It's a colossal issue in tech.
Software crosses geographical borders with zero cost. Onshore vs. offshore is a cost ratio of ~3 to 1. Organizations align their incentives towards offshore hiring at the working level--onshore hiring is frozen/positions are rejected while offshore equivalents are approved, and offshore headcount "ratio" becomes a tracked metric where high ratios are celebrated/rewarded for efficiency.
NO ONE in tech is talking about H1B. It's old news from an era where work was on premises and platforms hadn't caught up to international data restrictions. Now I can build a table and automatically generate onshore and offshore views that filter at the row and column level in a legally compliant way. All my dev/test/ple use synthetic customer data or automatically mask anything relevant, and nearly all applications have parity access--no more Citrix or clean rooms that crush output. The reality is that the companies who are deep in this don't even want H1B en masse, because why bring someone over and pay them 3x, AND THEN pay extra for legal Visa support, when you can have an equivalent headcount work offshore doing functionally the same thing for ONE THIRD of the wages? It's no surprise to me that we're seeing H1Bs get perverted into roles they were never intended for--the original use case is heavily outmoded.
And of course, it's the entry level positions that are easiest to offshore, so it's not only a loss of jobs, it's a loss of the local talent development pipeline. All those fresh out of undergrad or career-switcher, train-on-the-job type roles? They don't exist anymore--we're training 3 people offshore to do that work. And now I've got too many people offshore, so I need to set up some offshore management layers just to handle the ops side. So even that onshore SME who would have normally progressed their career as a team leader? Well, they still have "functional responsibility" for managing/training the offshore team, but we only count direct reports for role span, sorry... Meanwhile, leaders make location visits and receive separate presentations from the 'offshore team' who conveniently leave out all of the structure/support/mess clean-up the onshore leads have done to enable them.
If production capacity for critical infrastructure is something we want to protect, human capital for software development is a place worth looking. The human part of more and more industries will continue to move to software--it's worth our time to pay attention to where those skillsets are being cultivated. Frankly, if agentic AI kills off entry level work and puts emphasis back on strong local SMEs who can dramatically increase their own output, it would be a blessing.
This is compounded by the fact that as we all know engineering talent from India is absolutely abysmal. The code quality is just not there as a whole.
The thing I find to be most lacking is the business context. I've got a fair-sized offshore team, and they're all 'fine' ticket to ticket, but the quality of the output is heavily dependent on the guiding requirements and oversight from my onshore leads. I've experimented with offshore team + offshore lead working direct with the business, and they took the path of least resistance to deliver as much as they could without really thinking through the bigger picture or future requirements. They also didn't understand the business implications of certain features or defects and prioritize/escalate them appropriately. Now I have an onshore lead I pulled in to clean up the mess, implement the right framework, etc.
But would I be as productive overall with one third of the onshore individuals and no offshore? It's hard to say; I don't think so. Further, because other dev disciplines have offshore components, I have an incentive to maintain my own offshore presence so I can have them side-by-side and communicating during evening grooming and building relationships.