Hiring me in the UK is cheaper than hiring someone else in Silicon Valley. I don't think that necessarily means I'm any worse a programmer, does it?
I've explained that there are no incentives for the quality being the same, only for costs to be lower. Which has essentially always resulted in quality dropping. Including in Boeing's own recent history.
> It's possible costs will be lower due to better efficiency and hiring in different markets, not due to worse pilots.
It's also possible that you start shooting solid gold out your ass.
> Hiring me in the UK is cheaper than hiring someone else in Silicon Valley. I don't think that necessarily means I'm any worse a programmer, does it?
If the goal is solely to hire a cheaper developer, it's not you they'll be going to.
If you’re just speculating that it’s technically still possible, then how is that valuable discussion? As OP said, it’s also technically possible to crap gold. So what?
Perhaps the pilots union wanted $400k a year for each pilot, but their market value was only $200K a year?
The firm has every incentive to do this (including hiring cheap programmers who would have difficulty remaining employed directly on their abilities) and I’ve seen this happen more than rarely. There are good and terrible programmers everywhere in the world, yet I can’t ever recall the “new programmer on your account” being excellent; I don’t think that’s by chance.
The “outsourcing” of critical functions concerns me way more than the “off-shoring” does.