World Bank - anyone here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The WB US Exective Director resigns. Trump will likely do one or more of the below:

1. appoint his choice and/or
2. withdraw US from WB (if this happens, no reason for the Bank to stay in the US - so it will move to EU/China/Japan etc.)
3. withdraw financial support for WB without offically withdrawing

Any WB staff here? What are your thoughts?

Each administration puts in their own person. It shouldn't be a surprise that the Biden ED left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am at the IMF. If the US withdraws Japan will become the largest shareholder (absent e realignment) and that is where the institution is supposed to move based on the Artlcles of Agreement. There is some nervous laughter about the institution about the evaluation of US participation in all IOs but so far my impression is that people believe that Trump won’t go as far as to withdraw from the Bretton Woods institutions, but who knows. Implications for US staff are not clear. I am not sure the Articles cover that. But the institution would very likely have to size down without the US and that will affect hiring. I would expect the same decision for WB and IMF. Not clear why Trump would withdraw from one and not from the other. It would definitely be interesting if US withdrew and the impact on the DC economy and real estate would be significant if both institutions had to move at short notice.

But the US isn't scheduled to make a quota increase to the IMF this year. So there is no funding spigot to turn off at the IMF.

The quota review is in limbo and requires congressional approval. We should consider the reviews all but dead at this point. But the fund doesn't need this to continue. It was simply a reallocation. The fund doesn't require funding from the U.S. and is in a very strong financial position. I agree that the main change will be a great use of leverage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WB is mostly for providing infrastructure funding and could come on the chopping block. Have worked there before, I see a lot of bloat that US ended up covering. Extensive travel to African and other countries and very generous pay packages is an eye sore for the administration so consider it to receive some resistance.

y

And a lot of employees pay zero income tax

Yes. My friends who worked there never paid US income tax while working and making $300-400k, they retired at age 60, and then filed for a green card. Their kids also got free tuition at private schools in DC.

Stop spreading lies and misinformation. International staff get paid on the net. US staff are paid on the gross and the latter pay taxes. International staff are not ever eligible for any US benefits such as social etc. Vert few people at the Bank ever make $300k. The Green Card is now almost impossible to get following a State Department decision about 2 years ago. Finally, staff who started working after 2000 (25 years ago) do NOT qualify for the private school benefits at the Bank….

The tax free agreement is part of an international treaty because of the realization that it would difficult to harmonize 200 different tax systems. Americans are required to pay U.S. taxes and they do not receive tuition allowances. They do receive a tax allowance to equalize their salaries (because all staff are hired on a net of tax salary). But the tax allowance is itself taxable and the Americans also have to pay a 7.5 percent self employment tax that is not covered by the tax allowance. Because of this, Americans at the Fund actually make less than their non-U.S. colleagues on a net basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would anyone even notice if the world bank disappeared? Except for the people who work there?

Yes, this is a massive mistake. Amazing how one administration can diminish US stature in the world so quickly.

I am in the Third World a lot. No one has ever said to me, "Thank you American for the World Bank!"

This. Most people in developing countries hate the world bank and feel their misguided policies set up by well meaning but clueless fat cats have done more harm than good.

Lots of people in developing countries confuse the Fund with the Bank.

. Lots of people in developed countries do so as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am at the IMF. If the US withdraws Japan will become the largest shareholder (absent e realignment) and that is where the institution is supposed to move based on the Artlcles of Agreement. There is some nervous laughter about the institution about the evaluation of US participation in all IOs but so far my impression is that people believe that Trump won’t go as far as to withdraw from the Bretton Woods institutions, but who knows. Implications for US staff are not clear. I am not sure the Articles cover that. But the institution would very likely have to size down without the US and that will affect hiring. I would expect the same decision for WB and IMF. Not clear why Trump would withdraw from one and not from the other. It would definitely be interesting if US withdrew and the impact on the DC economy and real estate would be significant if both institutions had to move at short notice.

But the US isn't scheduled to make a quota increase to the IMF this year. So there is no funding spigot to turn off at the IMF.

Wouldn’t their quota need to be repaid if they withdraw though?

The original quota was paid in long ago. Perhaps they would get it back, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys should definitely be discussing all of this—including potential things they could do to cause harm—on an open forum. Great idea.

They have already thought of what they'll do. It's better for people to be aware and also better to clear up misunderstandings about the institutions. Beyond that, withdrawing could cause a major dent and ripple effect to the DMV economy. Especially on top of the Fed stuff.

The bank and the fund are one of the most important foreign policy tools for the U.S. The U.S. has veto power at both institutions. Within the past ten years, some countries starting borrowing bilaterally from countries like China and India to get away from the conditions they must meet to take WB or IMF money. If countries are unable to repay, they have to give up collateralized assets. In the case of Sri Lanka, this was a port.In other countries, it's natural resources. Loans can also be given quickly to countries of interest to the U.S. in a way that bypass congressional approval and other bottlenecks. If you want to weaken U.S. influence in the world, withdrawing would do that. The far right and the far left tend to hate the institutions. But most administrations do understand their value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am at the IMF. If the US withdraws Japan will become the largest shareholder (absent e realignment) and that is where the institution is supposed to move based on the Artlcles of Agreement. There is some nervous laughter about the institution about the evaluation of US participation in all IOs but so far my impression is that people believe that Trump won’t go as far as to withdraw from the Bretton Woods institutions, but who knows. Implications for US staff are not clear. I am not sure the Articles cover that. But the institution would very likely have to size down without the US and that will affect hiring. I would expect the same decision for WB and IMF. Not clear why Trump would withdraw from one and not from the other. It would definitely be interesting if US withdrew and the impact on the DC economy and real estate would be significant if both institutions had to move at short notice.

But the US isn't scheduled to make a quota increase to the IMF this year. So there is no funding spigot to turn off at the IMF.

Wouldn’t their quota need to be repaid if they withdraw though?

The original quota was paid in long ago. Perhaps they would get it back, yes.

The size of the Fund was increased significantly at the end of 2023 during the 16th GRQ. Has the US already paid what they agreed to at that time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WB is mostly for providing infrastructure funding and could come on the chopping block. Have worked there before, I see a lot of bloat that US ended up covering. Extensive travel to African and other countries and very generous pay packages is an eye sore for the administration so consider it to receive some resistance.

y

And a lot of employees pay zero income tax

Yes. My friends who worked there never paid US income tax while working and making $300-400k, they retired at age 60, and then filed for a green card. Their kids also got free tuition at private schools in DC.

Stop spreading lies and misinformation. International staff get paid on the net. US staff are paid on the gross and the latter pay taxes. International staff are not ever eligible for any US benefits such as social etc. Vert few people at the Bank ever make $300k. The Green Card is now almost impossible to get following a State Department decision about 2 years ago. Finally, staff who started working after 2000 (25 years ago) do NOT qualify for the private school benefits at the Bank….

I know bank staff who take overseas assignments when their children are about to start college in the US. In that case (your children attending schools outside of your duty station) I understand the bank still pays for the majority of the tuition. This is for all staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WB is mostly for providing infrastructure funding and could come on the chopping block. Have worked there before, I see a lot of bloat that US ended up covering. Extensive travel to African and other countries and very generous pay packages is an eye sore for the administration so consider it to receive some resistance.

y

And a lot of employees pay zero income tax

Yes. My friends who worked there never paid US income tax while working and making $300-400k, they retired at age 60, and then filed for a green card. Their kids also got free tuition at private schools in DC.

Stop spreading lies and misinformation. International staff get paid on the net. US staff are paid on the gross and the latter pay taxes. International staff are not ever eligible for any US benefits such as social etc. Vert few people at the Bank ever make $300k. The Green Card is now almost impossible to get following a State Department decision about 2 years ago. Finally, staff who started working after 2000 (25 years ago) do NOT qualify for the private school benefits at the Bank….

I am not WB/IMF, but I live in Bethesda and so have a lot of friends over the years who work there. (There is a house on my street that is a rental, and the owner always rents to a WB/IMF family who is in the U.S. temporarily. Also, in general, it seems like a lot of WB/IMF staff choose to live in Bethesda.)

I understand that the benefits are not as good as they used to be, but it seemed like the WB/IMF people we have known over the years are (a) very well educated and pleasant; and (b) making good money (with at least partial private school benefits). I figured that WB/IMF decision -- to offer generous pay packages -- was an attempt to attract the best and brightest.

I work in downtown DC near 18th and I (near the WB), and it seems like it took a particularly long time for those employees to return to the office. (Forgive me if I'm wrong.) As a taxpayer, that does not bother me at all because I know that a lot of WB employees do a lot of travel for their jobs, and so WFH seems like a nice balance for the days when they are in DC. But the WFH, in combo with the perceived generous pay, may rub the Trump administration the right way.

If the WB/IMF employees are no longer in the US, that would be a huge hit to the real estate market in the DC area. Also, I know that I have loved meeting so many over the years, from all around the world.

[Anonymous]

Also, I know that I have loved meeting so many over the years, from all around the world.

You really should have left this out. The social lives of Bethesda party-goers are not what is at stake here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WB is mostly for providing infrastructure funding and could come on the chopping block. Have worked there before, I see a lot of bloat that US ended up covering. Extensive travel to African and other countries and very generous pay packages is an eye sore for the administration so consider it to receive some resistance.

y

And a lot of employees pay zero income tax

Yes. My friends who worked there never paid US income tax while working and making $300-400k, they retired at age 60, and then filed for a green card. Their kids also got free tuition at private schools in DC.

Stop spreading lies and misinformation. International staff get paid on the net. US staff are paid on the gross and the latter pay taxes. International staff are not ever eligible for any US benefits such as social etc. Vert few people at the Bank ever make $300k. The Green Card is now almost impossible to get following a State Department decision about 2 years ago. Finally, staff who started working after 2000 (25 years ago) do NOT qualify for the private school benefits at the Bank….

This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WB is mostly for providing infrastructure funding and could come on the chopping block. Have worked there before, I see a lot of bloat that US ended up covering. Extensive travel to African and other countries and very generous pay packages is an eye sore for the administration so consider it to receive some resistance.

y

And a lot of employees pay zero income tax

Yes. My friends who worked there never paid US income tax while working and making $300-400k, they retired at age 60, and then filed for a green card. Their kids also got free tuition at private schools in DC.

These were old benefits that is no longer being offered. No free tuition at private schools, no free flights to country of origin.

WB and IMF staff who are non-US citizens get lower salaries than what they would get in US corporate world and so they don't have to pay US taxes. WB and IMF staff that are US citizen get the same rates that they will get in the US corporate world and they have to pay US taxes.

How many WB staff would be hired in the corporate world? Many of them would never get hired or advance very far there if they lost their Bank jobs. IMF is probably a different story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would anyone even notice if the world bank disappeared? Except for the people who work there?

I wish African ountries had other sources of borrowing money to finance their projects. WB funds come with strings attached.

They can borrow from anyone they want, including China and the private sector.

World Bank conditions are largely about governance etc and aimed at making sure the money is well spent.

I think last year an African country had issues with getting WB funds after they passed an anti LGBT bill. I don't recall the whole story, but if that was true that's problematic. If a country needs WB funds but is also asked to meet some kind of gender priorities that's an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WB is mostly for providing infrastructure funding and could come on the chopping block. Have worked there before, I see a lot of bloat that US ended up covering. Extensive travel to African and other countries and very generous pay packages is an eye sore for the administration so consider it to receive some resistance.

y

And a lot of employees pay zero income tax

Yes. My friends who worked there never paid US income tax while working and making $300-400k, they retired at age 60, and then filed for a green card. Their kids also got free tuition at private schools in DC.

These were old benefits that is no longer being offered. No free tuition at private schools, no free flights to country of origin.

WB and IMF staff who are non-US citizens get lower salaries than what they would get in US corporate world and so they don't have to pay US taxes. WB and IMF staff that are US citizen get the same rates that they will get in the US corporate world and they have to pay US taxes.

How many WB staff would be hired in the corporate world? Many of them would never get hired or advance very far there if they lost their Bank jobs. IMF is probably a different story.

I don't think you realize how ignorant you sound. Tons of PhD economists at the WB that can easily find private sector work making rich people richer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WB is mostly for providing infrastructure funding and could come on the chopping block. Have worked there before, I see a lot of bloat that US ended up covering. Extensive travel to African and other countries and very generous pay packages is an eye sore for the administration so consider it to receive some resistance.

y

And a lot of employees pay zero income tax

Yes. My friends who worked there never paid US income tax while working and making $300-400k, they retired at age 60, and then filed for a green card. Their kids also got free tuition at private schools in DC.

Stop spreading lies and misinformation. International staff get paid on the net. US staff are paid on the gross and the latter pay taxes. International staff are not ever eligible for any US benefits such as social etc. Vert few people at the Bank ever make $300k. The Green Card is now almost impossible to get following a State Department decision about 2 years ago. Finally, staff who started working after 2000 (25 years ago) do NOT qualify for the private school benefits at the Bank….

I am not WB/IMF, but I live in Bethesda and so have a lot of friends over the years who work there. (There is a house on my street that is a rental, and the owner always rents to a WB/IMF family who is in the U.S. temporarily. Also, in general, it seems like a lot of WB/IMF staff choose to live in Bethesda.)

I understand that the benefits are not as good as they used to be, but it seemed like the WB/IMF people we have known over the years are (a) very well educated and pleasant; and (b) making good money (with at least partial private school benefits). I figured that WB/IMF decision -- to offer generous pay packages -- was an attempt to attract the best and brightest.

I work in downtown DC near 18th and I (near the WB), and it seems like it took a particularly long time for those employees to return to the office. (Forgive me if I'm wrong.) As a taxpayer, that does not bother me at all because I know that a lot of WB employees do a lot of travel for their jobs, and so WFH seems like a nice balance for the days when they are in DC. But the WFH, in combo with the perceived generous pay, may rub the Trump administration the right way.

If the WB/IMF employees are no longer in the US, that would be a huge hit to the real estate market in the DC area. Also, I know that I have loved meeting so many over the years, from all around the world.

The WB is basically back to full week in the office and the IMF requires 60% in person attendance and many people are required to come in more frequently than that depending on the nature of their job.