Questions: Lithuania, Offshore hosting, “PT”, work visas

by Simon Black · 63 comments

August 6, 2010
Vilnius, Lithuania

Believe it or not, Vilnius is one of my favorite cities in the world. It’s a fairly large city with a metro population of just under 1 million, but in many ways it feels like a small town.

English and Russian are both widely spoken, and there are some ancestry passport opportunities that I will try to get to next week if I have the time.

On this particular trip, I’m in Vilnius to sponsor a sort of educational charity event.  I’m funding a week-long camp for 50 Eastern European university students to learn about freedom, economics, investing, entrepreneurship, and multiple flags.

My goal is to hopefully undo years of socialist brainwashing and help them realize that they can all be successful and free if they simply have the will to take action.

I first got involved with this project last year when I was invited to speak at a similar event sponsored by Louis James and Doug Casey. It was incredibly rewarding to help energize so many young minds, and this year the local organizers asked me to sponsor my own camp.

It kicks off this weekend, and I’m really excited about it… more to follow on that next week. For now, let’s move on to this week’s questions.

On the topic of planting electronic flags, Barry asks, “Simon, any recommended offshore locations for website hosting?”

Sure. In North America, I would choose Canada or the US; in Europe, anywhere in Scandinavia or the Baltics. In Asia, I would choose Japan or South Korea.

These are the places that have modern, fast Internet architecture with professional support services. The important thing is that you want to plant this ‘web hosting flag’ in a country other than where you live and where your business is structured.

For example, you could live in England, host in Norway, and structure the company in Cyprus.

Next, Bill asks, “Simon, would you explain what being a ‘PT’ means?”

Depending on who you ask, PT could mean permanent tourist, prior taxpayer, or permanent traveler. I refer to the latter.

Regardless of the terminology, though, the meaning is the same: PT is someone who has no fixed base, never actually establishing residency anywhere.  The purpose of this way of life is to ensure that you never get caught up in any country’s tax net.

For example, if you are in New Zealand for more than 183 days in any 12-month period, the government will expect a share of your worldwide earnings, even if you earn no NZ income. In this case, a PT would spend up to 183 days in New Zealand and then move on to another country.

Next, Mike asks, “Simon- My wife and I are from India, working in the US on H-1B visas. Now she’s lost her job and is having trouble finding a new one; no one will sponsor her visa due to high unemployment. I enjoy the quality of life in the US, but I’m weary of the attacks of liberty. Plus, India is really growing and we could work there. What do you think?”

I think that businesses should be free to hire whichever person they feel is the best fit for a job, regardless of nationality. The collectivist mentality that somehow we ‘owe’ jobs to our fellow countrymen just because we happen to be born within the same invisible lines on a map is intellectually offensive to me.

In a country whose Declaration of Independence starts with “… We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” it seems rather peculiar that the H-1B visa even exists.

Further, it’s ironic that leaders of western developed countries decry the evils of racism, sexism, etc., yet they still cling to nationalism like a warm blanket. This is simply another form of discrimination– that one individual has privilege over another simply by accident of birth.

Regarding Mike’s specific problem, yes, India has a rapidly growing economy. But there are other places to consider where you can work with minimal red tape and not sacrifice quality of life for economic opportunity. Singapore, Chile, and Abu Dhabi are good examples.

I’d love to hear what you think about this– should businesses be forced to hire within a particular country, or be free to hire any nationality they choose?

Want More Information Like This?
 Sign up below for the free newsletter Sovereign Man: Notes From The Field to get more information like the article you just read, plus exclusive information that is not posted publicly.


  • Jay

    Well, no Visa sounds like you support one world government? I mean those invisible lines on the planet are what enable us to plant multiple flags, no? Therefore it is a good thing that jurisdictions are drawn on the map which allow differing economic, residency and citizenship options. However, I do agree that nationalism is a form of discrimination, when applied socially. It is a form of self protection which seems to work very well for Switzerland, for example. H1-B visas? Again a necessary evil, which should be extremely streamlined, quick and easy in a nation of immigrants. I always thought the guest worker Visa program, which is used in many countries worldwide, was a much better idea.

  • Tcartwright1000

    Interesting – I’ve never met anyone named “Mike” from India.

  • jesse farr

    The only reason for thinking someone should have to hire those of local nationality is to hopefully be able to regain some of the outgoing payment through taxation. Obviously in our country today, we have closed down the statue of liberty as well as ellis island. The illegality of alien status is the crime in and of itself.

  • Oregonfrost

    “Further, it’s ironic that leaders of western developed countries decry the evils of racism, sexism, etc., yet they still cling to nationalism like a warm blanket. ”

    Wow, love this comment. Do you think we will see in our lifetime the end to geographical borders?

  • Andree N

    Businesses should be free to hire the person who will best do the job, regardless of nationality, provided that there are no undue expectations from that person just because he/she is not a national.

  • Chuck B.

    Business should hire who they believe is the best fit for the job regardless of nationality, etc. Politics plays too much of a role in hiring practices in North America. It’s always about “American Jobs” or on the other side “Equal Opportunity Empolyers”. Companies get cought in the middle worrying if they are hiring enough Americans or not enough minorities. Just hire the best person for the job.

  • Brad

    From my vantage point, a key reason governments enact nationality based employment rules is to ensure the government gets it cut of employment taxes. As Simon has brought to light over and over again if a person is outside of the geographic and tax net of a certain country, the government has a very difficult time collecting revenues from that person. Ironically, however, nationality laws for employment create a black/gray market for labor which circumvents government taxation to a greater extent than would otherwise exist in an open system.

    Forcing business to comply with nationality laws increases bureaucracy, limits the free movement of labor, stifles innovation, and keeps intelligent hardworking individuals chained to a location.

  • Jai

    Our usually wise Simon has fallen victim to the Myth of the H1-b Worker. Perhaps because he’s self-employed, perhaps because he spends so little time in the US, Simon misses salient facts about H1-b workers. On the other hand, I have worked with a lot of H1-b’s and surrepticiously “interviewed” quite a few to find the story behind the story (perhaps it helps that I’m a former foreign correspondent).

    The real issue is TAXES. E.g. I worked for a famous international name in biz. They laid off 30-odd Americans and replaced them with H1-b programmers, mostly from India. Chatting them up, I learned that they got free housing (plus utilities & transport) from the company, plus a non-taxable “stipend” for living expenses. Salary paid in India. They paid NO state or federal income taxes, no Social Security or Medicare, etc. Their actual take-home pay was at least $2000 per month more than the Americans they replaced. But they eliminated company payments for FICA, etc, withholding taxes and mountains of paperwork. Costs the company less, while the workers make more.

    Then I had “a nice little chat” with a friend who was the program debugger. After many months on the job, the “best” Indian programmer still had a bug-rate (measure of quality and accuracy) 10 times greater than the worst American they’d replaced!

    Another “nice little chat” with an Indian H1-b holder: his brother got a certificate for “computer repair.” Got a job in India, stole all the company’s books on programming & read them at home with his brothers. Forged his “computer repair” certificate to “computer programmer,” paid a body shop for a job & H1-b visa. Then passed on his “certificate” to a brother who re-forged it in his name. The brother I talked to was the 3rd to use this much re-forged certificate, and the fourth had already entered the US on an H1-b. I was the one who had to teach Brother #3 how to turn on his computer – he didn’t even know how to turn on a computer, no less boot it up!

    The majority of H1-b holders are frauds, tax cheats, etc. Scams have been repeatedly found & the US govt has revoked H1-b visas and deported many hundreds of these con artists. Not enough, however, as the scams continue.

    The real problem? Americans can compete with workers from anywhere, except for one little problem that makes them uncompetitive in the US or anywhere else: TAXES!

    There’s loads more details I have to support all this. Enough to write a book. Perhaps I’d better, except I have several in the works at the moment….

  • Peter

    Whether they “should” or “shouldn’t” is moot. That most of them do is the only relevant fact. Life ain’t “fair”. All the more reason to culture the PT mentality.

  • Mark Meador

    I’m with you Simon.

    Capital should be free to attract competitive talent, regardless the “galactic lottery” that determines one’s place of birth.

    And, in that every jurisdiction will tax one’s endeavors talent is a de facto citizen of wherever they generate wealth.

  • Pat

    Simon…..After reading your definition of a “PT”, I have a question…..in the case of a U.S. citizen, how does one avoid the U.S. tax net without renouncing their citizenship. And in order to renounce citizenship, I thought residency had to be established elsewhere. Also, I agree with your comments regarding nationalism in the job market……merit and performance should be the deciding factors…..what a different world it would be

  • BW

    “…should businesses be forced to hire within a particular country, or be free to hire any nationality they choose?”

    What degree of control and governance (political) should businesses tolerate? Who should determine the raison d’ etre of a business?

    Whoever that is, is the one(s) who would properly make the decisions about who gets to work within a company and for how long and for how much, and all that and all the other elements which are part of doing business.

    It’s just a basic consideration – if you do no evil to others, while in fact bringing value and benefits to customers in a free, uncoerced exchange, it’s “no one’s business but my own”. Period.

  • Tompeizer

    Several months back Simon discussed the idea of an email account outside the US which was much more private. I can’t seem to find that article. Can someone point me in the right direction?

  • SovSerena

    Simon, what a special gift to be giving those University students in Vilnius. Inspiring them to be all they can be, teaching them to “fish” …wish I were there on your team to support.. Its just the kind of project i would find fulfilling as well.. Bravo to you, for all the goodwill you are spreading as a “Freedom Ambassador” in the world.

  • EllenNewYork

    Hi Simon,
    It seems obvious to me that businesses should be free to hire the most qualified person for the job regardless of that person’s nationality. However, here in the US people are suffering and are very frightened about the economy. I talk to lots of people when I’m running around NYC and many, actually most, people say that we shouldn’t be hiring foreigners. I think that in hard times many people forget their sense of fair play and often their common sense.
    I suspect that our inherent zenophobia will continue to rear its ugly head as the economical deterioration continues.
    Ellen

  • Jim

    First, congratulations on your camp to promote independent thinking, much needed most everywhere.
    On the question of hiring, as a former business owner in the USA, my vote goes for being able to hire the most qualified person for the job, regardless.
    An interesting, related dilemma is occurring now in China, where work visas can now only be issued in the home country of the expat worker, requiring them to return to apply. This is creating a financial hardship for many expat English teachers, whose salaries average about US$2000-2500/month.
    Would be interested to read your take on the much rumored, imminent invasion of Iran by Israel.
    Am enjoying your daily letters, a light in the darkness.
    Jim from Chongqing

  • Jkingusa

    Scenario: two 40-year old workers. One is a USA citizen and the other is foreign born & raised. How long has the USA citizen paid taxes in the USA? If s/he is middle-class, probably since the age of 15 with a part-time job and summer jobs. How long has the H1-B paid taxes? Simon, if you want apples that necessitates a tree and trees need roots.
    However, there is no need for the H1-B’s to worry. Tell them to be patient and the USA jobs will be sent overseas, shortly.

  • Robert Speirs

    Simon,

    Your decrying of nationalism is a bit simplistic. Because all men are created equal, does that mean that every country should let anyone in who wants to come in? But no country does this. The US probably comes closest, because of non-enforcement of the immigration laws. This ideal is even harder to defend when anyone and everyone who manages to get in can get transfer payments of all different kinds if they lose or quit their jobs. And don't get me started on “anchor babies”. The accident of birth as to place is just another accident like race, language, culture or intelligence that, like it or not, does determine a man's future. So when a country exists that does not redistribute money from existing citizens to anyone who comes in, then perhaps one can talk about “free” immigration. But I don't think that's going to happen in my lifetime.

    Robert Speirs

  • Oldpagan

    Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they wish, and countries should be allowed to regulate who may or may not enter their borders and for what reasons. As long as business is required to pay guest workers the same wages and benefits as domestic workers. This keeps business from flooding the job market with cheaper guest workers and displacing domestic labor, and protects guest workers from sweatshop wages. There has to be a balance between business and labor, where both enjoy a profit.

  • Simon Giles

    It's an interesting point to debate whether businesses should be able to hire who they choose regardless of origin. In principle, for free minded individuals it makes sense that they should, but the logical extension of this, as you seem to allude to Simon, is a Communist free-for-all where anybody from any country can set themselves up where they like provided they can make the journey and have somebody to vouch for them at the other end. Just look at the existing immigration mess in the UK, for example, and you will see why this will never work in practice. I admire your noble effort to teach Eastern European students about freedom Simon, but surely there is a difference between helping those less fortunate and handing them your house keys.

  • Federalist45

    Simon–You are doing great work and I wish you luck on your sovereignty adventure. As for your question about hiring from within a nation versus the freedom to hire anyone from anywhere, it may be the single most dangerous question we face today. Sure, we want to say that freedom should prevail, and the market should rule, and businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they wish, from anywhere. The problem is that the structures built over 200 years to allow such liberty, or anything close to it, were built on the backs of millions who did what they did to ensure their own children had an opportunity to make the most of their “birthright.” Moreover, the businesses doing the hiring have all taken advantage of the sacrifices the citizenry of their nations–some have even died to defend their nations–and to allow anyone from around the world to “waltz in” and take jobs that the citizenry want to have is a slap in the face of the sacrifices. Of course, this is playing out all over the developed world, as those from less-developed nations seek to make better lives for themselves (or, I suppose, in many case seek to take advantage of the largesse of the governments of developed nations in disposing of the income of their workers by handing it out to all comers to buy votes and consolidate power) by taking jobs in developed nations. It is a trend that will not peak anytime soon. Indeed, the cautionary tale all should read is THE CAMP OF THE SAINTS. It is our future.

  • http://www.facebook.com/frank.dobner Frank Dobner

    Thanks for the continued fine content Simon. I strongly believe that business should be able to hire anyone that lives anywhere to meet their business aims. I will continue to hire the highest quality people regardless of where they sleep, pay taxes or spend most of their time. I believe that not only does not weaken the national economy, but makes it stronger in the long run by issuing work to those that want to do it at a competitive price.

  • RC

    Simon, I'm afraid you're missing the big picture on the employment issues here in the US.

    But it's too big an issue to discuss in your columns. Suffice to say, “Cui bono?”

    RC

  • Mkurbanov

    Being a Russian and working in USA on a visa i definitely agree that businesses need as much flexibility as they want to be able to conduct their business in the most efficient way.

  • Dirk

    Any business should be able to hire any APPLICANT that is best suited for the job as long as the applicant is legal.

  • Wordhappy

    Simon, I am 3rd and 4th generation. My grandfather started by pushing a cart selling rags. My grandmother started sewing in a knitting mill. I started working in a factory at age 14 and am still working at 68. This country was built by the sweat of imigrants each generation. Chinese in the 1850s, Irish in the 1890s, Italins and Eastern Europeans in the 1910s on. The influx of the Asains after Vietnam in late 20th Century has been a boom for us. Most Latin Americans that I meet, work an long hard day and ask little from us. The change of rules is a result of Xenophobia by many who do not understand the true benefits we get from those who want the dream of opportunity. The large companies can hire outside of the borders and have the employee “visit” while they work here. Living here should be predicated by work and paying taxes. We used to just check for health and having a “sponsor” Now it is “lock the door behind me” – Frank Jay

  • justenrobertson

    Regarding nationalism, a hearty f-ck no, not only should companies not be *required* to hire local nationals, any suggestion that they ought to give locals preferential treatment ought to be looked on with the disgust it merits. It's short-sighted and helps absolutely no-one, not even the local who gets the job and drags down his local economy and intellectual trust in the bargain.

    About hosting, my experience as a web professional is that, while U.S. companies can provide you great quality of service and competitive packages, the risks of working inside U.S. jurisdiction and its spy net are significant. A single accusation of intellectual monopoly infringement or intellectual contraband can bury you and your business. Don't expect safe harbor rules under the DMCA to save you either, they've been eroded to the point of meaninglessness. If you don't plan to host anything controversial or potentially infringing and you can afford the expense of tight moderation of any visitor-contributed content you're probably golden. If not, the few milliseconds of extra latency you'll experience from hosting in a more intellectually friendly nation are well-worth it – and you probably won't notice the difference. Canada is a step up, and most of the Scandinavian nations are even better (as Simon already mentioned). Just make sure the customer service people speak your native language fluently if you can't handle your own IT support.

  • K.Gabriel

    The problem is taxation. When taxation is high, when socialism rules, people do not want their money going to someone else (too bad, people, it already does! With foreign aid, they don't even need to come to the US to get our money!). Less taxation, more freedom, let people come and go as they choose.

  • Jack

    Ideally,businesses should not be forced to hire only citizens of
    the same country.However,since many alien workers end up
    sending money back home to their families,this is not too efficient for GDP growth.Maybe the correct answer is having quotas per company for hiring alien workers.I heard that the Swiss have a very strict foreign worker program.

  • Stefangerald

    I, too, agree that businesses should be free to hire any qualified person regardless of nationality. If all countries allowed this freedom, rather than limiting access to the world talent pool by way of visas, perhaps those who now reside in a high unemployment country would be motivated to move where their services are needed, rather than sit on their duffs and collect unemployment in the country of their birth. The unintended side effect of such a policy just might be a higher standard of living for all the earth's citizens; not just a privileged few in certain nations.

  • suisue

    Hi Simon,
    I enjoy your newletters/emails, but strongly disagree with your ideas on free market economicis. Often employers hire foreign workers not only because of their skills but of course they can pay them alot less. The idea that in a “free market”, people are better off is simply not true as has been proven throughout the world, with exploitive policies put in place that destroy whole national economies, making a few idividuals very rich at the expense of the rest of the population. It's capitalism gone rampant it's being done all over the world and it's a dismal failure except for the corporation, banks and the corrupt politicians that allow the world bank to come in and rape the country. Free market is another word for grab as much as u can at all costs and let the chips fall where they may.

  • Partnersfunding-online

    Simon and Friends,

    Let's end the legal fiction we call “limited liability corporations”, and we can all stop asking this immigration/hiring question.

    It isn't nationalism that is repugnant… it is limiting the liability of some in society, while holding others fully liable.

    If everyone were held equally liable for every sort of act, then businesses would voluntarily restrict their size, due to the inability of a small number of trusted managers to over-see vast enterprises.

    Then, they may hire whomever they want, and no one will question them.

    But, at that point there will be many more businesses to do the hiring. And, the immorality of judicial discrimination among people, based on their “liability type”, will have been done away with. And, there will be no WalMart-type mega-businesses.

  • Nick

    Unless they have recieved some form of economic stimulus from the government then no, they should be free to hire from wherever they choose.

  • Jwdh

    'Nationalism' is an interesting word. I have been calling it 'racism', regarding the two times I have immigrated to Australia. I am a white Yank with a strong American accent. Thirty six years ago I immigrated to Australia, for the first time, from Viet-Nam. That was just after Australia did away with their 'whites only policy'. That's what they said. I couldn't get a job with an Australian company, but all the non-Aussie firms I applied asked me to join. I left Australia with an American firm bound for Indonesia where I met and married my Aussie born wife. Twenty five years later we left South Africa to arrive in Australia for my 2nd time. Only way I could settle in, with a Yank accent was to start our own business. Maybe Australia says they don't discriminate, but that's hog-wash. Great place to live here, but …

    cheers, JWDH – one of your loyal readers, having lived in 10 different countries – provided I can count Texas and the USA as two different countries. After all these years living outside of the USA, I still vote and look forward to the November bi-elections. Wouldn't want to live in the USA, and used my Aussie passport instead of my American one the last time I visited 2 years ago. Was really glad to be on the Qantas flight back to Aussie – land of nationalism. Americans living in the USA haven't seen the massive 'not nice' changes that are evolving.

  • Saturn_ls1

    should businesses be forced to hire within a particular country, or be free to hire any nationality they choose? – Choosing implies a decision based upon some foundation of values and principals. And that goes for both sides – the business and the consumer sides.

    Unfortunately choosing, the human process at least, is as learned and subjective as most human actions. Here's a very enlightening presentation on 'choice': Sheena Iyengar on the art of choosing http://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_on_the_…

  • David

    They should be able to hire anyone they like regardless of race, or creed. Assuming they're legal and can uphold the laws

    • Cathy

      Sorry, but they should be able to hire anyone, period. This legal/illegal bs is an invention of 20th century total war statism. It is a violation of human rights and has no place in a free society–which is why the USG has immigration laws.

  • RC

    Simon, love your stuff, but you really blew it on the labor issues.
    Fact: unbridled Communism DOES NOT WORK
    Fact: unbridled Captalism DOES NOT WORK
    The evidence is there for all to see. Unfortunately, since motivation affects perception, there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.

    The only answer is moderation. This really is a no-brainer. Large corporations are whores, using the US tax laws and their international power to screw over native born workers. Go have a look at who is entitled to “affirmative action”. Look at the federal definition. Can you figure out why Indians and Chinese are in there entitled to 'affirmative action'? Profit. Screw the americans who have worked all their lives paying taxes here — screw the Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and hire Indians and Chinese, after all, not only are they cheaper, but we get that nice check-box on our federal affirmative action reporting form. Double that if she is also a woman. Did you know that majore corporations do not have to report the breakdown of ethnicity on their 'affirmative action' plans? It's enough to call them 'minorities' — no need to muddy the waters with X% Indians, Y% Chinese. This is truly a sick society that has sold the very workers who created the major corporations into oblivion. You really need to do your homework, amigo, and not be so glib about people's lives.

    While I'm at it, need I mention that all the Indians and Chinese I work with — fine people — all of them — are themselves also concerned with the other downside of asians working here? I speak of the very sad brain drain from those countries where their talent is so needed to counteract widespread corruption.

    I could go on and on, but the fact is, most people will never be quite like you, most have families and must live a stable life with their children or aging parents, and you are dismising the backbone — what's left of it — of a stable society in the USA.

    You need to review your attitudes. Yes, it's a mess — but running away is not an option for most people. Good luck.

    • Cathy

      Dear RC,

      You are 100% wrong on capitalism not working. It is the only system that does work, but it is non existent in our world today.

      You said: “Screw the americans who have worked all their lives paying taxes here…” So let me get this straight, we are screwed all our lives by taxation–which last I checked is an injustice of governments–and that means that business has to be restricted? Me thinks I espy some brain drain right here in the good ol' US of A… The workers didn't create the corporations and have been compensated for their work throughout their careers. There is no future debt to be paid.

      And lest you think that I am a uncritical supporter of major corps, forgetaboutit. The fact is that we live in a fascist economic world and that in a nutshell states our problems.

      My daddy always told me that there are many times when running away is exactly the right thing to do–”Discretion is the better part of valor.” I am sorry for those who are trapped by family obligations–I am, too–but at my first chance I am outta here. I hope I get out soon enough and with enough wherewithal to come back and help pick up the pieces after the deluge. And I am sure that if I can pull it off, I will have no small debt to pay to our hero, Simon Black.

  • Joe

    Dear Simon, I wish I could say I care but I really don´t <g>.

    See you in Germany

  • John

    Simon, I think you're being insensitive to the masses here. Most people can't and/or don't want to be a vagabond. I know you embrace the life without borders (which I respect), but the average joe simply wants to own a house, raise a family and have a stable life. Nothing wrong with that…Globalization, free market, whatever you want to call it, has been disastrous for these ordinary people. The only people who are benefiting from this system are large multi-national corporations, politicians and maybe a select few entrepreneurs like yourself. When you live and pay taxes in the United States all your life, you should not have to be competing for jobs/colleges with foreigners, illegals immigrants,etc…That's simply wrong. A government has a responsibility to puts its citizens first. In Europe, australia,etc..local job applicants get priority over foreign workers and that's the way it should be. As for American businesses going overseas and hiring foreign workers, how can you applaud that? They've raped the third world for decades and left Americans without jobs. I find it hard to believe that you could be so emotionally detached from the land of your birth, the land you were raised…As for nationalism, you may despise it, but the fact of the matter, is that it exists! And thank God for it! The alternative is one world order where we're all the same and life would have no flavor.

    • Libero

      I have to admit, this man actually makes some very valid points.

  • mwa.1

    i want to attend one of your events. lets put one on out here in orange county. i would enjoy helping you put that together. your knowledge is amazing. thanks for sharing.

  • MV

    Well much like you say that being a PT (or a global (non)citizen) takes action and will, over just a thought, the same goes with companies. They are perfectly free to hire anyone they choose, between existing visa programs and setting up subsidiaries in any particular country. And the ones that see an interest in hiring foreigners are actually doing so. Now the question is how many local companies are convinced that they just have the best where they are (in other words, pure uneducated hubris about their own situation and the affairs of the world) and that is it. And then, instead of realizing that in fact they painted themselves into a corner, face reality by wanting some government to defend them (immigration policies, incentives for built in … products, taxes, subsidies, tariffs, etc..)), that is the real reason I think. Same goes for countries: oops it's easier to call on protectionism rather than fix the real cause of our problems.

    And that is exactly why people like us exist, people that understand that it's better to deal with what's available worldwide rather than try to hopelessly evangelize the blinds.
    Countries, companies and more generally people have a choice to make, they can choose to ignore problems and be defensive, or be pragmatic and use and adapt the system they're in. The first kind will always be plagued by problems that “are bigger than them”, the second will always use it as opportunities.

    So while fundamentally and idealistically you're absolutely right about all of us being equal, the hypocritical barriers actually sift the weak and non committed rather than prevent much from happening. So in the end regardless of whether such barriers exist or not, the strong will act and overcome, the weak will complain and regret, making the barriers not very relevant really.

    US used to be strong, now it's trying to build up defenses to protect its weaknesses. So progressively some will move and act, and some will gather within the walls and regret the good old time. I know where 'we' are.

  • Peter J. Ritter

    That's one way of looking at it. However, if you look at why countries even exist – shared culture, common defense against potential attackers (which will only show during times of war) – there is a case to made for certain restrictions as far as foreigners are concerned. So why should such restrictions be subordinate to the personal preferences and likes of anybody?
    This may make me appear like an authoritarian or something, which I'm not, but the question deserves a fair answer.
    Regards, Peter

  • lf

    I believe you mentioned once that you are anarchist. From that viewpoint your question makes sense: minimize government intervention, provide maximal economic freedom. From the point of view of a businessman the optimal solution is to get a job done with maximal quality in a given time and minimal cost. But what if
    this solution is attained by employing a child who needs to work for 14 hours per day? You may say: no, we will ban child labor.
    But what about those Chinese workers who commited numerous suicides because of unbearable working conditions? It looks like that some sort of regulation is unavoidable and complete enterpreneural freedom is unacceptable. I, of course, considered an extreme situation to emphasize a simple point: in real world your question makes no sense.

  • Travis Grier

    Simon, We should be able to hire whom ever we want whenever we want and for whatever we want and be responsible for the consequences ourselves.

    I've run into this sort of work visa BS many times over the years as a worker and as a boss. It just clogs up the natural flow. If I need something done and someone is there ready and capable to do it for the right price, I want to hire them immediately and get on with it. I have been so screwed in the past be labor shortages that I have been forced to hire ‘illegals’…whatever the hell that means and when I was younger and training as a chef, I had an excellent opportunity to work under one of the best guys in Switzerland and that went sour because of red tape. I went elsewhere and enjoyed excellent training but it still pisses me off to think of the time and money I wasted on nothing…just paper work.

    I want to thank you for Odesk! I have begun using it over the last 3 weeks and I am impressed overall with the organization and with the workers. I am new to e commerce, but I have understood for a while that it offers freedom that traditional brick and morter businesses can't, depending on the jurisdiction of course. Starting my odesk account and hiring out tasks to eager workers further proves that the Internet is an excellent tool for by passing the ‘human’ stumbling blocks in government.

    I posted my first task on odesk and had 10 applicants within 5 minutes. The tasks are low paying, but in the past, to find someone to do 'dirty work' for low pay has been difficult. If someone of another nationality is there, ready and capable, it’s a crime that some third party parasite prevents the two productive parties from entering into an agreement for labor in exchange for money. The human spirit paired with the Internet and other technology will continue to counter this to an ever-increasing degree – one can only hope.

    Thanks again Simon for breaking trail and uncovering ways to counter the parasites!

  • Rmcdonald

    I definitely believe we should be able to hire people from any nationality or country for that matter. (outsourcing).
    I think that people become filled with fear and that fear clouds sound judgement – instead of hiring the right person who comes from a different country, who is not a fellow citizen, they opt to “protect” a job for their countryman – This choice can be catastophic for the company and result in both people out of a job or worse, the entire company going under.
    Choices should be made on value, capabilities and desire to succeed.

  • Doug

    Fine in theory Simon but a few other things may have to change first otherwise we will have children going up the chimney again probably sent their by half of your greedy little followers Cheers Doug.

  • Jke823n

    I'm with you Simon, hire the person best for the job, any other option is fraudulent.
    Regards, John K. Euers

  • Jimwrkdiver

    Sorry, I have to disagree with you. Our standard of living in the U.S. is based on being able to earn a decent – by our standards – living for our labor.Too many of our companies are already sending every job they can overseas to folks who are lucky to get chicken or fish with their rice once a week. I've long suspected that the truly rich in this country would like to convert us to a third world country just so they can make more off people's labor and have more power over them. Some countries(Brasil, for instance) have large tariffs on imported manufactured goods just to protect their own industries and so keep their population working,

    • Bevis

      You sound like a plant for the Progressives and U.S. Government. Please take you and your social justice to a country that would appreciate it–Cuba

    • Killian Connolly

      The standard of living (wage) that a US citizen (any other nation) receives is based on the goods and services the nation creates. Higher wages don't create the standard of living, both are a result of economic development (hard work and innovation). This relationship has been broken since the US is selling all its capital goods and credits to their trading partners, thereby keeping their exchange rate and foreign purchasing power steady. If the US (and every 'developed' nation) abolished the standard of living, maybe their standard of living and purchasing power could be acheived through economic activity, as opposed to a fire sale of assets and increased indebtedness.

  • Steveloy

    I think you should be able to hire anyone you want. However, it does not make much sense if you have to pay all of the taxes and costs in the country where you hire them. It is more cost effective to hire them in the country you need them because of all of the relocation expense.

  • Richard Ambler

    “The collectivist mentality that somehow we ‘owe’ jobs to our fellow countrymen just because we happen to be born within the same invisible lines on a map is intellectually offensive to me.”

    Great way to put it! It often seems to me that though the barons are less conspicuous than they were of old, and though passports are more comfortable to bear than brands or collars, we are still seen as serfs who belong to and owe allegiance to the arbitrarily divided land we happen to be born into. I also find the idea repulsive and incompatible with true liberty.

    • http://garinjwind.tumblr.com/ garinjwind

      I agree.

  • msc

    H-1B visas are issued by government. Businesses need efficiency to survive. Efficiency and government do not match, we all know efficiency level of government projects.
    Government believes they need to 'take care' of the less capable citizens. So they create jobs to employ the less competent citizens, who would not be able to find job in 'efficient' private sector. They issue visas (read: make it harder to hire a foreigner) to dictate business owners to take priority to employing native citizen over foreign born citizen in order to 'helps them out' with 'taking care of ' less capable citizens that they would otherwise need to employ. They do not understand level of competitiveness and efficiency business needs in order to survive.

  • Warrens

    Hi Simon. Thanks for a great article. I live in South Africa. My great, great grand parents were from Lithuania and had to leave because of anti-semitism in that country. Would I be able to get a Lithuanian passport then? In repsonse to your article question I definitely believe that in the spirit of freedom, businesses should be able to hire whomsoever they wish, no matter what that staff member's nationality, ethnicity, religion, sex or race.
    Regards, Warren

  • http://transformingman.wordpress.com/ J.S.

    “I’d love to hear what you think about this– should businesses be forced to hire within a particular country, or be free to hire any nationality they choose?”

    Why should businesses be forced to do anything, except not violate the rights of others? There is no such right as the right to get a job. That would mean others have the obligation to give that person a job, which makes no sense.

    It's silly to me that people are so quick to think of businesses as some abstract (and obviously evil, since they're in it for the profits!) concepts that individuals can just demand things from. But that old lady next door selling her home-made cookies is just as much in business as McDonald's or Pepsi or coke.

  • Fourwindscreative

    I think the diversity that comes from hiring people with skills gained from other nationalities may be quite valuable to a company. However, I also think a company has some obligation to provide employment to the country in which the company has situated itself for several reasons: 1) native workers know the rules and regulations for that country; 2) native workers value having employment in their own country and thus may be more committed depending on the work values for that country; 3) companies who hire native workers are seen as more stable than those who hire from outside.
    So, my position would be that a company should plan to hire at least 51% of native workers and be allowed to hire the remaining percentage at their own discretion.

  • Paulalanturner

    I would love to be able to have opportunity to select my employer and country of choice in which to provide them with my skills & experience, yet, it seems far away in actual possibility.

  • Gabblog

    Hi Simon!

    TO answer your question, yes, I think that businesses should be limited to hire only from the available pool of employees of that country. Yes, I do think that a person who is a citizen of a country does deserve the fruits and benefits of that country. Even from a practical point of view, it would create mayhem to be able to hire anyone! Just think for a moment, if there are 80 million jobs in the USA and companies could hire anyone, probably 79 million jobs would go to foreigners at lower wages. Now think for moment, how can any country handle such a massive influx of people (even a fraction of that) and what would you do with the now unemployed worker who lost their job? Not to mention that it would cause total social chaos as well as other problems too numerous to mention in a short post.

    Let’s look at it this way- if we will break down all barriers that make a country, then truly we would not have any place to go for it is the very essence of borders that makes countries and it is that very fact that gives us that freedom of choice which we have to travel somewhere more to our liking if we do not like where we are. SO if you destroy the essence, the very definition of a country, you would tend to destroy the very diversity that you appear to love as you travel the world

Previous post:

Next post: