But if those great people have any sense they will be working for a company that recognizes and rewards their skills and not simply offers a rate based on the a

But if those great people have any sense they will be working for a company that recognizes and rewards their skills and not simply offers a rate based on the area of the world they are in. ie great people don't want to be competing on cost for work, unless they can capture some of the value of their greatness. eg price for work completed rather than by the hour - so if they finish it in the half the time then they keep that value. On the other hand, people currently average skill or below ( half... ) are more likely to be better off being paid by the hour. So if you take a pure economic view, and everyone was behaving rationally, then a cost based hourly recruitment model gets you average and below workers. ie you get what you pay for at equilibrium. Of course what they are hoping is to exploit not being at equilibrium - countries with relatively high skills and low costs. However they are going to be competing with companies based in those lower cost countries ( eg India ), who have both the low cost environment advantage and the ability to recruit locally and better select and retain employees. My experience of working with even locally based companies that compete on price is high staff churn ( as the good ones find better employment ) - which really damages productivity.