labor. They will always pay well to make sure that they get the best professionals before the competition does. They are not going to suddenly turn around and demand the same work for the minimum rate just because they can.

I have read, on other topics, about how the low wages are unfair to 'western' providers, or how 'ODesk is slavery'. I do not subscribe to these views, finding them to be mostly sour grapes, but do try to look at things from the other side.

We bandy about the views that 'we can choose not to apply for these jobs' or 'it's an open market'. Being native English writers, we are in the fortunate position that we can be more selective in our job applications and migrate towards the quality end. If you are living in a country with no welfare and expensive health care, you will take on any job to keep a roof over your head or feed your family. That is not choice but necessity and to take advantage of that, by paying ridiculously low rates, is exploitation.

I love ODesk and think that it is a great way to contribute to a global economy, opening up opportunities for many skilled and motivated people. However, there should be  some modicum of social responsibility involved, and a drive to change things for the better.

Paying a decent wage and allowing people to strive to help themselves out of a of bad situation changes the world, even in a small way. I am a little biased, because I love reading about the social reformers of Victorian times, but a few good people changing the small things brought about a sea-change in attitudes and improved the lives of millions.

We could all set a good example and be a catalyst for change, instead of burying our heads in the sand.

Sorry about going on a bit, but I do like my soap-box occasionally!

of my response so I'm going to try again without using your quotes and try to hit point by point instead:

* argument that enforcing a minimum would affect job creation - no, instead what I'm suggesting is this:

I am a buyer. I have an option: I hire (1) person and pay them $10 per hour or (using your number) I can hire more than one person at $2 per hour.  Well frankly, I'm going to hire (2) people at $2 per hour - why you ask? Simple: I'm going to screen people and find two that have complimentary skills to each other. I'm now paying $4 per hour. 

Here's the kicker: using your argument I've now decreased unemployment by one person.  Using my argument - I've asked someone who USED to be able to garner $10 an hour to accept the same work at $2 per hour!

Trust me - buyers ARE going to demand the same quality of work.  Just because minimum wage is minimum wage does not mean that we don't expect quality work!

* low wages are unfair to 'western' providers

I live close to an area (very close) that was ranked THE MOST Expensive place IN THE COUNTRY by Forbes Magazine.  I would LOVE to be able to make more than what I'm making now per hour.  But the market is the market!!

* no welfare and expensive health care you will take on any job to keep a roof over your head or feed your family.

Sorry - I can't subscribe to this theory at all.  Frankly, minimum wage as set by my state means that my RENT isn't even covered by minimum wage. My medical insurance is $700 per month.  I know what I need to live, to pay my bills and I set my rates accordingly!

*modicum of social responsibility involved

Since when did social responsibility make it mandatory to set a minimum wage? What about PERSONAL responsibility? Every one of us knows and understands how much we need to make in order to live.  If every provider STOPPED accepting work at unacceptable rates the fact of the matter is that the market would adjust UPWARD.

Let's look at it from a business perspective: If you are trying to hire a secretary and you place an ad in the paper - you advertise the job for $6 per hour and you get no takers, then aren't you going to realize that perhaps $6 per hour is too little and increase it?  I'm using a rough example but the fact of the matter is (as a business owner) I would certainly see the problem and take the steps to rectify it!

 *instead of burying our heads in the sand.

I want to clarify something: I do not approve of or condone paying very low wages - it's defeatist in more ways than one. I am merely pointing out that there is more than one side to every story.

*Sorry about going on a bit, but I do like my soap-box occasionally

Nothing like a good healthy debate between colleagues :) 

Doreen 

Agreed - healthy debate is food for the mind.

To kicker your kicker - the $2 is a bit of a red herring. Using your argument, a buyer could currently, under the current system, hire two providers at $2 per hour or eight at 50 cents. The argument that a minimum wage would drive down rates for everybody else is invalid as buyers can already find cheap labour, if that is what they want. The downward pressure on rates cannot become any greater than it already is.

*low wages are unfair to 'western' providers

If you re-read the comment, I think you will find that you took me a little out of context on this one  (maybe I did not explain myself properly). As I said, I find that most such complaints are from people who do not try to make ODesk work, and I have little sympathy for the posts complaining about that aspect of the system. My point is that I believe that there must be a bottom line, instead of catering to the lowest common denominator.

* I know what I need to live, to pay my bills and I set my rates accordingly!

You are in a position where you have the choice to do this - you can charge nearer to what you are worth. If you were just as skilled, but lived in the Philippines, buyers would try to pay you a lot less.

The idea of a truly 'open' market is that people are paid what they are worth and wages and prices find their natural level within the system. If ODesk (to use a slightly silly example) prevented people from putting their country of residence on their profile, you would find that rates would increase, as buyers would have to pay on merit. As it stands, the market is closed, because nationality becomes a restriction to earning for quality of work and not perceived standard of living.

The European Union is an example of this. As new countries join, they find that their wages and costs of living go up, whilst those of the existing members drop slightly. Eventually, they converge at a level somewhere between the two and the system equalizes.

*Since when did social responsibility make it mandatory to set a minimum wage?

For the same reason that most countries on earth have a minimum wage restriction. The market needs some regulations or we will slip back into Victorian times, where sweatshops and workhouses were accepted. ODesk exists in a 'virtual world', but that does not absolve it from the responsibility of trying to improve the conditions of its providers.

The providers in Asia and Africa may well become the buyers of tomorrow, as you have, but need some support and the ability to earn enough money to re-invest. Entrepreneurs are the glue that holds any economy together and, by paying a reasonable minimum, you are giving providers the capital and confidence to start to invest in their skills.

Providers are not going to stop applying for these jobs, as some are desperate for work. The conditions in some of the 'sweat-shops' are not great, either, but people have to work there or have no food.

We spend billions of dollars giving food aid to countries, especially under current world economic circumstances, instead of giving people the chance to earn their way out of trouble. We should be helping people to help themselves instead of taking the short-term view.

Paying higher wages means that people have more money to spend in their local economy. This local economy will then import more goods and services from the 'West' and everybody wins. It is trickle down economics, where wealth needs to trickle down from the top, or the economy implodes. Paying low wages was what led to the boom/bust economy of the eighties, not a great time for many of us.

*I do not approve of or condone paying very low wages 

I never doubted that for a moment! You are far too nice a person. However, as the quote goes,

"Doing nothing is passive collaboration"

 Martyn

* If ODesk (to use a slightly silly example) prevented people from
putting their country of residence on their profile, you would find
that rates would increase, as buyers would have to pay on merit.

My heartly appreciation for this view point...

* "Doing nothing is passive collaboration"

Dear Martyn, my votes are for you(r views) on this issue.

Thanks,

Pothi.

Martyn, you have your country listed and you have jobs that are paying higher than some of my jobs are paying. How can you possibly believe that is true????

I am not sure what you mean there - if you mean Greece, then that is of no advantage in seeking writing jobs, and would make no difference whether it was on my profile or not.

If you mean that I have 'native English speaker' on my profile, then you do have a slight point. In defence, I see that as no different than a native German or French speaker using that as a selling point for translation work.

I may have some work at a higher rate than you but I probably have some at a much lower rate. In addition, I read some of your other posts (not that I am cyber-stalking you or anything!) about how quickly you turn around assignments and I could not dream of being that fast!

We are being paid, and judged, by the quality of our work rather than by our country of residence. This should be the same for everybody.

Finally, although this has been covered in many other posts, the weak dollar means that providers outside the US have to charge more.

Anyway, I must go to bed - have a lovely evening!

Martyn

The ever-declining price is a function of treating online freelancing as a commodity market.  If all product is the same, then yes it makes sense for the buyer to go with the lowest priced provider and the low rates will drive out higher rates.

This isn't a commodity market and all providers are not the same.  Article mill writers will always command lower rates because they are putting out generic product.  People with reputations will command more because they are selling a different product.  

Providers who differentiate themselves from the pack can escape the commodity trap.

Absolutely correct.  Like you while I have a lot of clients, I don't push out generic cut and paste items just to get the job done.  I think that our reputations are what is the most important thing and providing the highest quality work at a price the buyer can live with is the most important thing.

Again I say :  Everyone sets their own rates - and your rates increase by the square root of how well you perform!

Doreen 

Enough of the semantics and the point by point analysis you are portraying as the gospel truths. What is needed here, is for us providers to unite and be the one to dictate on the users our conditions and  not the other way around. Being a newbie here, I don't have that much to brag. However, I know enough to perceive that the system here needs a total overhaul so as to benefit not only us the providers but the the users as well. 

You can call it semantics if you'd like however you are overlooking a very important point - the buyers have the money to pay the providers. Without them - we'd all be out looking for work!   Both sides are benefiting.  As was so clearly pointed out earlier in this thread is that the fact of the matter is that 99% of these 'cheap wages' complaints come from (a) someone new who has no idea what the 'real' wages are or (b) someone who isn't putting a decent wage on their profile.

There is no doubt that this has been a fascinating thread, with passionate (but reasonable) views from both sides. A lot of ground has been covered and we all have a lot to think about.

There is one thing, however, that I hope we can all agree on:

This topic has attracted hundreds of views and many replies, including the 'big-hitters', so is obviously touching a nerve with many  people on both sides of the fence.

Maybe this is a subject that ODesk should be looking at and giving some serious thought to. I am not talking about immediate and wholesale changes, but at least some reassurance that ODesk is studying whether a minimum wage is needed or not.

We could kick verbal lumps out of each other for weeks on here, with attacks becoming more personal, and achieve very little except increased antagonism. Perhaps now is the time to escalate this issue and decide what, if any, action is needed on this topic.

Martyn

My goodness I certainly hope we were not kicking each other around. I thought the entire discourse stayed very civil 

Doreen 

Agreed! A good old-fashioned debate.

I for one thank Odesk for providing a place where we can discuss such specific topics.

Maybe this is the first step from where to start understanding the problems and challenges of freelancing for both providers and buyers.

It is a topic that is promoting a lot of debate!

mshuttleworth wrote:

It is a topic that is promoting a lot of debate!

Wasn't there a post a week or so ago asking us about new topic categories :)  We could ask for a rates debate one LOL

have a great weekend all!

Doreen 

That is a little bit of a chicken and egg argument. If all the decent 'mid-range' providers leave, then buyers will suffer as the only options will be the top and bottom range providers. Skilled providers and cheap providers will always find a niche, but the mid-price providers are the backbone of ODesk and give buyers flexibility of choice. If they leave, due to a downward trend in rates, then we may as well all go elsewhere.

In addition, every provider dutifully hands over 10% of their earnings, earning us a 'stake' in the company. I appreciate that ODesk does a very good job of balancing the needs of providers and buyers, but the global economy is changing rapidly and we need to know what direction the company wishes to take. These are uncertain times!

ODesk has an excellent reputation as a quality outsourcing site and we would all hate for it to become like Guru et al where you take a huge chance on quality. These sites all exhibited a trend towards lower wages and sub-standard products, so some feedback from ODesk reassuring us that this situation will not happen would be appreciated.

Most of us have experience of these other sites and sought the security of ODesk, so are genuinely concerned that the same 'drift' does not happen. We are a team here and the sum of the parts is greater than the whole; this is what gives ODesk strength.

There are two separate arguments here. I agree that many of these posts are from 'western' providers who cannot be bothered to fill in their profiles but want $50 per hour; most genuine providers are scathing about these people too.

This argument is about whether buyers should be allowed to pay ridiculously low rates and it is a little unfair to tie the two together. The fact that this topic has been so popular tells us that this situation is affecting a lot of people, not just the odd provider with no awareness of the system.

Even the 'newbies' who have contributed to this thread have made some well thought out and reasonable points, unlike these other threads which tend to descend into anarchy or farce and disappear.

Most of us are waiting patiently for some input from ODesk into this debate, other than the lame 'ODesk believes that it is an Open Market'. I am not saying that we are right, but I think that our opinions are valid and deserve a little more than a tired standard response.

Rant over!

Thank you for the feedback. These are interesting times!

I agree! This has been a great debate and I've been reading it! This is the best discussion exchange that I've read here in the forums!

Cheers!

Gem

Thanks for your posting your thoughts on this issue.

Another thanks for posting the following answer in another thread (Matching Quality with Quality).

Regards,

Pothi.

Has anyone considered a tiered system? The newer and cheaper providers could marry up with the extreme discount people and the higher rate (and hopefully higher quality) providers could have a marketplace too.

 I am not sure how the tiers would be set up, but some actual, relevant benchmark would do it. You can see, even now, how buyers filter some jobs (in my category- writing) by asking for native English speakers.

Setting up this sort of ranking gives each sort of provider a place to do business and it also tips off buyers that there is a range of services provided.

 bill

That's an interesting thought but wow are you talking about a weird way (imho) of looking at this. Just because someone is 'new' to oDesk does not mean they should have to work on 'low' tier paying jobs.   Many of us started off at a lower job to get feedback, but I think that you'd find a fair number started off in 'mid-range' pay cycles.

I think this solution (while worthy of discussion) opens up a whole world of abuse on providers (and does not allow education of buyers either).

Doreen 

Hi Doreen

I must agree - maybe that is worth discussing sometime. Perhaps you could start a new topic, Bill.

I must admit, this thread has reminded me of why I like ODesk - the community spirit. We have had many differing viewpoints on this thread, but are in serious danger of finding a solution! 

Many providers doing freelance work are retired from the workforce and doing freelance after a lifetime of work experience. I think the portfolios of such people who may be "new to oDesk" should speak for themselves.

This has been an interesting discussion and I do see people demanding and getting a salary that they are worth here on oDesk and on other freelance sites as well.