Live data from Hacker News

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

blogs.wsj.com

301–310 of 701 posts

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

#301
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm in favor of a solid border control regime (i.e. "build the wall") Walls going up are days of sadness. Walls broken down are days of joy. The thing to keep in mind here is that such walls built to keep others out can be used just as easily to keep the locals in (on either side).

Walls don't impact legal immigration. They only only impact the proportion of illegal immigrants that sneak across the border.

Yes, we really should put a stop to all those Americans sneaking across the border to work illegally in Mexico.

/s

> Walls don't impact legal immigration.

Yes, they do. But not in a way that you would immediately recognize as linked so I'll forgive you.

> They only only impact the proportion of illegal immigrants that sneak across the border.

Yes, so they will cross legally and then disappear into illegality. Same thing really, only this time you'll be able to put an exact figure on it.

You know what will really change illegal immigration from Mexico?

Making Mexico wealthy. And if anything that was already happening leading to a decline in people moving to the US and even a reversal (people moving back to Mexico).

But now with the border wall and companies being strong-armed to move their production back to the US how long will it take for that trend to reverse again?

Because the people will follow the work.

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

#302
post #243

For the eleventy-millionth time: Most of those accused of being "anti-immigrant" aren't against immigrants, but are against illegal immigrants. There must be an orderly process to entry, primarily to prevent criminals & diseases, and also to keep the numbers assimilate-able. The headline alone seems designed to invoke consternation where none existed, or to construe a common position as anti-immigrant which isn't.

So the recent Muslim ban was anti-illegal immigrant? Hmm..

Snarky misconstrued labelling aside: Yes. Targeted countries chosen (and approved by prior President!) due to previously-acknowledged problems with the vetting process. Timeframe for the "ban" was limited & short. "Muslim" was not specified in any way.

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

#303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think he is referring to Sundar Pichai

Sundar is just an employee who worked his way up through the ranks...he was not involved in founding Google.

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

#304
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't be hard to have an immigration system which is biased toward useful vs. not useful. The question is: where do you want to have the cutoff? I'm in favor of a solid border control regime (i.e. "build the wall"), combined with a transparent and straightforward points-based system for mainly immigrant visas. I'd eliminate the inherent racism in the current system (penalizing India and China vs. Equatorial Gui…

> I'm in favor of a solid border control regime (i.e. "build the wall") Walls going up are days of sadness. Walls broken down are days of joy. The thing to keep in mind here is that such walls built to keep others out can be used just as easily to keep the locals in (on either side).

> Walls broken down are days of joy.

Not if you're a cell.

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

#305
post #274
post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that effect is only negative from the specific perspective of low end salary holders. that effect is positive for businesses and consumers.

Well, first of all, many consumers are also low-end salary earners. Second and perhaps more importantly, the more salaries are driven down, the less money those earners have to spend, which means businesses will see less potential revenue.

You are assuming a zero sum market. Generally, when the market changes, the labor force changes as well (skills retraining etc.). It might be inelastic (i.e. changes in labor takes more time to adjust to new markets) but it does eventually happen. This is how the US workforce made the jump from agrarian to industrial to service economy.

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

#307
post #98

One of the basic premises of anti-immigrant policies is that you can somehow influence the ratio of "useful" vs "not-useful" immigrants. Apart from the idea of sorting people into useful and useless being inhumane, it also seems to be counterproductive. It looks like every kind of screening of immigrants will deter the more desirable ones, as far as that determination is possible on their arrival at all.

It wouldn't be hard to have an immigration system which is biased toward useful vs. not useful. The question is: where do you want to have the cutoff? I'm in favor of a solid border control regime (i.e. "build the wall"), combined with a transparent and straightforward points-based system for mainly immigrant visas. I'd eliminate the inherent racism in the current system (penalizing India and China vs. Equatorial Gui…

When it comes to immigration, there's two different concerns that we shouldn't try to conflate. There's the security aspect and the work permitting aspect and they should be handled almost entirely separately. As far as security goes, I'm fine with DHS and the various three-letter agencies being able to weigh in and veto someone's visa based on whatever vetting process they need to put in place. This part of the system doesn't seem particularly broken, despite how much Trump wants it to be broken so he can keep beating that drum.

As far as the work permitting process goes, that part is almost certainly broken. The H1-B system benefits body shops the most and is almost impossible for smaller businesses to use. It should be scrapped in favor of a system that puts the onus of determining who gets a work visa on the employers rather than the government. A points system is an unnecessary proxy for actually determining someone's ability to do the job and the job interview process is, despite how imperfect it is, the best tool we have for making that determination.

I'd be in favor of allowing any US company to get work a permit for any employee they want to hire, provided they pass the security screening. The necessary caveat would be that the company would need to maintain a certain ratio of US to immigrant employees and salary. This would destroy the body shops that know how to game the current lottery system. And it would make hiring immigrants much more predictable for smaller companies that currently don't benefit, at all, from the immigrant labor pool due to the complexities involved in sponsoring an H1-B visa. It would take race and country of origin almost completely out of the equation, at least from public policy since those decisions would be made by employers. And it would make life better for H1-B visa holders as well, since they could easily transfer to any company that was below the required ratio. Other countries have a ratio system and the worst that happens is they game the system by employing locals in no-show jobs, which doesn't seem like such a bad deal for those locals. It seems appropriately protectionist while still making it as easy and predictable as possible for immigrants.

As far as the wall goes, it's the dumbest public policy suggestion I've heard in my lifetime. Speaking as a Californian, our economy won't work without the steady stream of near-slave labor that comes across our southern border. It's an uncomfortable truth, but almost everyone in the state depends on the work of these people, whether they realize it or not. The fear of deportation keeps them from using services that cost us money. Getting rid of them would be like getting rid of the motor oil in a car engine. All the individual parts would still be there, but the engine would break down. And on top of destroying our economy, the wall would cost at least $20b as well, and Mexico won't be picking up that bill.

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

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Walls going up are days of sadness. Walls broken down are days of joy. Depends. Whenever people put up the walls for their house (which serve the same purpose) those are days of joy too. Same for nations that fought hard to establish their borders and sovereignty. And fewer national borders is not some "wave of the future" -- it's what was tried and rejected when nation states became a thing. We had large, all-enco…

> Whenever people put up the walls for their house (which serve the same purpose) those are days of joy too. I don't think that was the context of the OP's comment, but if you wish to extend to those kinds of walls then that's fine with me. It's just not the way I would have interpreted the meaning of a border wall.

>It's just not the way I would have interpreted the meaning of a border wall.

Well, consider a country as a people's collective house.

In this, a border, if not analogous to the walls, is at least analogous to the fence around the house and/or the lock on the door.

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

#309
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you sort out people on a "promising"/"not promising" scale for doing good things for the economy? Ask Australia? But at a very basic level: * Criminal background -> sorry * No high school-equivalent education -> sorry * Crippling, expensive disease -> sorry Those are just three basic things that let you know straight away that this person has little chance to do anything but consume resources.

Under your simple scale you would exclude Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, and Stephen Hawking, respectively. I think they've all been supremely wasteful 'consumers of resources.'

You get an exemption from the rules if you are a Nobel Peace prize winner or were ever the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge.

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

#310
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you sort out people on a "promising"/"not promising" scale for doing good things for the economy? Ask Australia? But at a very basic level: * Criminal background -> sorry * No high school-equivalent education -> sorry * Crippling, expensive disease -> sorry Those are just three basic things that let you know straight away that this person has little chance to do anything but consume resources.

Under your simple scale you would exclude Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, and Stephen Hawking, respectively. I think they've all been supremely wasteful 'consumers of resources.'

And you think of the millions of people wanting to get in here they're all world-renowned physicists or spiritual leaders? We would long run out of money supporting the hordes of cancer-stricken dirt farmers clamoring to get in here before the next Stephen Hawking shows up.
Post reply on HN