u/Rachel_Varghese_1999

I was talking to a US startup founder recently about AI infrastructure costs, and he had completely missed one of the biggest policy moves India made this year.

India’s 2026 Budget quietly gave foreign cloud and hyperscaler companies a tax holiday all the way until 2047 for serving global customers using Indian data centres. That’s basically a 20+ year policy signal saying:

“Build your AI infrastructure here.”

And honestly, I don’t think enough founders outside India understand how significant that is.

This isn’t just about cheaper hosting.

It’s about India trying to become a long-term global AI and cloud infrastructure base. The government also added safe-harbour tax protections to reduce uncertainty for foreign firms using Indian data centre infrastructure.

When you combine that with:

• lower operating costs,
• massive engineering talent pools,
• rising AI adoption,
• and huge hyperscaler investments from companies like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon,

…the strategy becomes pretty obvious.

What I’m noticing is that some US founders still think of India mainly as an outsourcing destination.

But policy decisions like this suggest India is positioning itself much higher up the stack, as a place where global AI infrastructure itself gets built and operated.

Feels like many companies are still reacting to the AI race quarter-to-quarter, while India is making 20-year bets.

When JD Vance said new H-1B visa issuance was “down about 90%,” most people focused on immigration politics.

But I think the more important story is what happened to the jobs.

Because the roles didn’t disappear.

A lot of them simply moved.

I’ve been noticing this pattern for months now talking to founders and engineering leaders. Earlier, companies would sponsor aggressively, relocate talent to the US, and build teams around H-1B pipelines.

Now many are asking:
“Why fight visa uncertainty if the work can happen from India anyway?”

Especially after visa delays, higher compliance costs, lottery unpredictability, and new administrative restrictions started piling up. Even immigration lawyers have been saying companies are reconsidering sponsorship and shifting work overseas instead.

And honestly, remote infrastructure is already good enough now that a senior engineer sitting in Bengaluru can contribute almost identically to someone sitting in Austin or Seattle.

That’s the part I think policymakers underestimate.

Reducing visas does not automatically bring all those jobs back locally. In many cases, companies still need the talent, they just hire the same people remotely.

One VP of Engineering I spoke with recently said their company stopped planning around the H-1B lottery entirely. Instead, they started building distributed engineering teams directly in India through partners like Wisemonk because it was simply more predictable operationally.

Feels like the global tech workforce is becoming location-flexible faster than immigration systems can adapt to it.

A conversation with a founder friend last week genuinely stuck with me.

He’s building an AI product in the US and said they had been trying to hire senior ML engineers locally for months. The salaries were insane, hiring cycles were slow, and half the candidates already had multiple offers.

Then he casually mentioned:

“Honestly, we’ve started looking at India differently now.”

Not because of “cheap outsourcing.” That mindset is outdated.

What changed for him was seeing how aggressively India is investing in AI infrastructure right now. Between hyperscale data centers, GPU capacity, semiconductor investments, and the government-backed AI mission, the numbers being discussed are massive, well over $250B in combined public + private commitments over the coming years.

And once that kind of infrastructure shows up, talent ecosystems usually follow fast.

I think a lot of US companies are quietly realizing the same thing:
India is no longer just a support hub. It’s becoming part of core AI execution.

What’s interesting is that many startups aren’t even setting up full entities initially anymore. They’re testing smaller AI/product teams first through some trusted India-native partners like wisemonk EOR in India and scaling from there if it works.

Feels like we’re watching the global tech hiring map shift in real time.

I think a lot of global founders misread this when hiring in India.

In the US startup world, job-hopping and high-risk bets are pretty normal. In India, many employees think differently because a stable salary often supports family responsibilities, loans, and long-term financial planning.

So when candidates ask about funding, notice periods, or job security, it’s usually not a lack of ambition. They just want predictability before taking a risk.

I’ve also noticed that strong candidates in India don’t just evaluate salary anymore. They look at how stable and serious the company feels overall.

That’s why startups that communicate clearly, run payroll properly, and create structured processes tend to hire better here. Even companies building teams through providers like Wisemonk usually realize pretty quickly that operational stability matters a lot for retention.

Curious if others hiring in India have noticed the same thing?

Feels like every US startup and tech company is exploring India hiring differently rn.

Personally I think most of the companies start with an Employer of Record (EOR) in India because it's the fastest and lowest-risk way to hire initially.

Curious to see what model people here are seeing most often in 2026.

View Poll

Honestly, I think this is where a lot of remote setups quietly fail.

Not because people are lazy, but because companies confuse “visibility” with productivity.

I’ve seen founders obsess over:

• online status
• activity trackers
• screenshots
• hours worked

Meanwhile their best employees just want clarity, ownership, and space to do good work.

The remote teams that actually perform well usually have a few things in common:

• very clear outcomes
• strong documentation
• async communication habits
• and managers who focus on delivery, not constant monitoring

One thing I’ve noticed working with distributed India teams is that accountability gets way easier when people feel ownership instead of surveillance.

The best remote teams I’ve seen don’t need “check if they’re online” culture. Everyone already knows:

• what they own
• what success looks like
• and what timelines they’re accountable to

That changes everything.

And honestly, micromanagement usually creates the exact opposite effect:
people stop taking initiative because they feel watched all the time.

I still think regular check-ins matter though. Not for policing, more for alignment and removing blockers early.

Curious, what’s worked better for you in remote teams: tight oversight… or giving people more autonomy?

I think India is no longer “cheap labor.” It’s strategic labor.

I’ve been working with US founders hiring in India for a while now, and honestly… the conversation has changed a lot.

A few years ago, it was always: “Can we save costs if we hire in India?”

Now it’s more like: “Can we build a strong team there fast enough?”

That shift says everything.

Yes, India is still cost-efficient. But the reason companies stay isn’t cost, it’s the talent and how quickly teams can actually ship.

I’ve seen India teams own full product modules, lead engineering pods, even drive roadmap decisions. Not “support work.” Real, core stuff.

And this isn’t just big tech anymore. Even early-stage startups are building serious teams here. Some of the setups I’ve seen through Wisemonk EOR, for example, are basically extensions of the main team, same ownership, same expectations.

I think the “cheap labor” label stuck around way longer than it should have.

Because what’s actually happening now is:
companies are using India to build capability, not just cut costs

And once that clicks, the whole hiring strategy changes.

Just curious, if you’re working with India teams today, do they still feel like offshore support… or just part of your core team now?

Most global founders don’t understand Indian labor law, and that’s risky.

I’ll say this bluntly: most founders I speak to think they understand India compliance… until something breaks.

Because Indian labor law isn’t just one rulebook. It’s a mix of central + state laws, multiple codes, and ongoing filings, and they all apply differently based on your setup.

What this means in practice:

• Your “simple” contractor setup can get reclassified
• Payroll isn’t just payments, it’s statutory compliance every month
• Employment contracts actually need to be locally enforceable
• And small mistakes don’t show up immediately… they compound quietly

That last part is what catches most teams off guard.

I’ve seen companies operate for months thinking everything is fine, and then during an audit, funding round, or employee dispute, all the gaps surface at once.

From what I’ve seen working with US teams, the biggest misunderstanding is this:
They treat India like a “lighter version” of their home market.

It’s not.

India compliance is operational, not theoretical. It’s baked into payroll, contracts, benefits, and even how you classify workers.

If you want a clear breakdown without legal jargon, this guide on Indian labor laws is a good starting point!

That’s also why a lot of founders eventually work with India-native partners like Wisemonk, not because it’s easier, but because it reduces the risk of getting it wrong early.

Hard truth: You don’t need to know every law. But if your structure isn’t aligned with them, it will catch up.

Curious, what’s been more confusing for you: understanding Indian labor law, or actually applying it while scaling a team?

Notice periods in India are not “optional.” Here’s how they actually work.

I can’t tell you how many times a US founder has said this to me:
“Can’t we just let them go immediately and pay them out?”

Short answer: It’s not that simple in India.

Most employment contracts here include 30-90 day notice periods, and they’re taken seriously, both legally and culturally.

Here’s how it actually works in practice:

• If an employee resigns → they’re expected to serve the notice period (or negotiate a buyout)
• If the company terminates → you usually either ask them to serve notice or pay salary in lieu of notice
• For many roles, especially in tech, companies prefer employees to serve notice for handovers

Where founders get into trouble: They assume notice period = optional guideline
But in reality, it’s a contractual obligation, and mishandling it can lead to disputes, bad exits, or even compliance issues

Also, it’s not just about legality.
In India, notice periods are deeply tied to how teams operate:
handoffs, knowledge transfer, and even hiring timelines are built around them.

I’ve seen companies try to “shortcut” this, and it usually backfires, either operationally or reputationally.

If you’re building a team here, this is one of those things you want to get right early (contracts, policies, expectations).

Curious, what’s the standard notice period at your company right now? Does it actually work in practice?