>become long term inequalityCan anyone explain me how so? I though it was supposed to improve inequality. As in you didn't have to be a Stanford grad, or be born in the US, or live in unaffordable places like Amsterdam, London or the Bay Area, to get access to good jobs?
So now some hard working individual from Africa, India or Vietnam who didn't win the lottery of birth can also get a good job too if he proves himself worthy, and also it will ease some of the housing pressure on those uber-expensive western tech-hub cities, while brining more money to developing nations. Win-win.
That all sounds to me like a global net benefit for the greater good of humanity. Is it not? More money in the hands of the working class in developing nations means less poverty, less global inequality, less emigration.
Now if your only moat was physical proximity, but not your skillset, well then ... tough, I guess, but I don't think this is a problem for most TBH. Offshoring and outsourcing is nothing new and has been a thing for decades and most western tech workers in expensive cities haven't gone extinct.
Plus, workers in rich western nations have plenty of other lucrative career prospects with moats around them if that's what they want: law, medicine, investment banking, defense and other government jobs, etc. People who went into SW development because of passion, will be fine either way.