I'll tell you that I'm getting overseas talent for roles where 10 years ago I would have hired …

I fully agree. Low interest rates mean companies/capital-providers look to speculative places (like new software products) to hit their growth numbers. Higher interest rates mean companies/capital-providers return to known/well-understood places to hit their growth numbers. I interpret the reasons in the article as well downstream from these kinds of investment decisions.

> The other thing he doesn't talk about is the rise of remote work and the downward pressure that it puts on wages This doesn't get nearly talked about as much and I feel the audience who is the loudest favoring remote work has more to benefit than just a reduced or eliminated commute. Rather, this puts people into job market's they never would have had a chance to be in. As companies leases run out on their offices they'll switch tune from demanding RTO to instead performing layoffs in higher salary & COL areas to drive down wages further. The "outsourcing scare" of the early 2000s was overblown. It will be for real this time.

The downward pressure depends on where you're sitting. Here in Kentucky, being able to pull in a FAANG salary that's based on the cost of labor in Seattle is a huge upswing in salary.

I will second this. I work for an American company that now routinely outsources to Eastern Europe. Wages are 1/3, most speak English fluently, and the time zone differences aren't really that big of an issue. It's much different than my experiences outsourcing to Asia around a decade ago. Many pushed for remote work, and the consequence might just be that they are out of a job.

> the rise of remote work and the downward pressure that it puts on wages I've seen the reverse. The same position pays easily 20% more than 4 years ago. (Though a lot of that is general inflation.) I work in the US, but not a large city.

I’d also say that there is less speculation since guaranteed investments carry higher payouts tied to interest rates and therefore the risk vs reward calculation swings the other way. If you invest 1 dollar into each of 100 ideas expecting one or two to hit and return double your investment but interest is at 5% it just doesn’t make sense to gamble your investment.

Your first point hits it exactly. Let's say that it's year X and you have two choices: either you bet that the future will be bleak, and cut cost and hunker down, or you bet that the future will be bright and make big investments. If X is 2022, the first bet will be right, while the second will lead to bloat and excess. But if X is 2014, the second bet will be right and the company will gain market share, while the first bet might make you go out of business. So big tech companies weren't so irrational to make those big bets to begin with, and they simply overcorrected the other way around afterwards. Now, as an employee in one of these I still think this is shortsighted and will damage them long term. But the stock market keeps rewarding these companies handsomely, so what do I know?

>I'll tell you that I'm getting overseas talent for roles where 10 years ago I would have hired entry level talent in the US the US is going to once again cripple one of their critical industries for short term gains, what happens when your senior engineers retire and there are no replacements prepared because it's more efficient to hire foreign senior engineers rather than onboarding and training a college grad? Even before AI improvements and Covid increasing remote work, the bar for hiring entry engineers was absurd and most startups only wanted seniors I can't blame companies for doing this on the micro level because it makes sense, but macro level the US government needs to take action and treat hiring remote similarly to bringing in a visa worker or add a form of tariff like you would for manufactured products. Government's job is to reign in market forces that are net bad for the …