OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

This ignores the other financial and non-financial costs of offshoring: legal, cultural, temporal... a lot of the time, those close the gap.

On paper, offshoring has made sense the entire time, and yet here we are in 2025 and companies still hire American devs. Not only that, they often fly in foreign devs just to pay them more here than if they had just offshored to their home country.

Yeah people have been offshoring then onshoring once they realize offshoring sucks since at least the 90s. I remember my dad, who was also a software dev, complaining about it 20 years ago. It always swings back. The network effect in huge hubs like SF and NYC is massive.

I have approx. 15 years of experience working remotely for various companies all across the globe and was always an advocate of thesis that remote work is difficult and most people aren’t cut for it and (to horror of many proponents) and on average are less efficient than on-site hires.

There are many reasons: It’s difficult to understand _intention_ when deprived of non-verbal communication and working in a choppy network call. Even if one can gloss over communication needs etc. there’s burnout looming around the corner and natural, healthy laziness getting into the way. Sometimes even internal politics might be blocking knowledge/access/contribution for more or less peculiar reasons.

It’s not like it’s impossible to hire remote engineer, yet my (completely unmetered) estimates out of experience is that approx. 10% of engineers willing to work remotely can sustain health (physical and mental) and be efficient outside of 1-2 years of honeymoon period.

There was some tumbling around COVID but IMO both stationary jobs and remote ones are doing well on mid-high quality positions.

100%. Most of the planet is cheaper than the US, and has been for decades. That being the case, how are there so many knowledge workers here still?

In addition to this, those factors contribute varying amounts to the total in any given case. So you also can't make the case that offshoring never makes sense, because in specific cases it does. But now there is a ~20% incentive for it to make sense in fewer cases.

It also has to do with how the companies handle the offshoring, as some larger corporations take the approach of just using an outsourcing company from a specific country (usually chosen by price) and assume that you can just pay a specific amount of money per developer and they will all be the same quality as the guys coming into the office.

I've worked most of my career as a remote employee and I can say that the best arrangement is when the company is as involved in hiring offshore employees as they are with hiring onshore ones. Someone working through an intermediary will always be disconnected from the company's success, as they work for an outsourcing company, and not the US corporation itself.

There are definitely a lot of discussions to be had around employee cultural fit, and I don't just mean company culture. You want a similar mindset and work ethic that your other employees have if you want a high chance of success.

We also need to talk about how some companies haven't been able to successfully adapt their processes to work with remote employees alongside the office employees and sometimes treat the offshore ones as second class citizens, which is not really a great thing.

From experience I think your 10% feels overly pessimistic. 30-40% feels more accurate, just like only about the same % that can survive an open plan or cubicle floor.

I see lots of people thriving in remote. Main reasons being a huge increase in quality of life. Regaining 2-3 hours of senseless commuting time per day, getting small household chores done over lunch, not having to schedule repair and maintainance appointments in the weekends etc. is huge.

Now I do agree it is not for everyone. I see especially younger people living alone not coping to well. Part of the reason is they (ab)used the office as a socializing place, and are not used to organizing a personal social life outside work. There's also people that don't actually have much work outside of attending office meetings, and nobody thrives sitting in Teams calls all day.

Then there's also real downsides. Some people living in shoebox appartments in the city just do not have the space. W While work can be done (more?) efficiently remote, but carreer climbing needs in person contact. It's like dating. Real dinner or a video call? No comparison.

Best of both worlds would be 0 commute time to a luxurious private office inside the company premises. All the rest will be tradeoffs and compromises either way.

Hailing from an outsourcing destination I think I need to state the obvious: there exist IT jobs outside the US.

Americans have a... distinct work culture and companies - local and foreign - are not stupid, so nowadays they aim for the 50-75 percentile in terms of compensation.

On top of that you absolutely need to be fluent in English, which disqualifies half the candidates right off the bat.

All this combined makes it not obvious whether one would want to/could work for an American company - particularly if it's through various middlemen.

US used to be 100% worth it, but over the course of the last 25 years the ratio of GDPs per capita between USA and my country fell from 5.5 to around 3.75 and compensation naturally followed.

Lastly, the dollar fell 15% since the start of 2025 against my country's currency and that has had an effect on available openings.

I’ve been a part of the entire arc of offshored teams since the trend started in the late 90’s early 00’s. I’ve never seen it work. The primary issue is and always has been time zone related. While it doesn’t show to an accountant we do live on a sphere and there are implications to everyone. The solution is always to find some self contained effort for the remote centers but it never works because the entire company is pulling together and short of making the remote teams spin offs there’s no way to disentangle dependencies. And at some level even if you could management has to work cross regionally which isolates them from their center of power in the home office time zone. The root is the company is asking you to make immense personal sacrifice so they can save money if the model were to work. There is no upside to anyone other than the remote management in this situation so they burn out quickly and still fail because literally no one else in the company cares in any meaningful way. It’s unfair at its core and therefore fails.

The issues of quality and whatnot are at their core racist IMO but are made real because of the timezone issue. The norms and culture expected in the home time zones don’t translate easily and result in an impedance mismatch and a different measure of “good.” Because the remote team is isolated and unempowered they always struggle to adopt the standard of the team and to some extent can’t ever succeed in the quality space as it’ll be an ever shifting goalpost whose reasoning is effectively hidden. Then layer in the latent resentment on both sides and the whole situation is bound to fail, but the home teams have the advantage of being resident with the only management that matters.

I wish everyone involved would realize the experiment has failed. But CFOs are too powerful in most companies large enough to reasonably pull off outsourcing at all and the need for the CEO to please boards and investors who just operating off the financial statements and HBR white papers are too disconnected for why these efforts fail.

Unfortunately the current persecution of immigrants in the US will drive these arrangements more and more. Rather than on shoring local foreign talent with the collocated team, foreign talent will opt to avoid the fear society being birthed. This will lead to a strong incentive to follow talent to their home country leading to more imbalance in talent disoriented time zones. Maybe this would require everyone to figure out the above issues but I seriously doubt it. I think it’ll just make everyone less effective and not achieve anything positive for anyone.

One of the most insightful comments I've seen on this site.

A lot of companies just suck at it too. "Here's Slack, figure it out" seems to be a common approach. In person you can pester the person next to you when you're new, overhear conversations, etc. but remote it is MUCH harder to ascertain the culture, Slack etiquette, etc (my favourite was "people write in Slack all the time, in public, even to themselves, it's your job to mute Slack when you need focus, and don't use DM's unless you really need the privacy"), but I have only seen this done very well in one place - Auth0 (pour one out :-( ) . Maybe because it started remote with founders thousands of KM apart.

It seems like more American companies are noticing that Latin America has lots of intelligent, clever people who produce good work, and cost less. I have worked with a lot of Argentinians and really enjoyed it.

I'm in Europe now and it definitely is easier to set up calls with my South African colleagues than the American ones.

    > Americans have a... distinct work culture

That is a mighty wide brush to paint your generalisation. Do Brazilians or South Africans or Sri Lankans also have "distinct work culture"? I assume yes. Not much being said there.

Another way to look at it: If your country was much richer than the US the model would be flipped. Do you think Americans would post a similar generalisation here? Yep. Not much being said.