If there is no advantage to your job being done while being physically collocated within the US, there is no advantage to your job being done by someone in the US.
What 90% of the people commenting here don’t seem to realize is that their argument for WFH implicitly states that the fact that they were being paid more than their counterparts in cheaper locales means they were being overpaid. And yeah, some of the LCOL folks are going Amen to that, except even the lowest cost of living employees is a few times more expensive than counterparts in Asia, South America, Eastern Europe and even Western Europe.
Jobs are more likely to move from LCOL and HCOL US locations to cheaper places abroad than from HCOL to LCOL US locations because the HCOL/LCOL US cost multiple is somewhere at 1.25 to 1.5 at most, whereas the US LCOL/place abroad cost multiple is closer to 2-4x.
Time zone still makes a difference, there are very few jobs that can be completely or largely asynchronous. Then, the assumptions are that talent is everywhere, which is true if we ignore the numbers but focus only on the existence of talent (i.e., 1 talented person is enough), and that the work culture is somewhat irrelevant, i.e., what matters is throwing warm bodies, cannon fodder if you will, at the problem.
Now, anyone who has dealt with outsourced in-house IT services to India or other cheaper countries in terms of wages has quickly recognized that companies have traded paying more and having problems solved for paying less and having the problems persist. I am speaking generally and without any trace of discrimination in my thinking, I am just observing.
If you allow me an analogy, for many decades African soccer teams have been on the verge of "exploding" on the international stage, perhaps winning the World Cup (think of the Nigerian team in 1994) because of their undeniable raw talent. But we are still here, 30 years later, hoping for that victory, with the best results achieved by a Moroccan team full of players raised professionally elsewhere.
Culture is important, and not easy to transmit or acquire, especially when physically elsewhere. If I had stayed in my home country and worked remotely for a U.S. company, I would have done a much poorer job at work, due to my lack of knowledge of U.S. work culture and "proper" ways of working.
Add to that, Canada has been inviting talented migrants in bulk (good for Canada and those migrants!) and that is a recipe for disaster for high tech wages in the US. Again, asking for remote work is just digging your own graveyard.
But this claim that time zone matters isn’t even true in the way the GP thinks. If time zone does indeed matter, it strengthens the case to move the entire team wholesale to cheaper locales than keep anyone hired in the US.
Time zone is one reason. The other is about work culture, ways of culture, schools, the academic world, the media, the circle of friends that often overlaps with the circle of professional acquaintances, the expectations.
You’re literally making my argument for me. Like you say, culture is important and not easy to transmit online. Americans working remote will have no company culture whereas the Europeans and Asians (who have returned to office in much larger numbers) will actually build company and working culture and will start outperforming their U.S. counterparts. As a bonus, they won’t even cost as much.
Again, one does not need to argue that remote work is superior or inferior than in office work to see that pushing to eliminate in office work in the short period of time American workers had power in decades, was eliminating the only advantage they had that justified their higher earnings. Whether remote work is superior or not, pushing for it is a great example of turkeys voting for Christmas.
And from our survey results, our completely US based teams reported higher team cohesion (and demonstrated better performance) than teams with a mix of nationalities.
Unless a company is willing to completely relocate offshore, there is always going to be an advantage for US based developers. And as long as a company is targeting primarily US consumers, their is an advantage to being located here.
Either:
a) workplace culture is hard to transmit online, in which case you’d need in-office for new workers
b) workplace culture can be transmitted online, in which case foreign workers can be integrated well into the company (even if this process takes decades)
Working remotely does not mean being in a cave since birth and communicate with a radio with your manager and co-workers.
There are some cultures, and I come from one of them, who are different, and let's limit ourselves to work culture informed by the culture of the country at large, from the U.S. work culture. For instance, Indian culture is very hierarchical, more title-oriented than the U.S. work culture, and largely people don't like--or straight-up refuse--to admit they don't know something.
For example, expectations may come from work, but not from your work, but from the work of others not at similar workplaces (the "work culture" more in general). One of the (mildly) "shocking" cultural moments I experienced when I first came to the U.S. more than a decade ago was that shops were mostly open at all times during the day and on Sundays (and some supermarkets 24/7, which was very new to me).
Did it inform me, rather brutally, about the way people in the United States view work? Yes. If I had had a conversation about the same work culture living all my life in Spain, would I have been informed in the same way? No.
I met some of my professional acquaintances in tech at the gym, not at work. It is much harder to get the same exposure in Mendoza, Argentina (first name that came to my mind, I am looking for wine).
Workers pushing for work from home isn’t going to change this. If in office is a competitive advantage, companies will pay more for in office employees. If it’s not a competitive advantage, no amount of workers not pushing for WFH will cause companies to pay for offices.
If they are instead forced to offer universal wfh as a concession to the labour market, then yes, outsourcing might be more attractive.
Because a corporation needs officers and senior management. Those people are typically in the owner class who benefit from cheap labor. Owner class still prefers to live in rich urban metros.