Remix.run Logo
▲ wrxd 4 hours ago

You know who doesn't need visas? Remote workers

▲Longlius 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Remote workers in India don't compete for housing, energy, health care, education, and food. If an American isn't getting the job anyway, then why bring them here in the first place to drive prices up for everyone else?

▲JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Remote workers in India don't compete for housing, energy, health care, education, and food

You’re talking about an immigrant population that is notably net tax paying, better educated and less unemployed than population.

As for your list: housing is a political choice; residential energy use is increasingly a rounding error; nationally, we’re closing hospitals and schools more than finding them constrained; and we’re a major food (and energy) exporter.

▲throwaway85825 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If a mansion is surrounded by a slum is society better off? In India the answer is yes but in america we see slums as a failure.

▲JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> If a mansion is surrounded by a slum is society better off?

Who is in the mansion and who is in the slum?

▲throwaway85825 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Irrelevant

The government exists for the general welfare and and economic system that subsidizes idleness because the disingenuous say "look over there, its a net positive" while ignoring the externalized cost borne by the taxpayer is just theft from the taxpayer.

▲monocasa 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To keep all of that money you just enumerated flowing in the local economy.

▲gimmeshelter369 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

FWIW the "international" folks I work with hardly spend any money in the US. Most of it is saved and spent or invested during 2-month annual visits to homeland.

▲dubcanada 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Your logic is incorrect, you are thinking that a "international" folk buying a TV is what they mean. But that's not correct. Paying income taxes, paying tax on cars, paying tax on gas, paying rent, these matter a lot more to the government then you buying an iphone from the apple store in the mall versus one in "international country".

▲warkdarrior 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's probably just your company. In Silicon Valley, "international" folks spend a lot of money on buying houses (multiple of them sometimes), cars, home improvement, going out to restaurants, etc.

▲mc32 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do we need to make the rich richer or allow locals affordability?

▲ivell 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Me buying food from restaurant would make the owner richer, but would also employ more people at the restaurant.

The scarcity issue is valid when the resource is limited. In case of US, I was not aware of food scarcity. Even housing is more due to policies than actual land scarcity.

Economic activity does have positive feeback. Yes, some people get unfairly rich - but the solution is not to stop the activity, instead try to get the rich pay their fair share of contribution to the country.

▲overfeed 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Me buying food from restaurant would make the owner richer, but would also employ more people at the restaurant

What of one of the employees at the restaurant had your job, and they bought food there? Or are you declaring only you can do your job?

▲mc32 31 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Why are we relegating locals to menial restaurant jobs? Why not have programs to get them trained and into higher earning jobs?

A local working a restaurant will often need to take advantage of welfare. If instead we funneled the locals to higher paying jobs, we would be better off. We're supposed to look after our own citizens, afterall --that's the whole point of electing a government.

▲p0w3n3d 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sorry but there is no competition for health care in US. US basically has no health care. Unless of course you buy it (i.e. pay the fraudulent companies to give you false sense of security and leave you alone in the worst moment of your life)

▲samtp 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yup, this is much more likely to lead to more offshoring than companies hiring more American workers. Which also means that communities in the US with a large amount of workers on visas will also suffer.

▲joshheitzman 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Offshoring it hardly new. Take Microsoft for example. They offshored heavily over 20 years ago. Allow more immigration or the jobs will be offshored is an idle threat. Companies have done tons of offshoring and reshored many things after it didn't work out. More or less immigration isn't going to move the need on offshoring much either way.

▲samtp 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Of course it's not new. And of course it never really stopped. But there is a new incentive for execs to give it a much bigger push given all the recent remote work tooling and when they now think a programmer is just monitoring AI output. So why not pay the monitor SE Asian wages rather than US wages.

▲joshheitzman 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The trend is away from remote work though. So much more stuff is hybrid then it was a few years ago. SE Asian wages means a 12 hour time zone difference and that carries a real cost on efficiency (I personally experienced this at two companies). Future poorly thought offshoring attempts will go just as badly as they have in the past. If anything AI makes it worse, since each individual dev is responsible for a bigger slice of the output they need to be in the loop on business / customer needs and significant timezone differences make that harder.

▲AdrianB1 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Real example: my company is US based, top and middle management is in US, some middle management and lower in Europe, managing workers in India and Manila. Same scheme with Costa Rica, but managed directly from US.

▲bottle_roket 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What about Central America?

▲joshheitzman 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Plenty of offshoring to both Central America and South America has occurred in recent years. It was a somewhat untapped offshoring location, but that no longer seems to be the case.

▲bingohbangoh 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A key difference is that at least one isn’t competing for limited housing with offshoring. That is the number 1 driver of the affordability crisis atm.

I’m a fan of the YIMBY types but we aren’t building enough annd, until we are, it’s a problem to put more people where we already have little housing!

▲Daishiman 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The post-Covid offshoring is looking quite a bit different though.

▲joshheitzman 3 hours ago | parent [-]

How so?

▲andrewl-hn 2 hours ago | parent [-]

For starters, compensation is almost entirely location-based now. Situations where a person lives in cheap city / country but paid close to US rates were never common, but in last 5 years or so they disappeared almost entirely. Moreover, every company seems to know about local rates, they all source this data from the same sources, so if you're job hunting they all give you the same offer. And, since there are so much competition for positions companies are very reluctant to bid on candidates, and most offers do not allow negotiations. Even if paying you slightly above market would still save the company quite a lot of money they don't do it. So, situations where you receive the same offer from multiple companies, and all of them are "take it or leave it", became pretty common.

I haven't been on a job market for a long time, but this is what I hear from people around me.

▲vrganj 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Offshoring to India is an idle threat due to radically different work cultures and expectations.

Offshoring to, say Poland or Portugal on the other hand...

▲joshheitzman 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Offshoring (form the US) to Europe, especially eastern Europe is not new either. The newish offshoring location was Central America and South America, but those have been tapped as well.

For example see https://theenterpriseworld.com/offshore-development-centers/ where they are listing well established locations for (US) offshoring.

▲newtonianrules 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Then let them already. Relocate all the work to India. I’m tired of US companies threatening everyone with job losses. Just fucking do it already.

▲amsjunior 3 hours ago | parent [-]

They already are.

▲cryptonector 15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm old enough to remember when people gnashed their teeth about the U.S. taking talent from abroad being 'brain drain' that hurt those countries. Which is it? We want to take the rest of the world's best and brightest and screw those other countries in the process, or we feel bad about that and don't want to do that?

▲janalsncm an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ok, let’s say it leads to 60% offshoring and 40% hiring more Americans.

That 40% is a win for Americans. It means more new grads will be hired instead of losing out to “experts” from TATA to copy and paste from ChatGPT. Our vibe coders will be home grown, corn fed.

The argument works no matter what you think the breakdown is, 70/30, 80/20 etc.

▲finolex1 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

It's not so simple because it's also a drop in demand for american goods and services. Fewer taxes paid, less consumption, etc.

▲zergrush 18 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, that is the incorrect take. Offshoring isn't easy or cheap. Especially when Trump is basically trying to get companies to hire American workers by any means.

It is risky to invest in offshoring when the outcome isn't guaranteed to save you money.

▲HoldOnAMinute 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Suffer"? It might help bring home prices back down to reality.

For the first time in my life I'm seeing high-income earners as a big drag on society.

▲rdtsc 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> You know who doesn't need visas? Remote workers

Is it meant as a rhetorical reply to the officials as in "aha, but Microsoft will prevail and make it even worse for you, American workers" or as a reply to the workers: "don't fret, move back to your country and work the same job anyway". Or was it meant as a hint for the officials "don't forget to close that loophole as well"?

▲cryptonector 7 minutes ago | parent [-]

Like you I suspect the former. But if we really believe that economics is not a zero sum game then offshoring is better for everyone because it keeps talent in the countries they can help improve, and it is a rising tide that lifts all boats, serving to equalize wealth. Yes, for a while it should have the effect of reducing incomes in the U.S., but so does importing the rest of the world's talent into the U.S., so arguably offshoring is much better. But if [regardless of whether we believe economics is/is not zero sum] we want to keep the rest of the world down then we should absolutely take their talent.

▲janalsncm 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Hiring remote workers also doesn’t require filling out H1B applications and dealing with USCIS. If using remote workers was just as good, companies would already do that.

▲grubbydiff 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

I assume you mean offshore rather than "wfh" style remote. If so, companies already do that and they have been doing it on a much larger scale - https://www.reveliolabs.com/news/business/american-companies.... This will simply be another accelerant.

▲TrackerFF 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not that salary expenses is a big problem for top tech companies, but remote workers don't warrant US west-coast comps either.

▲swiftcoder 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> but remote workers don't warrant US west-coast comps either

I mean, we don't really need that west coast comp either? If I was pulling my old FAANG comp here in Spain, I'd be in the top 0.1% of earners...

▲ethanwillis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Why don't we need it? I wouldn't mind being in the 0.1% or 0.0001% of earners in a place.

▲swiftcoder 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, who doesn't want unlimited money? That's decidedly different from "needing" it (I could in no way manage to live on the West Coast on a Spanish salary, for example)

▲ethanwillis an hour ago | parent [-]

Well then why do the people who do earn that much there need it?

▲swiftcoder an hour ago | parent [-]

Sky-high cost of living (property prices, mostly). Shitty apartment with a commute in the bay costs $3,000/month. Starter home in Seattle costs a million plus.

It's also a vicious cycle: high tech salaries in those areas have driven up the cost of living.

▲Gud 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why not? Doesn’t that depend on the worker output?

▲SauciestGNU 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

One might argue that it should, but as a remote worker in a low cost area I don't mind making 20% less than my NYC/Bay colleagues as I can still live like a king in my midwest city on regionally adjusted swe comp.

▲ethanwillis 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Hatred of the labor theory of value. This isn't my judgement on it. Just my guess why certain people with certain interests argue against it

▲derivagral 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Regulated industries often have business language mandating onshore, citizens-only employment. If it isn't required by immigration, the businesses buying the product are requiring assurances (likely due to their own compliance).

As for non-protected roles, global market participation has ups and downs.

▲robotnikman an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They should clamp down on that next. Looking at the past 50 years, offshoring has only caused trouble for the citizens of the country and led things like the rust belt happening.

▲cpursley an hour ago | parent [-]

The rust belt was not caused by call centers in Pakistan, that was the Petrodollar and China deals. But it would be great to have both back (call centers and manufacturing).

▲rpowers 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Don't worry, I'm sure their leadership is thinking "AI Bots" instead of remote workers.

▲gwbas1c 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Which begs the question: What's better for the US economy?

Compared to having someone move to the US, does hiring a remote worker help or hinder the US economy?

▲m000 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People need to stop asking what's better for the "economy" and start asking what's better for themselves. If the two don't align, it should be tough luck for the "economy", not the people.

▲jaredklewis 2 hours ago | parent [-]

"The economy" is often just another way of saying "everyone in aggregate."

Of course "the economy" is a vague, undefined term. But it's easy to think of various specific measures like median household income or the unemployment rate that capture this dynamic.

So regarding your final sentiment, I think that often "the economy" and "the people" are the same thing. If something raises the unemployment rate, that will bad for "the economy" and also "the people."

▲baggy_trough 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is an incredibly blinkered view. The economy is important, but there are many other factors as to whether a given policy is overall good for the citizenry or not.

▲ an hour ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
▲phainopepla2 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Elon Musk and I are doing quite well financially, in aggregate.

Obviously how wealth is distributed is a hugely important factor, which a "good" economy does not necessarily take into account.

▲ 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲JuniperMesos 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Depends a lot on how that remote worker's children vote.

▲dfxm12 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Probably not a simple question or answer on the face of it, but it's really not worth looking at this action in such a narrow lens, because this is not happening in a vacuum. Instead, we should look at it through the overall context of all of this admin's immigration policies, which have been bad for the US economy.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/new-aclu-afl-cio-report-...

https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2026/05/12/g-s1-12...

▲mahogany 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can you explain more? This statement is already true before this policy change, so I don't understand why this is not a non sequitur. But I know this is a common rhetoric so I am trying to understand what the logic is.

▲asdff 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thats true but now they hate remote workers. They want you in that timezone.

▲morkalork 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Plenty of tech workers in Canada and LATAM in the same time zones

▲blhack 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That will come next.

▲tlogan 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And AI.

▲CamperBob2 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I'd love to understand how people think the H1B program is going to survive the LLM era. Why in the world would I import a foreign worker to do something I can just as easily tell a clanker to do? The clanker is better at this stuff than I am!

Is it really just a matter of empire-building, at the end of the day? That can't last. Management realizes that, right?

▲jmyeet 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is an inane comment. Here are the two types of "remote" work:

1. Remote within the US. You still need valid work authorization;

2. Remote outside the US. This is just offshoring and if it really worked, every tech jobs would be offshored. Companies have been trying to do this for decades. Companies would love nothing more than to offshore every white collar job. They would if they could.

▲wrxd 2 hours ago | parent [-]

So the exact same person working within the US, even better if sitting in an office, is a good employee but if they're working from abroad all of a sudden they're not that good?