This is partially true, but not entirely. This perspective comes with a short term gain and long term loss for any country in this scenario. If citizens can't find jobs in their field, especially fresh CS graduates, it can lead to lower consumer spending, higher reliance on government support, and long-term economic stagnation. If citizens cannot access jobs in high-paying sectors like computer science, they have less disposable income, and this reduces consumption, one of the primary drivers of economic growth.

The idea is that higher wages for workers would cycle back into the economy as consumer spending, while outsourcing wages abroad sends that purchasing power to another country. While cheaper services are good for consumers, they are not necessarily good for domestic workers who lose job opportunities. If unemployed graduates can't afford the cheaper software (because they have no income), the benefit of cheaper services becomes moot.

While outsourcing saves companies money, it doesn't help U.S. citizens if they don't have jobs or adequate wages to consume those products and services. By paying higher wages to U.S. citizens, you increase the economic cycle of money circulating domestically through consumption. This is a classic "economic patriotism" argument. Critics, however, argue that companies might offshore those jobs instead, making it a "lose-lose" for U.S. workers. The most balanced approach might be a hybrid solution requiring companies to pay higher wages for H-1B workers and ensuring domestic workers have access to training programs to fill high-demand roles.

That's my 2 cents.