3 ms·

Do you want to play that game? Because if location doesn't matter then there are a billion people in India who are willing to do your job for much much less. I

Do you want to play that game? Because if location doesn't matter then there are a billion people in India who are willing to do your job for much much less. In salary per value to the company you are extremely overpaid, assuming you live in the west. I don't think you want to open that can of worms. Edit to add: All those people moving from India to the US for the money could then stay in India. You're not competing with the remote work crowd. You are competing with local cost of labor. If the market switches to just value added, unrelated to location, then you're screwed.

eru 4y ago
Yes, I want to play that game. I want people in India to be paid more, if possible. I want to open that 'can of worms'. The big problem is that labour in India isn't all that productive. Offshoring isn't some magic bullet. Companies have tried that and are still trying. Google, Microsoft etc have offices in India. They also keep their offices in the US and Europe not just out of imaginary obligation to westerners, but because it makes economic sense. See also how Apple still does lots of the design work in the US, but manufactures in China. They would off-shore more off the design work as well, if they could. (And if Apple could but would not, someone else would do it and eat their lunch.)
- knorker 4y ago
  Offshoring is not the same thing. There are great people in India. It's just more conducive for them to get better pay if they manage to get an H1B and move to the US. If they could just "work remote", then you (as an American, or at least someone who can and does work in the US? Well, applies to any western country) are no longer competing with "people from India who manage to get an H1B and have a family situation compatible with moving countries", but suddenly with ALL qualified workers in India. Big tech in the west employs HUGE numbers of expats from lower paid countries. A very large portion of which Big tech paid for the H1B (or equiv) and relocation costs. If you are remote, then you're only valued on your output. And I'm not saying you're in a poor position against a random engineer from India (nor presumably from a random engineer in the US), but you'll be in a poor position against the equivalent of your amazing local coworker who moved from India (or hell, any European country with less pay) because that's where the job was. If the job is "anywhere, because it's remote", then I'm saying that you may not be on the winning side of this change. Opening up "work from anywhere" is not like offshoring to save costs. More like given two equally valuable people, why should an employer pay a premium to one, just because they chose to live in a higher cost of living country?
  - eru 4y ago
    I don't work in the US nor Europe. > Opening up "work from anywhere" is not like offshoring to save costs. More like given two equally valuable people, why should an employer pay a premium to one, just because they chose to live in a higher cost of living country? Yes, and that's progress! That's good!
    - knorker 4y ago
      Sure. I just mostly see this argument made by silicon valley people moving to Texas or whatever, and asking why they should not continue getting silicon valley comp. Most just think they're clever and exploiting the system, and the thought that they'd get paid lowly Texas (or Ohio) salaries never occurred to them.
      - eru 4y ago
        Thanks, we seem to mostly agree. Though I do think 'off-shoring' from California to the Ohio vs off-shoring from California to India have important aspects in common. For better or worse, agglomeration effects are real, and for some ineffable reasons software people are more productive when located in Silicon Valley, rather than Ohio. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_agglomeration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_agglomeration However the pandemic forced an investment in making remote-work work. That's not even so much an investment in technology (hardware or software), but more taking the time and effort to figure out what works and doesn't work. It's full of soft factors.
pmoriarty 4y ago
There are time zones issues, communication issues, and culture issues that are difficult if not impossible to cost-effectively overcome for offshoring to countries like India.. Otherwise all jobs would have been offshored already, whether local employees "wanted to play that game" or not. Employers aren't hiring locally out of the goodness of their hearts.
- knorker 4y ago
  Big tech is largely staffed by people they "imported" for the job (don't mean that in a bad way, as it includes me). Why pay to get H1B and shipping for someone from India when you can just hire that same person in place and not only save on that, but also salary? Offshoring in my experience does not usually work on an individual basis.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
welshwelsh 4y ago
Yes please. If companies could replace highly paid Americans with lower paid Indians without hurting the bottom line they should do so without hesitation. Unfortunately it's not that simple. It usually turns out that these lower paid employees are significantly worse, and Indian nationals who are highly competent demand salaries similar to Americans.
- knorker 4y ago
  > Unfortunately it's not that simple. It usually turns out that these lower paid employees are significantly worse, But it's literally the exact same people, in this case. Big tech currently pays to move them to the US, and then pays them higher salary. That is very different from spinning up a department in India.

eru 4y ago

Yes, I want to play that game. I want people in India to be paid more, if possible. I want to open that 'can of worms'. The big problem is that labour in India isn't all that productive. Offshoring isn't some magic bullet. Companies have tried that and are still trying. Google, Microsoft etc have offices in India. They also keep their offices in the US and Europe not just out of imaginary obligation to westerners, but because it makes economic sense. See also how Apple still does lots of the design work in the US, but manufactures in China. They would off-shore more off the design work as well, if they could. (And if Apple could but would not, someone else would do it and eat their lunch.)

knorker 4y ago
Offshoring is not the same thing. There are great people in India. It's just more conducive for them to get better pay if they manage to get an H1B and move to the US. If they could just "work remote", then you (as an American, or at least someone who can and does work in the US? Well, applies to any western country) are no longer competing with "people from India who manage to get an H1B and have a family situation compatible with moving countries", but suddenly with ALL qualified workers in India. Big tech in the west employs HUGE numbers of expats from lower paid countries. A very large portion of which Big tech paid for the H1B (or equiv) and relocation costs. If you are remote, then you're only valued on your output. And I'm not saying you're in a poor position against a random engineer from India (nor presumably from a random engineer in the US), but you'll be in a poor position against the equivalent of your amazing local coworker who moved from India (or hell, any European country with less pay) because that's where the job was. If the job is "anywhere, because it's remote", then I'm saying that you may not be on the winning side of this change. Opening up "work from anywhere" is not like offshoring to save costs. More like given two equally valuable people, why should an employer pay a premium to one, just because they chose to live in a higher cost of living country?
- eru 4y ago
  I don't work in the US nor Europe. > Opening up "work from anywhere" is not like offshoring to save costs. More like given two equally valuable people, why should an employer pay a premium to one, just because they chose to live in a higher cost of living country? Yes, and that's progress! That's good!
  - knorker 4y ago
    Sure. I just mostly see this argument made by silicon valley people moving to Texas or whatever, and asking why they should not continue getting silicon valley comp. Most just think they're clever and exploiting the system, and the thought that they'd get paid lowly Texas (or Ohio) salaries never occurred to them.
    - eru 4y ago
      Thanks, we seem to mostly agree. Though I do think 'off-shoring' from California to the Ohio vs off-shoring from California to India have important aspects in common. For better or worse, agglomeration effects are real, and for some ineffable reasons software people are more productive when located in Silicon Valley, rather than Ohio. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_agglomeration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_agglomeration However the pandemic forced an investment in making remote-work work. That's not even so much an investment in technology (hardware or software), but more taking the time and effort to figure out what works and doesn't work. It's full of soft factors.

pmoriarty 4y ago

There are time zones issues, communication issues, and culture issues that are difficult if not impossible to cost-effectively overcome for offshoring to countries like India.. Otherwise all jobs would have been offshored already, whether local employees "wanted to play that game" or not. Employers aren't hiring locally out of the goodness of their hearts.

knorker 4y ago
Big tech is largely staffed by people they "imported" for the job (don't mean that in a bad way, as it includes me). Why pay to get H1B and shipping for someone from India when you can just hire that same person in place and not only save on that, but also salary? Offshoring in my experience does not usually work on an individual basis.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

welshwelsh 4y ago

Yes please. If companies could replace highly paid Americans with lower paid Indians without hurting the bottom line they should do so without hesitation. Unfortunately it's not that simple. It usually turns out that these lower paid employees are significantly worse, and Indian nationals who are highly competent demand salaries similar to Americans.

knorker 4y ago
> Unfortunately it's not that simple. It usually turns out that these lower paid employees are significantly worse, But it's literally the exact same people, in this case. Big tech currently pays to move them to the US, and then pays them higher salary. That is very different from spinning up a department in India.