I can't help but notice how much whining there is about outsourcing (including from me) As an American programmer, let me say that I don't think that many of u

I can't help but notice how much whining there is about outsourcing (including from me) As an American programmer, let me say that I don't think that many of us consider "outsourcing" to be the enemy. There's no moral reason whatsoever why people in one patch of land deserve jobs and people in some other patch don't. The enemy is the commoditization of programming talent (and on adverse terms; I'd be happy to be commoditized at a rate near what I'm actually worth) and the attitude that we're just cost centers to be squeezed and trimmed, and the fact that when this approach backfires (the cheapest programmers, anywhere in the world, produce shitty code) it's not management but engineers who have to clean up the mess. Management gets promotions, engineers get legacy code. That's the evil. It doesn't matter, morally speaking, if it's a shitty outsourcing shop in India or California. Likewise, if it profits you (and the programmer) to hire top talent in California or in India, you should do so. The technical term for this is labor arbitrage. When a company spots a true labor arbitrage (a chance to profit by outsourcing work to a cheaper country) it has the right to use it. I don't think anyone disputes that. As Omar Little says, it's all in the game. But if it's a legitimate move for a company, it's also a legitimate move for an employee. This person spotted a labor arbitrage and took the spread for himself. Unless he compromised classified information (then I feel differently about the whole matter) good for him. If his employer spotted a labor arbitrage (i.e. that his job could be outsourced) they would take the profit all for themselves, and he'd be out of a job. He spotted it first, and he got the profit.