Tax deductibility does indeed incentivise charitable giving, possibly for selfish reasons. But the person on the recieving end of education/healthcare/whatever, doesn't really care do they? The effect is what's important, not the motivation.
I am sure that some localized Good Things will occur as a byproduct of this arbitrage, but let's not pretend for a second that "advancing human potential" and "promoting equality" are actually the metrics by which the success of this enterprise is being judged.
Phrases like that ring to me to describe a two class of people: a "low cost" tier, and a "normal cost" tier. To me this has obvious racist overtones as "low-cost" is often followed by [nationality]. If someone is willing to work harder, she should get the job, but somehow if that same person is willing to work as hard for less money, she is unworthy? Sure the company benefits from a spread between what a person makes and what they contribute, but they do so already. Eventually if that spread becomes too large, other companies will exploit this arbitrage and start new businesses and bid up the employees compensation. You are free to do so as well assuming you live in a free capitalist society.
This destabilizes the local economy, creating gentrified districts or entire cities(See: SF) where only the privileged laborers for a foreign economy can afford to live. It will also lead to a sharp increase in luxury good prices due to new demand, driving the bar for middle-class living out of reach for local workers. The skilled workers hired by the foreign economy become a brain drain - the government has invested resources into their education, but no one in the local economy can afford them, thus they'll never create goods for it to improve local technology levels.
Helping people is hard.
With corruption having bled those countries dry, there remains little by way of local engineering opportunities and those able to, leave. A local training hub as Andela is difficult to see as worsening that situation.
So paying people more and giving them jobs destabilizes the local economy because these people now have money and spend more on housing and other items? And if they're paid less, they're being exploited?
> The skilled workers hired by the foreign economy become a brain drain - the government has invested resources into their education, but no one in the local economy can afford them, thus they'll never create goods for it to improve local technology levels.
Doesn't the government prefer rich denizens and a higher tax base? Isn't this how education is funded and higher salaries and tax base partially the point of investing in education?
> but no one in the local economy can afford them, thus they'll never create goods for it to improve local technology levels.
Aren't digital good mostly global in nature? Don't poor countries benefit from Facebook/Google/Apple/etc?
You're not paying all people more, just some of them. The rest get to enjoy rising prices for good housing and luxuries that they won't be able to afford with their local pay.
> Doesn't the government prefer rich denizens and a higher tax base? Isn't this how education is funded and higher salaries and tax base partially the point of investing in education?
Unless you're planning to turn all Nigerians and Kenyans into software developers, this isn't really the case. Just higher taxes may pay for the education the government invested in you, but the investment is made with a hope that you would do more than break even. Without skilled technological leaders driving progress forward(because they're busy driving someone else's progress forward), you'll stagnate, which means the costs of global goods gets worse for your population,
> Aren't digital good mostly global in nature? Don't poor countries benefit from Facebook/Google/Apple/etc?
Yes - which is why most poor countries can't afford them.
Correct, gains are never distributed equally. This has been tried and failed. You can keep everyone poor or allow some to accumulate wealth.
In regards to modern technology not benefiting poor countries, please note that more people in Africa have a mobile phone than access to electricity [0]. Across the seven countries surveyed, roughly two-thirds or more say they own a cell phone. Ownership is especially high in South Africa and Nigeria, where about nine-in-ten have a cell phone [1]. I think you're understating the positive impact western technology is having on transforming the lives of poor Africans.
[0] http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/tech/mobile/africa-mobile-opin...
[1] http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/04/15/cell-phones-in-africa-co...
I would however question the extent this is driven by Western innovation though. I would argue that this driven primarily through the ability of the Chinese to make technology for a significantly lower cost.
[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/19/africa/africa-afrobaromete...
Although there is no law against a charity or not-for-profit deciding to remove funding for a program they, by definition, are not motivated by the money flow of the program. Sure they are interested in making the program run efficiently and that there is enough funding to begin the program and see the program through but profit is not their core motivation and thus, I would argue, are more committed in their programs and investments. Those exploiting inefficiencies for gain should be reprimanded by the system granting these special business types.