Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 701 posts

Re: Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups

#131

Post by dragonwriter »

rs1234 wrote: post #62

A bunch of folks on this forum love to bash the H1B visa. But that visa is not so new - this is how America has always filled her need for labor. Please take a few moments to read about "indentured servants" - immigrants from Britain and other parts of Europe who came to the US in 1800s. They were required to serve 5 to 7 years working in fields. After that they were given land and free to work for themselves. The H1…

Wait, are you seriously, non-ironically using the similarity of the H-1B to indentured servitude as your basis for suggesting that people are wrong to bash the H-1B?

Re: Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups

#132

Post by coldpie »

GrinningFool wrote: post #91
coldpie wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Green card holders? Refugees? Migrants' family members? Don't try to paper over or make excuses for the blatant racism espoused by the Republican party.

> by the Republican party. By some members of it, anyway. The Republican party is no more a united front than the Democrat party at the moment.

Gosh, thanks for the correction. We wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of the racists' close allies and supporters, now, would we?

Supporting Republicans means supporting racism. This was made extremely clear during the 2016 election, and I don't see any Republicans scrambling to prevent the White House's blatantly racist policies since then. There are no more excuses, you are either a supporter of hate and bigotry or you are not a Republican.

Re: Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups

#133

Post by oh_sigh »

surfmike wrote: post #60
rayiner wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to make that cuts the other way. What is the cost of integrating and potentially supporting a million immigrants compared to the return from one billion dollar startup? (Especially when we're talking a billion dollars of Monopoly money valuation versus day a billion in revenue.)

Um, not much? Immigrants as a whole pay their way in the United States, have lower crime rates. The revenue generated by Google, Chobani, and other companies is not "Mickey mouse" money. Not to mention that Microsoft and Google both picked immigrants to be their leaders.

I'll assume you're talking about Brin when including Google in your post. He was 6 years old when he came to America. Maybe that is what is important. Did anyone pull stats on the value of companies started by immigrants who came to America already fully grown?

Re: Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups

#134

Post by rdl »

oh_sigh wrote: post #127
muninn_ wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I mean, the problem is that we can't afford to "let them all in", so how do you decide who to let in? An immigration policy that is held be numerous other countries that favors skilled immigrants seems to be reasonable. On the other hand, brain drain. How will those countries continue to get better and enjoy a modern standard of living if all the smart people leave?

Perhaps nations will be incentivized to fix the underlying causes of their brain drain if they perceive it as a big problem.

Also there is value in "go to US/SV, work there, return home with knowledge of how better systems work, establish in your home country", although there are probably scale effects so it's best for humanity overall for the best people to be concentrated.

(I'm not sure about the merits of immigration, naturalization, and then return to/interface with birth country, vs. a non-immigrant status. There is probably a good case to be made that having people gain US citizenship is overall better, and it provides optionality. With global taxation it is a clear net win for the US, too.)

Re: Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups

#135

Post by thatfrenchguy »

microcolonel wrote: post #115
mozumder wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the populist parameters used to define usefulness of a person is incorrect. You think a person from Mexico is more useless than a person from Canada?

On the whole, a Canadian citizen will be more promising in the U.S. Canadians speak English which is close to Standard American English; the cultures are more similar, and the level of poverty is much lower, meaning they're less likely to become dependent on social programs. If usefulness is measured in ability to contribute to the productivity of the nation as a whole, then Canadians are a better bet (knowing nothin…

All Canadiens don't speak English. A lot of people only speak Spanish in the US.

Re: Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups

#136

Post by thegp »

jlebrech wrote: post #44
pm90 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First they came for the "Illegals"... Rhetoric aside, as you pointed out, this is only the beginning. Authoritarians always need a scrapegoat to blame for "failed policies". Once one group is eliminated, on to another.

this is also called the slippery slope fallacy.

this is also called the fallacy fallacy

There is ample historic precedent for regimes and loud minorities implementing agendas by first going after the easiest targets (jews, kurds,hooligans,illegal immigrants) then slightly generalising (disabled, kurdish supporters, all "potentially violent", immigrants in general) in some steps until the end goal (political opponents, political opponents, political opponents and...political opponents). Hence in this case, the slippery slope is a given and justified.

Re: Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups

#137

Post by mozumder »

microcolonel wrote: post #115
mozumder wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the populist parameters used to define usefulness of a person is incorrect. You think a person from Mexico is more useless than a person from Canada?

On the whole, a Canadian citizen will be more promising in the U.S. Canadians speak English which is close to Standard American English; the cultures are more similar, and the level of poverty is much lower, meaning they're less likely to become dependent on social programs. If usefulness is measured in ability to contribute to the productivity of the nation as a whole, then Canadians are a better bet (knowing nothin…

So how many Canadians do we have picking strawberries in California?

Who do you think is better for controlling the US inflation rate?

Re: Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups

#138

Post by snambi »

omarforgotpwd wrote: post #69
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apart from the idea of sorting people into useful and useless being inhumane, it also seems to be counterproductive. Universities do it.

There are many alternatives if you are denied from a university, such as applying to a different university or learning online instead. There is only one America

there are many other countries. so, there is choice for poeple emigrating.

Re: Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups

#139

Post by freehunter »

capocannoniere wrote: post #67

I assume what they really mean by Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups is that 51% of $1B+ U.S. startups have at least one immigrant founder , right? (as opposed to 51% of unicorn founders are immigrants )

It also heavily depends on the definition of "immigrant". Uber is listed, for example. The two founders of Uber are Travis Kalanick (born in Los Angeles, not an immigrant) and Garrett Camp (born in Canada, resides in San Fransisco). Is Garrett Camp an immigrant? Sure sounds like it. But is that really in the spirit of "founded by immigrants"?

I am not arguing in favor of an immigrant ban in any way, I think it's a bad idea, but when a headline is trying to argue against the ban the president has put forward and lists people from Canada and South Africa... well I mean yeah they're technically immigrants, but they wouldn't have been banned by the policy anyway. Now, Arash Ferdowsi, Iranian co-founder of Dropbox, that's your success story. Unfortunately the number of billion-dollar startups with founders born in countries listed in the travel ban is far smaller so it'd make for a worse headline.

I feel the inclusion of people like Camp and Musk hurts the point the story is trying to make. We have tons of important people from countries affected by the immigration ban, and it'd be worth it to highlight those people rather than just any immigrant. The president has never called for banning all immigration from any country regardless of anything. So the argument is disingenuous.

Post reply on HN