For everyone being compelled by their inner "Dog in the Manger" crying outsourcing to cheap countries. Outsourcing is already in play since 3 decades, but the actual salaries are kept in check by a stack of intermediaries.
Hiring remote workers directly would greatly speed up the process of salary equalisation (adjusted for COL). This in turn would put pressure on other industries in these countries and accelerate technical investments in productivit rather than relying on suply of cheap labour.
In the end after some 1-2 decaedes we'd wake up in much flatter world with perhaps reasons to not impose limits on labour mobility across borders.
> Hiring remote workers directly would greatly speed up the process of salary equalisation (adjusted for COL).
What makes you think that this adjustments for cost of living would persist? Competitive pressures are towards paying for productivity, not for cost of living.
> In the end after some 1-2 decades we'd wake up in much flatter world with perhaps reasons to not impose limits on labour mobility across borders.
I am not so sure about that. I share your hope for a flatter world, but I think that wage differentials are _not_ why people want to restrict migration. It's just a somewhat socially acceptable excuse that's sometimes given, but people will come up with other excuses as necessary.
My main evidence for this view is that migration from comparatively rich countries is not all that freer in most places. (And economically, migration from poorer countries doesn't make the receiving country poorer either, but people don't believe that.)
> What makes you think that this adjustments for cost of living would persist? Competitive pressures are towards paying for productivity, not for cost of living.
I think there is not a lot of competitive pressure, if there was, the salaries in Europe and Canada would already match the US ones.
It's another thing that the COL is quickly converging, especially in big cities. Goods already cost pretty much the same (adjusted for local taxes), services and housing vary a lot and remote work allows to arbitrage them. So in medium term you'll have an option to work from Zurich at $$$ or from anywhere at XX % less (the option I'd pick).
I have yet to see a reasonable argument for restricting migration, perhaps this would be a good topic for ASK HN? All economic arguments show free movement would lead to better labour (and capital) allocation.
Developer salaries have actually rised here in Mexico in the last 12/18 months. A recruiter mentioned to me a 30% increase all across the board. And I know Mexican Tech Leads who are making 90k USD . I myself got as hefty increase (doubled my salary) . All working here in Mexico for US companies.
> I think there is not a lot of competitive pressure, if there was, the salaries in Europe and Canada would already match the US ones.
Not necessarily, if there are productivity differences.
However, I do agree that there _not_ being a lot of competitive pressure is a plausible option. I was asking, because your comment suggested that there was some market pressure, but just exactly calibrated enough to equalize salaries but leave COL adjustments in place?
> Hiring remote workers directly would greatly speed up the process of salary equalisation (adjusted for COL).
In the end after some 1-2 decaedes we'd wake up in much flatter world with perhaps reasons to not impose limits on labour mobility across borders.