Andrew Gray wrote:
On 22/09/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/09/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
As a Brit, I'm pleased to see London was considered. Why was it the only non-US city considered, though? I'm also curious as to why you considered San Francisco better than London - to my knowledge, London is a far more international city that San Francisco, which I would think was a major consideration is choosing a base for the WMF.
I'm imagining difficulties with the prices. The pound sterling is the depleted uranium of currency, and London is expensive even in that context. Not to mention in running a US charity from the UK.
Yeah. Financially speaking, moving outside the US would be a big hit (now and in the near future) simply due to exchange rates, if nothing else.
Indeed. The gross mismanagement of the U.S. economy by the Bush administration has a lot to do with this. Recently the US$ has dropped against every major currency. That makes it much cheaper to operate in the U.S. with foreign currency revenue. As long as U.S. source donations remain bigger than all the others combined there will be less incentive to buy outside of the U.S. Assuming that donations remain flat in the donor's currency the possibility is still there that non-U.S. donations converted to US$ could become bigger than U.S. donations. This would not be because the fundraising was any better anywhere, but simply because other currencies have become worth more.
As things stand, economics certainly favour retaining the headquarters in the U.S. (In this narrow context India might be even better, but the culture shock would be much greater than with a move to Europe.) If at some point fundraising in other countries increases for better reasons than exchange rate fluctuations those other countries will be quite justified in demanding more from the Foundation. It would certainly be fair to let the allocation of employment opportunities be on the basis of income sources, and if U.S. visa restrictions make this impossible relocating outside the U.S. would be a more attractive option.
As for the choice among U.S. cities, it's unfortunate that Seattle wasn't even considered. Washington, like Florida, does not have a state income tax. That alone makes the area as strong a high tech center as San Francisco. Canadian proximity is also a benefit. There is a lot of high-tech industry commuting across the border in this area; this could become a factor if visas for non-U.S. workers become an issue. Microsoft certainly sees this in its plans to build a new branch plant in the Vancouver area.
In the long term I think that chapters and their fundraising efforts will become a major consideration. If people elsewhere are to be at all serious about moving a headquarters to another country this is where they will need to step up their game. The U.S. still has a tradition of charitable giving that is difficult to match.
Ec