- Introduction
- National Security: The Global Talent Advantage
- Climate Change & Gender Equality: The Broader Impact of Global Hiring
- Why Most US Startups Fail: Tracing the Money
- ITAR & Legal Compliance: How to Build a Global Team
- Why Limiting Access to the US Economy Could Lead to Radicalization
- The Hypocrisy of US-Only Job Posts: Why It’s the Wrong Time to Be Hypocritical on Free Markets and Equal Opportunity
- Conclusion: Why Inclusive Hiring is the Future
1. Introduction
In today’s interconnected world, limiting job opportunities to US citizens and residents, especially for roles that could easily be done remotely, may not only stifle innovation but also harm national security. As businesses and startups increasingly rely on global talent to innovate faster, US-only job postings can create unnecessary barriers that limit progress. Let’s explore why hiring global talent is critical, from addressing economic inequalities to boosting security, and how companies can do this while staying compliant with legal regulations like ITAR.
2. National Security: The Global Talent Advantage
Security Risks of Exclusion
Excluding highly skilled talent from populous countries such as Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Algeria, Kenya, or Egypt means pushing brilliant minds into situations where they may become disillusioned or radicalized. Offering opportunities to economically excluded, yet incredibly talented, individuals can act as a preventative measure against radicalization.
Less Likely to Work for Competing Interests
Talented developers living in countries facing economic hardships are often more loyal to companies that give them opportunities. Hiring them can mean less risk of talent defecting to competitors or hostile nations.
3. Climate Change & Gender Equality: The Broader Impact of Global Hiring
Remote work helps tackle global problems like climate change by reducing the need for commuting, in-person office spaces, and the environmental footprint of corporate real estate. Global talent distribution also empowers women in developing countries to participate in the global economy, addressing gender equality issues.
- Link to Article on Locationism: Read more on how location-based hiring impacts equality.
4. Why Most US Startups Fail: Tracing the Money
Many US startups spend enormous amounts of money on things like office rent, which could easily be avoided through global, remote talent. Here’s why that’s a problem:
- Real Estate Costs: Offices in cities like San Francisco can cost upwards of $17,000/month.
- Overpaying for Simple Tasks: Tasks like JS dashboard development can be done by international developers for a fraction of the cost.
Solution: Global Talent & AI
Instead of overpaying for tasks, companies could experiment and find product-market fit using global talent and AI to scale faster.
5. ITAR & Legal Compliance: How to Build a Global Team
One of the biggest fears companies have with hiring internationally is compliance with laws like ITAR or HIPAA. However, by separating codebases and assigning only the sensitive work (such as handling ITAR-protected algorithms) to US personnel, while letting the rest of the team (global talent) handle non-sensitive work, companies can stay compliant.
- Separate Sensitive Codebases: Use AWS or GitHub to control who has access to protected data or code, limiting exposure to the parts governed by ITAR regulations.
- Conduct Sensitive Operations on US Servers: Have final ML model training done in the US, but allow experimentation and data analysis to be performed globally.
6. Why Limiting Access to the US Economy Could Lead to Radicalization
In a globally connected world, excluding smart, ambitious developers from countries like Egypt, Kenya, or Ethiopia from participating in the global economy (that’s effectively run by the US) is not just discriminatory; it’s a recipe for radicalization. If talented individuals feel locked out, they may turn to more hostile ways to express their discontent. Including them in the economic engine of the world reduces this risk.
7. The Hypocrisy of US-Only Job Posts: Why It’s the Wrong Time to Be Hypocritical on Free Markets and Equal Opportunity
The U.S. often prides itself on being a champion of free markets, equal opportunity, and meritocracy. The principles of free enterprise have been fundamental to American economic policy and identity for centuries, yet in practice, these ideals are far from universally upheld. Here’s why this is the wrong time for hypocrisy on these fronts:
- Free Markets: The U.S. preaches about the importance of free markets, yet protectionist policies like US-only job postings directly contradict this principle. Global free markets thrive on competition and the best allocation of talent and resources. Limiting participation to U.S. workers for roles that can be done remotely undermines the very notion of a free market economy.
- Equal Opportunity: Equal opportunity is at the heart of American values, supposedly ensuring that anyone can achieve success regardless of their background. Yet, excluding qualified international talent from countries like Uganda, India, Kenya, or Nigeria contradicts this ethos. Especially when companies benefit from a diverse workforce, denying opportunities based on geography flies in the face of equality and merit-based systems.
- Historical Contradictions: America’s foundational ideals of freedom and equality were built upon systems of slavery, indigenous dispossession, and immigrant exclusion policies like those at Ellis Island. None of these were constitutional, and they systematically oppressed large groups of people. Today, preaching about free markets while discriminating against international talent, especially from the Majority World, reeks of the same historical contradictions.
- Wrong Time for Hypocrisy: With the rise of globalization and remote work, the world has become more interconnected than ever before. Excluding global talent—particularly during an era when the U.S. claims to champion innovation and collaboration—is a damaging double standard. The global workforce is more educated and skilled than ever, making it morally and economically irresponsible to deny them opportunities under the pretense of protecting U.S. jobs.
- National Security & Economic Stability: As the world grapples with complex crises like climate change, cybersecurity, and pandemics, it is essential for the U.S. to have collaborative global solutions. Engaging diverse and global talent contributes to security and stability. Moreover, brilliant talent living in challenging economic conditions is much less likely to work for competing or hostile interests if included in the global economy. Preventing radicalization and bitterness, this is not just a moral issue but a strategic one.
In an age when so many global challenges require collaboration, it’s time for the U.S. to align its practices with its preached ideals of free markets and equal opportunity and stop excluding international talent from participation in the global economy.
8. Conclusion: Why Inclusive Hiring is the Future
The world is facing immense challenges, from national security risks to climate change. Inclusive hiring of global talent, rather than limiting to US-only, is not just a matter of business efficiency—it’s a security imperative. By embracing international talent, companies can build stronger, more diverse teams that are well-positioned to innovate, stay legally compliant, and address the challenges of the future. Really, our world economy should be a capitalist meritocracy where the best talent, no matter their location, gets the job.
By following the strategies mentioned, companies can not only access the best global talent but also reduce their carbon footprint, drive innovation, and strengthen national security.
What a silly strawman argument.. last time I checked the United States hires more talent globally than any other country. What am I missing?
Thanks for your feedback.
The U.S. indeed hires a significant amount of global talent, but it also controls around one-third of the world’s wealth and exerts influence over much of the global economy, including Europe, which controls nearly another third. This concentration of wealth and power means that exclusionary practices, such as “US-only” job postings for work that can be done remotely, disproportionately disadvantage qualified applicants from regions like Africa and South Asia.
You mentioned this is a strawman argument. We clarified the language from “Promote” to “Indirectly Create Conditions for” to highlight the indirect consequences more accurately. Please let us know if it’s still a straw man.
Meritocracy is built on the principle that the best candidate, regardless of background, gets the job. However, historically, the U.S. has instituted unconstitutional indigenous dispossession, African slavery, and Ellis Island immigration exclusions—creating a system where many Africans and South Asians, no matter how qualified, are unjustly shut out from remote jobs that could otherwise easily accommodate them.
US-only job postings may be no more meritocratic than race or gender-based exclusions. In fact, they can perpetuate similar biases. Here’s more about location-based hiring biases: https://blog.ldtalentwork.com/2024/08/13/location-based-restriction-remote-hiring-bias/
On national security, excluding millions of highly educated African and South Asian youth from opportunities in the global economy could indeed foster resentment and instability. In countries like Egypt, Algeria, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, and Bangladesh, where young populations are rapidly growing and studying hard to get well educated, lack of opportunity could lead them to radicalization if economic exclusion remains the policy of US companies, who often dominate the world economy.
Outsourcing low skill or less attractive jobs is not the solution. Given America’s history with the rest of the world, US companies should definitely give everyone in the world a chance to at least apply and compete meritocratic-ally for American jobs, especially the most creative and high level kinds that often get reserved for US persons only. That would be the kind of true free market capitalism that America promotes to other countries.
By the end of this century, Africa and South Asia will represent 80% of the world’s population, yet they control only 5% of global wealth. Us failing to integrate these populations into the economy—especially through remote work opportunities for highly skilled and educated youth—is a recipe for disaster.