On 22/09/2007, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 22/09/2007, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)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