[ylg]

TLDR; the author thinks outsourcing that attempts to increase ROI by leveraging international income disparities to minimize labor costs doesn't work because providers of such work want to earn as much as money as possible for their own businesses.

My thought/question for the author would be: how then can companies that work together do so without operating as charities, or are all businesses in relationships deluding themselves? Should everything be brought in-house, for example, house building? Is there a line, or a particular type of outsourcing that works or that doesn't? (Executive management, sewing employees' clothing, trimming their neckbeards?)

[karmajunkie]

I think it's fairer to say the author thinks outsourcing fails because interests are not aligned. The client benefits from a successful, well-designed and efficient code base. The outsourcing company benefits from billing more time to clients that pay a lot on time.

I don't think this is an overseas thing. This is an in-house vs hired gun question.

[ylg]

For the "Anymore" part of the authors title to be logical, the points in his article about decreases in income disparity over time must be considered an integral part of his argument, i.e., before the disparities were reduced, outsourcing (according to him) worked.

Regardless, the question about how other businesses can be successful in their relationships if his argument were to hold water still stands—every business relationship involves imperfectly aligned interests.

By the way, a client benefits from positive return on investment. A client who loses money and receives a well-designed and efficient code base does not, i.e., the codebase is merely one component with variable traits that must be adjusted properly for each scenario.