Wages Discussion
Over the past several months there have been a number of posts regarding wages on projects posted here on oDesk. A number of very healthy discussions have cropped up and some led off to suggestions and recommendations and since people do seem to be interested in talking about this more, I thought perhaps that a new post with some of the points that have been brought up might be helpful to us (and perhaps to oDesk) in seeing where we are on these points.
Here are some suggestions:
A) Setting a minimum wage
B) Seeing 'classifications' of providers (i.e. beginner, intermediate, advanced) and basing 'minimum pay rates' based on that
C) Leaving things as they are and letting providers decide their own rates
So in the interest of getting some discussion going why don't we try this:
Pick your point (a) (b) or (c) and tell why you think this is a viable solution.
If you opt to debate someones point let's try to keep it to a dull roar - long posts get hard to follow. Make sure you're quoting (correctly) the person you're debating so we can all follow it!
Let's keep things civil. We're not all going to agree on the solution! But, perhaps we can open up some healthy debate. Consider putting in your first post how long you've been working with oDesk, how many of your assignments are 'short term' (i.e. under one month) and how many are 'long term'.
Another question that perhaps we can all answer: do you charge 'short term' clients more than 'long term clients'.
Have some fun with this and let's see what comes out of it!
Doreen
Hello
Good idea, Doreen!
Been here for four months, I now have 3 long term assignments and one short.
My answer is A) Setting a minimum wage.
Reasons: I don't think that people should be expected to work for 50 cents per and I don't believe that providers would all pay minimum wage just because they can.
Final point - I charge the same, long or short term, but find that long term clients, if you do a good job, increase their rates to keep you!
C) No Minimum
I'm opposed to the minimum wage too: As I said earlier it's a step toward a commodity market which I utterly oppose.
The tiered provider or job idea sounds good at first, but I have reservations about that one too. Part of it is that I don't see a way to implement it without a minimimum wage. The other problem I have is that it can support filtering providers by anything other than competence.
People can use a tier structure to limit people from specific countries to lower rate jobs, and that's something I don't want to see. A provider's value should only be dependent on their skills and feedback, not their location or worse yet their race.
I also believe that any form of limits to the market will benefit the lower end of the provider spectrum at the expense of the upper end. Sure a $5.00/hr minimum wage is great for someone who used to make $1.50/hr, but expecting them to work for $5.00/hr is going to drive away anyone who is making $20.00/hr.
That's not good for providers or for oDesk. Remember, oDesk has a vested interest in keeping rates as high as possible because they make a percentage. They want to keep the people making more money because they're the ones who really pay the bills.
As it is now, if you work hard and are really good in your field you can make a lot more than $5.00/hr.
oDesk isn't and shouldn't become a welfare state. Give people the opportunity to excel and let the market reward those who do.
C) No Minimum
I am new to oDesk and agree there shouldn't be a minimum wage as well. I would like to reply to daverobinson's comment, "People can use a tier structure to limit people from specific countries to lower rate jobs, and that's something I don't want to see. A provider's value should only be dependent on their skills and feedback, not their location or worse yet their race." While I agree people should not be chosen for a job or rejected because of their location and for sure not their race...that is reality on oDesk. People in the US are not use to working for $1 and $2 an hour like other countries and therefore overbid themselves. In the US, the cost of operating a computer for an hour (including electricity, hi-speed internet, and phone, if needed) all exceed the rates other providers are being hired for.
So, whether we like it or not...oDesk already has pay classifications, in my opinion. I would be curious to see the data based on researching the number of US/Canadian based buyers outsourcing to other countries for a significant amount lower than the Federal Minimum Wage in the US vs those same buyers staying within the US. I have emphasized significantly lower because I am not concerned with those hired for a buck or two below minimum wage, as I would expect that for work-at-home jobs. Hmmm....
Provider Costs
My own take on the matter of higher provider costs is simple: it's not the buyer's problem. The provider's costs are their own responsibility and if one's own cost of living won't let you take jobs at a specific wage then don't apply.
If a buyer can get the same quality work for less money they should take it. Providers in more expensive countries just need to provide some sort of value-add to make their higher rates worth it to the buyer.
Remember, it's not the price that matters, it's the value
From My viewpoint
I would like to stay at "C) Leaving things as they are and letting providers decide their own rates"
Reasons: I believe setting a minimum wage will discourage higher pay rates from being viable as buyers will hire people at the minimum whenever possible.