Exchange rates: USD/CHF
Here’s how many Swiss Francs (CHF) you could buy with ONE US dollar (USD) on every September 26 of the previous 7 years. Remember, the more you can buy, the better it is (for me…).
2000: 1.65
2001: 1.67
2002: 1.50
2003: 1.31
2004: 1.26
2005: 1.29
2006: 1.24
Today’s rate (at the time I’m writing this post) is 1.17.
An imaginary monthly house payment of 1000 CHF would have cost each September 26 in USD:
2000: $606.06
2001: $598.80
2002: $666.67
2003: $763.35
2004: $793.65
2005: $775.19
2006: $806.45
Today’s imaginary monthly payment (at the time I’m writing this post) would be $854.70.
So what do we learn from this exercise? People who live in foreign countries and are partially paid in USD only write about it when the USD is low. Otherwise, they never bring it up.
2000: 1.65
2001: 1.67
2002: 1.50
2003: 1.31
2004: 1.26
2005: 1.29
2006: 1.24
Today’s rate (at the time I’m writing this post) is 1.17.
An imaginary monthly house payment of 1000 CHF would have cost each September 26 in USD:
2000: $606.06
2001: $598.80
2002: $666.67
2003: $763.35
2004: $793.65
2005: $775.19
2006: $806.45
Today’s imaginary monthly payment (at the time I’m writing this post) would be $854.70.
So what do we learn from this exercise? People who live in foreign countries and are partially paid in USD only write about it when the USD is low. Otherwise, they never bring it up.
September 26th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
There’s a math lesson in there somewhere.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
This is some of what they call “higher math,” isn’t it?
September 28th, 2007 at 2:35 am
What is it with all of this math? Has Jesus returned?
September 28th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to be fully paid in the currency of the country one is living in? It seems to be partially paid in USD means that one will be doubly taxed and both sources of income compromised? Also, those US employers and others who support and who pay a person living in a foreign country in USD might not ever appreciate how the USD fluctuates against the local currency, and how that can affect the financial obligations/commitments of the ones living in the foreign country on a USD pay scale. Tax systems in countries are so different – it is difficult to see how being paid in one national currency would support those living under the burden of a different national tax system.
I guess what I am trying to say (and confuse things even further!) is that if Americans are going to financially support and pay others to do their work in a foreign country, then, if it takes $2 to equal £1 (for example), and they expect their employee to live as equitably amongst the locals as they (the American employers) are living amongst their locals, they would need to commit to easing any extra financial burdens placed on their employee and double up on their salary? And they would take a continuing, weekly interest in the world market’s exchange rates so they can stay on top of the game.
Man, my brain hurts when I have to think!
September 28th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Hi Deb: Sure it would be better to be paid in the local currency. Many companies do that for their expats and then index their living (ex: Plus 30 or 40 % for Switzerland).
Sometimes people work for a small company, or a small church, and that’s not always possible. So other arrangements have to be made.
You’re right though, that those in the USA who support or salary expats, need to be very aware of what’s going on.
Thanks for the comments!