Because when corporations want to work in unison to scare the workforce into believing they’re worth less so you can pay them less, it’s important to use words that build the brand you’re going for.

For example, if you said “companies are looking to countries without the mental workforce to do their jobs in a bid to save money”, your argument would be weak. People would see your propaganda, laugh, and then look for a new job at another company to jump ship and get a big pay increase.

If instead you refer to those people as “talent”, there’s a small but non negligible percentage of the population who is sheepish enough to become afraid and form some kind of stockholm syndrome to endear them to you as their employer.

For a similar exercise, note how onlyfans doesn’t refer to its workers as “sex workers”, “whores”, or “prostitutes”, but rather as “content creators”.

As long as they can do the job, they are talent. What it costs to hire them is an orthogonal issue.

The same way we call SWEs in Cary, NC talent even though they earn half of what they would for equivalent roles in the Bay Area (compare RTP salaries for the exact same roles and levels at Cisco, Netapp, etc). The value of labor is always an arbitrage between talent, location, supply, and demand.