4 ms·

That's all well and good until you're the one who loses your job. Then you can root for the non-US worker's family who got your job for half the salary. Enjoy y

That's all well and good until you're the one who loses your job. Then you can root for the non-US worker's family who got your job for half the salary. Enjoy your American-owned employer making more money for its stockholders and executives while it continues not paying taxes, to a country that doesn't federally provide basic social services. There is something to be said for watching out for your community. The only reason to be hyper-free-market is if you're an owner of the means of production. --- To be clear, I also work for an international company and I have nothing against any colleagues. I simply think it's naive to not be wary of a sudden, further erosion of the middle class if companies dump the US as the primary source of high-skilled work. --- edit: I resent HN throttling posts for 40+ minutes, so I'll respond to corobo here: I am criticizing the US. I am suggesting that American companies will save money while letting their host country rot.

mind-blight 5y ago
This rhetoric may make sense when the job market is gutted, there's a much larger supply of qualified tech workers than demand, and we've reached a global maxima that forces us all into a zero sum competition for capital (think coke vs. Pepsi). That will definitely push pay down. However, that's almost the opposite of where we are now. The demand for tech workers is growing, and that greens will likely continue for decades as the world upgrades to a modern digital infrastructure. That means that salaries will still rise, none will still be readily available, and the pie if high paying positions will likely increase. There may also be a solid market for "blue collar" engineers. Folks who build basic but necessary programs. It's not machine learning, but it will pay the bills and potentially lift more families into the middle class around the globe
- emodendroket 5y ago
  So they should wait until all the negative things come to pass before warning about them?
  - mind-blight 5y ago
    I have two takes, one the substance of your comment, and another the format it takes. First, the substance: Of course not. It's healthy to analyze the pros and cons of any significant change to a system. We're definitely in the rose-colored-glasses part of WFH. There will absolutely be negative consequences. My main argument is that given the current supply of tech workers vs. demand for tech workers, and the likelihood of there needing to be more - not fewer - tech jobs in the future, the comment's dystopian vision is unlikely to occur any time soon. The time to start sounding alarms is when the acceleration curve for the growth of jobs vs. available workers becomes consistently negative. That's the first sign a trend is starting to reverse. We definitely aren't there, so it seems reasonable to call OP's rhetoric hyperbolic at best. Secondly, I've noticed a trend on HN where folks post an open-ended, contradictory question in response to something that they disagree with or don't like. This implies that that parent comment is somehow flawed, but doesn't actually provide much substance in the form of concrete thoughts or opinions. It invites readers to fill in the blanks without ever challenging their (or the original author's) ideas. And it generally invites a flame war instead of a healthy dialogue or debate. Apologies if this wasn't your intention. Given how open-ended the question is, I don't have much to work with :p. If you do have opinions about why either of my ideas are flawed, I'm definitely interested in hearing them!
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      Well, to rephrase my idea in declarative form, my concern is that by the time that trend becomes apparent, it may be too late to do anything about it. Developers have more leverage now than when they're no longer needed. Of course there isn't any real call to action being made here so maybe it doesnt matter in that sense. And full remote still does not seem to be what most employers are looking for.
      - mind-blight 5y ago
        Yeah, that's definitely a risk. I just think we're far enough from that at the moment that it's premature to do much besides acknowledge that it could happen at some point. I'm really curious to see whether or not wages actually end up rising for everyone because of WFH. Up to now, employers have been able to use location and either cost of living or cost of labor as the argument for paying people less than in the Bay. That's starting to fall apart in the current market, which will push wages higher everywhere. All of the sudden, the Bay needs to pay every higher to convince people to move there. I'm not convinced that'll be the outcome, but it wouldn't surprise me once the labor market becomes a lot more liquid. The kind of multiples software development brings to a business is just so much higher than current salaries
corobo 5y ago
> to a country that doesn't federally provide basic social services Mate if you're going to try that one don't be defending America with it haha. Gofundme campaigns are a part of your healthcare system.. e: acknowledging your edit and comment, throttling for downvotes does suck. I wont force a back and forth through edits.
- adventured 5y ago
  > Mate if you're going to try that one don't be defending America with it haha. Gofundme campaigns are a part of your healthcare system. Why not? The US has an enormous welfare state, one of the biggest and most expensive in the world in fact. Which isn't the same thing as pretending the US has a well-run and efficient welfare state, which it does not. Fun fact: the US spends more of its economy on its welfare state, than either Canada or Australia do, and just below Switzerland. That's simultaneously a testament to how massive the US welfare state has become, and how poor its efficiency often is (what with our world-topping per capita healthcare costs, nobody gets less bang for the buck on welfare spending than the US). The bottom 24%-28% (depending on the year) in the US receive free healthcare, which costs north of $700 billion per year. Medicaid alone costs around $650 billion now. The US further has an array of other free and subsidized healthcare programs, at the local/state/federal levels, and I suspect most foreigners are entirely ignorant that any of it exists. The various government systems of the US spend $9-$10 trillion per year, depending on the year, or roughly 40%-45% of the economy. Did you think that was all going to military spending?

mind-blight 5y ago

This rhetoric may make sense when the job market is gutted, there's a much larger supply of qualified tech workers than demand, and we've reached a global maxima that forces us all into a zero sum competition for capital (think coke vs. Pepsi). That will definitely push pay down. However, that's almost the opposite of where we are now. The demand for tech workers is growing, and that greens will likely continue for decades as the world upgrades to a modern digital infrastructure. That means that salaries will still rise, none will still be readily available, and the pie if high paying positions will likely increase. There may also be a solid market for "blue collar" engineers. Folks who build basic but necessary programs. It's not machine learning, but it will pay the bills and potentially lift more families into the middle class around the globe

emodendroket 5y ago
So they should wait until all the negative things come to pass before warning about them?
- mind-blight 5y ago
  I have two takes, one the substance of your comment, and another the format it takes. First, the substance: Of course not. It's healthy to analyze the pros and cons of any significant change to a system. We're definitely in the rose-colored-glasses part of WFH. There will absolutely be negative consequences. My main argument is that given the current supply of tech workers vs. demand for tech workers, and the likelihood of there needing to be more - not fewer - tech jobs in the future, the comment's dystopian vision is unlikely to occur any time soon. The time to start sounding alarms is when the acceleration curve for the growth of jobs vs. available workers becomes consistently negative. That's the first sign a trend is starting to reverse. We definitely aren't there, so it seems reasonable to call OP's rhetoric hyperbolic at best. Secondly, I've noticed a trend on HN where folks post an open-ended, contradictory question in response to something that they disagree with or don't like. This implies that that parent comment is somehow flawed, but doesn't actually provide much substance in the form of concrete thoughts or opinions. It invites readers to fill in the blanks without ever challenging their (or the original author's) ideas. And it generally invites a flame war instead of a healthy dialogue or debate. Apologies if this wasn't your intention. Given how open-ended the question is, I don't have much to work with :p. If you do have opinions about why either of my ideas are flawed, I'm definitely interested in hearing them!
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    Well, to rephrase my idea in declarative form, my concern is that by the time that trend becomes apparent, it may be too late to do anything about it. Developers have more leverage now than when they're no longer needed. Of course there isn't any real call to action being made here so maybe it doesnt matter in that sense. And full remote still does not seem to be what most employers are looking for.
    - mind-blight 5y ago
      Yeah, that's definitely a risk. I just think we're far enough from that at the moment that it's premature to do much besides acknowledge that it could happen at some point. I'm really curious to see whether or not wages actually end up rising for everyone because of WFH. Up to now, employers have been able to use location and either cost of living or cost of labor as the argument for paying people less than in the Bay. That's starting to fall apart in the current market, which will push wages higher everywhere. All of the sudden, the Bay needs to pay every higher to convince people to move there. I'm not convinced that'll be the outcome, but it wouldn't surprise me once the labor market becomes a lot more liquid. The kind of multiples software development brings to a business is just so much higher than current salaries

corobo 5y ago

> to a country that doesn't federally provide basic social services Mate if you're going to try that one don't be defending America with it haha. Gofundme campaigns are a part of your healthcare system.. e: acknowledging your edit and comment, throttling for downvotes does suck. I wont force a back and forth through edits.

adventured 5y ago
> Mate if you're going to try that one don't be defending America with it haha. Gofundme campaigns are a part of your healthcare system. Why not? The US has an enormous welfare state, one of the biggest and most expensive in the world in fact. Which isn't the same thing as pretending the US has a well-run and efficient welfare state, which it does not. Fun fact: the US spends more of its economy on its welfare state, than either Canada or Australia do, and just below Switzerland. That's simultaneously a testament to how massive the US welfare state has become, and how poor its efficiency often is (what with our world-topping per capita healthcare costs, nobody gets less bang for the buck on welfare spending than the US). The bottom 24%-28% (depending on the year) in the US receive free healthcare, which costs north of $700 billion per year. Medicaid alone costs around $650 billion now. The US further has an array of other free and subsidized healthcare programs, at the local/state/federal levels, and I suspect most foreigners are entirely ignorant that any of it exists. The various government systems of the US spend $9-$10 trillion per year, depending on the year, or roughly 40%-45% of the economy. Did you think that was all going to military spending?