HN commenters are apparently privileged for having to move to Guatemala to get by, whereas Guatemalians are refugees when they move to the US.

This misses the point completely. One side is taking advantage of geo-arbitrage while the other is fleeing violence. It's a false equivalence.

The US has 18 large cities with a higher homicide rate than Guatemala. 50 with more than half of Guatemala's. The difference between the two countries from a violence perspective hardly constitutes "fleeing."

This is the definition of cherry picking data. If you are comparing rates between countries, use the country data.

I have personal experience with refugees from Central America and Mexico. I can assure you, many are fleeing violence.

Mods didn't read it until you flagged it. The only rule my comment violated that you didn't violate is that my snark was from the wrong side of the woke spectrum.

Again, dismissing or diminishing someone's accomplishments because you accuse them of being privileged without knowing the first thing about them violates all of the following:

- Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Edit out swipes.

- Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

- Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.

So, go ahead and flag this too, because you know as well as I do that the rules have nothing to do with what they say, and everything to do with who is applying them.

I dunno. What if they’re currently living in Bangladesh?

It's ironic you should mention Bangladesh because there's a guy on my payroll who lives in Bangladesh and I'm flying him to an international conference soon. It does indeed take more paperwork than usual, it will be a unique opportunity for him and probably not his last with me, he's a great employee.

Working remotely != moving for geo-arbitrage. If anything, it's the opposite, where the employer is taking advantage of geo-arbitrage.

In this model, people living in Bangladesh skip the “moving” part. They already live in a low cost locale.

So they have open doors to be wildly successful entrepreneurs?

My point is that the OPs “model” is a strategy for a limited population and not very generalizable. Within those caveats, I have no issue with their suggestion.