Founder says it's okay to pay remote global workers less than Americans. Backlash follows

Critics argue that justifying lower wages based on remote work perpetuates exploitation. (Representational)

In a polarising LinkedIn post, Franco Pereyra, co-founder and COO of Near, a platform connecting US companies with Latin American remote talent, has drawn sharp criticism for defending the practice of paying overseas workers less than their American counterparts.

Pereyra, an Argentinian entrepreneur based in Buenos Aires, framed his remarks around economic disparities and the opportunities global remote work provides, but his comments have ignited a heated debate on fairness, exploitation, and global pay equity.

Pereyra’s post stated, “It’s okay for global talent workers to get paid less than Americans,” and argued that the economic realities in countries like Argentina justify the disparity. He noted that workers in nations with weaker economies benefit from remote work despite earning lower wages. “Compared to US salaries, we are getting paid less to do the same job. But I get to stay in my country, be with my family, and enjoy a lower cost of living,” Pereyra wrote.

The entrepreneur acknowledged instances of exploitation in global hiring but maintained that paying less for overseas labour isn’t inherently wrong, especially given the opportunities remote work offers in countries with struggling economies. Pereyra cited Argentina’s ongoing economic challenges, highlighting that a mid-level remote worker could earn more than a middle manager in the country’s banking sector.

However, Pereyra’s rationale has faced significant backlash online. Critics argue that justifying lower wages based on geography perpetuates exploitation and undervalues the work of professionals in countries like Argentina, India, and the Philippines.

One commenter questioned the fairness of such practices, writing, “Do the people in Argentina or Brazil do less quality work than their US counterparts? Why is your work worth less than that of your peers in other countries?”

Another expressed concern about the long-term implications of accepting lower pay, stating, “Accepting wages that would be marginal in the First World is damaging for your profession as a whole. You should be striving to be compensated for your work’s worth, not based on ‘what’s enough for me to live now.’”

Some even went as far as to label the practice as discriminatory. “Paying people less just because they live in a different place is racism and classism,” one critic wrote.