The reason it moves me is that this is what I’d like to achieve – i.e. find many trusted partners, each with their differences, so we can offer clients solutions which match their situation and expectations. A lofty goal indeed !

Internationalisation has attacked even this bastion of privileges, and it now is difficult outline what defines being an expatriates clearly; Most consider a foreign national working in an exotic country to be an expatriate; the reality is more complex. Expatriates now are splintered across different group or coterie, each quite different from the previous one. After sitting down with many expats, I classed them in the following groups:

• Old school expatriates, who are posted in a country for three to five years with their family. They have two contracts, the main one with the headquarters, a second one locally for work permit purposes; their main contract usually comprise a return clause, even though most will be posted to a new country instead of coming back “home”;
• High potentials sent abroad to develop their talent and leadership. They usually have a return clause in their contract, and do come home after a few years;
• Young graduates who move to the country they wish to start their career in – their contracts are local, but they usually are quite generous by local standard to represent their skills and international background;
• Technical experts without manager responsibilities who are sent on emergency mission; they usually work on critical projects and/or locations, and are very well compensated for their skills and flexibility;
• Permanent Residents, who decided to stay put in their new country. They usually switch to a local contract after a few years, and end up setting up their own company or consultancy so as to stay where their heart belong;
• Project consultant who are single or seniors with grown up kids and are sent abroad on mission of a few months;
• Commuters who are based in a country, and travel regionally on a regular basis;
• Miles virtuoso who travel the world all year round and rarely stay put more than two weeks;

This segmentation is of course non-exhaustive and is a work in progress.

I’d love to hear your feed-backs and personal coterie-related-thoughts !

The teaser? By reading it you’ll discover that the French System:

1. Is not really public
2. Reimburses fully chronic diseases
3. Covers all France residents – even illegal ones !

The report shows that the US, Thailand and South Africa are the expat locations which suffered most from the crisis so far. To the point that almost half of the expats surveyed in the US are considering returning home. Financially, Asia remains very attractive, with around 25% of expatriates earning more than 200K USD per year.

Overall, and despite the economic crisis, expats are wealthier and save more than in their home country. They also are more sophisticated investors – not a surprise – with 46% investing in shares, 53% doing so in property, while 42% using managed funds.

All in all, a good read, and an interesting lifeline on the expat situation worldwide. I just have a nagging impression that it does not represent the different type of expatriates out there. Seeing the results, I guess most expatriates interviewed were of the Executive type, who are posted internationally by their MNC. By experience, expatriation is very diverse and more and more expats* are not in this situation.

* To me, an expat is a person who is voluntarily absent from home or country

“Imagine that someone invented a pill even better than the one I take. Let’s call it the Dorian Gray pill, after the Oscar Wilde character. Every day that you take the Dorian Gray, you will not die, get sick, or even age. Absolutely guaranteed. The catch? A year’s supply costs $150,000.

Anyone who is able to afford this new treatment can live forever. Certainly, Bill Gates can afford it. Most likely, thousands of upper-income Americans would gladly shell out $150,000 a year for immortality.

Most Americans, however, would not be so lucky. Because the price of these new pills well exceeds average income, it would be impossible to provide them for everyone, even if all the economy’s resources were devoted to producing Dorian Gray tablets.

So here is the hard question: How should we, as a society, decide who gets the benefits of this medical breakthrough? Are we going to be health care egalitarians and try to prohibit Bill Gates from using his wealth to outlive Joe Sixpack? Or are we going to learn to live (and die) with vast differences in health outcomes? Is there a middle way?”.

The question is spot on. It sets the debate on a moral / philosophical level. The economic considerations should not be set aside (information asymmetry, externalities, etc.) but they should not be the main focus when discussing such an important subject. Now, I’d answer Mankiw question with another one: Can we accept inequalities in terms of access to care while defining a minimal universal cover, which a pure private system fails to provide ?

Inspiration: Rationalité Limitée