←back to thread

360 points tareqak | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
me551ah ◴[] No.44470473[source]
I doubt if this will make much difference. Offshoring as a tactic emerged in the pandemic when companies realised that being “remote” works just as well.

Sure, foreign R&D still gets amortized over 15 years (NPV ≈59 % of a full write-off, so you “lose” ~8.6 % of your R&D spend in present-value terms, and only 6.7 % of the cost is deductible in year 1, creating a 19.6 % cash-tax gap). But offshore wages are often 50–70 % below U.S. rates:

• Even after the slower amortization drag, hiring at half the cost nets you ~30 % total savings on R&D headcount.

• On a pure cash basis you only need ~20 % lower wages to break even; most offshore markets easily exceed that.

• So the labor-cost arbitrage far outweighs the tax timing penalty unless your foreign salaries are less than ~20 % below U.S. levels.

In short: the 15-year amort rule hurts your tax deduction, but 50 %+ lower offshore wages more than make up for it.

replies(7): >>44470502 #>>44470560 #>>44470669 #>>44470673 #>>44471236 #>>44471284 #>>44471500 #
BobbyJo ◴[] No.44470502[source]
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.

replies(4): >>44470525 #>>44470740 #>>44471078 #>>44471113 #
xlii ◴[] No.44470740{3}[source]
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.

replies(4): >>44471194 #>>44471368 #>>44472695 #>>44472917 #
1. CalRobert ◴[] No.44471368{4}[source]
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.
replies(1): >>44472527 #
2. xlii ◴[] No.44472527[source]
I agree.

Rarely companies want to hire communication expert to help shape good practices even though they’re spending hundreds of thousands if not millions on stuff like Datadog etc.

I have this theory that mailing lists with rich search (slash Google Groups slash Newsgroups) are the best communication tools.

Hadn’t had opportunity to try it out though, as it was shunned „old tech”.