Your post mentions what seems to me the biggest economic mystery of all: why didn’t outsourcing, offshoring and remote work take over everything? Why do 1st world countries keep having any non-service jobs at all? Why does Silicon Valley keep hiring programmers who live in Silicon Valley, instead of equally capable and much cheaper programmers available remotely? There are no laws against that, so is it just inertia? Would slightly better remote work tech lead to a complete overturn of the world labor market?
Would slightly better remote work tech lead to a complete overturn of the world labor market?
Does the complete overturn of the world labor market strike you as something various people/institutions in those countries would want? Inertia, in this context is surely the desired state.
I thought employers (and more generally the elite, who are net buyers of labor) would be happy with a remote work revolution. But they don’t seem to be, hence my confusion.
Your post mentions what seems to me the biggest economic mystery of all: why didn’t outsourcing, offshoring and remote work take over everything? Why do 1st world countries keep having any non-service jobs at all? Why does Silicon Valley keep hiring programmers who live in Silicon Valley, instead of equally capable and much cheaper programmers available remotely? There are no laws against that, so is it just inertia? Would slightly better remote work tech lead to a complete overturn of the world labor market?
Does the complete overturn of the world labor market strike you as something various people/institutions in those countries would want? Inertia, in this context is surely the desired state.
I thought employers (and more generally the elite, who are net buyers of labor) would be happy with a remote work revolution. But they don’t seem to be, hence my confusion.
State level actors don’t want rapid disruption to the worldwide socioeconomic order.