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

311–320 of 701 posts

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

#311

Post by tristor »

elif wrote: post #255
nilkn wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's no evidence that immigration, even mass immigration, has any negative consequences, apart from some more competition at the very low end of salaries So, in other words, there is evidence that it does have negative consequences? I myself don't know either way. I just think that, if what you write is true, an impact at the low end of the salary spectrum isn't something to brush off as if it's nothing and does…

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

The attitude you just displayed is basically why Trump won the election. Let me translate your statements to an economic reality: "Screw the entire middle of the country and anyone who doesn't live in cities. Except those guys in Chicago, I guess they're alright."

Low wage earners are a huge chunk of the legal US population. After the government the next largest employer in the country is Walmart. Most of those people live outside major metros because at those wages it's not affordable to get housing in major metros.

I understand your city folk bubble, but I suggest you step out of it before spreading elitist rhetoric. Economies are complex systems which cause strong interdependence between cities and rural areas. The politics from both sides of the aisle of trying to injure their opponents is counter productive to the entire nation.

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

#312

Post by maxerickson »

nilkn wrote: post #274
elif wrote: 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.

The added spending from the additional incomes is likely to be larger than the reduction in spending in the baseline incomes.

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

#313

Post by nilkn »

pm90 wrote: post #305
nilkn wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> This is just not sound economics at all.

Honestly I think the statements I made are extremely simple.

Is it false that low-wage earners are also consumers?

Is it false that low-wage earners have less money to spend as consumers?

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

#314

Post by rs1234 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #131
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?

Yes. I am non-ironically suggesting exactly that. Indentured servitude emerged as a solution to a socio-economic need in a bygone era, like the H1B does now. Neither is a perfect system, and all stakeholders concerned - the company, the employee, competing employees, society - get some benefits, some pain. But overall, American society is the net beneficiary of the education, skills, and entrepreneurial drive that immigrants bring with them (circling back to the original topic). Want proof? Look at the America today that was built by the ex-indentured servants and their descendants.

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

#315

Post by pm90 »

muninn_ wrote: post #159
rdl wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ca…

I agree, but how many people come here from, say, India or wherever, work in IT in somewhere like SF and say ok I've had enough training, time to go make my country a better place? None. I don't blame them either.

That is most certainly not the case. While there are many who stay, there are also a sizeable number who go back to their home countries.

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

#316

Post by gozur88 »

xapata wrote: post #221
dmix wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Verge article: > While Bannon didn’t explicitly say anything against immigrants, he seemed to hint at the idea of a white nationalist identity with the phrase “civic society.” That seems like a pretty big jump from him citing a common stat to Verge accusing him of calling for a white nationalist state. He didn't say anything close to that. He may hold nationalist ideas where he wants more American's founding…

Knowing that explicit white nationalism could be problematic, a white nationalist might speak in code. This is similar to the way someone might speak in code when discussing criminal activity, since it's illegal to surveil non-criminal discussion. The question in court is whether a reasonable person would interpret a conversation as normal speech or criminal code. "The eagle flies at midnight," is obvious code. Other…

>Knowing that explicit white nationalism could be problematic, a white nationalist might speak in code.

This is a terribly dishonest debating tactic.

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

#318

Post by xienze »

mozumder wrote: post #251
67726e wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We don't have enough people that picks Strawberry crops in California or does home construction in suburbs. We literally don't have those people willing to do those jobs, which can cause runaway inflation Then increase the wage paid. You're literally arguing for a slave-wage underclass.

Are you under the mistaken impression that increasing wages paid would cause people to work those jobs? And you are literally asking for runaway inflation. Guess who pays for that the most at a rate higher than the rest of society? The poor and the elderly on fixed income. Do you want to punish the poor and elderly on fixed income because millennials can't be bothered to work hard labor because it might interrupt the…

> Are you under the mistaken impression that increasing wages paid would cause people to work those jobs?

Has anyone actually tried paying $25 per hour plus benefits for strawberry picking?

Let me guess, you're entirely consistent in your beliefs and likewise oppose the $15/hour minimum wage for fast food workers. Because after all, that would lead to runaway inflation.

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

#319

Post by freehunter »

vineetch wrote: post #262
freehunter wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

>Is Garrett Camp an immigrant? Sure sounds like it. But is that really in the spirit of "founded by immigrants"? Yes, Garrett Camp is an immigrant. He just happens to be white and from Canada and is thus perceived less as "those other people" and more "American" because he blends in. If he came from Sudan would you consider him to be "more of an immigrant"? Your own comment implies this bias even if you didn't mean f…

>Your own comment implies this bias even if you didn't mean for it to sound that way.

I see your point, but I disagree in this situation. If there was no context around the discussion, you'd be exactly right. But there is context, and the context is the immigration ban put in place by the president. That immigration ban excludes people from specific countries. This article was very obviously written to show how important immigration is as a way to counter the reasoning that bore the immigration ban, but I feel it cheapens the point when you include immigrants who are not part of the ban.

Basically, if the point of the article was just "immigrants are good", then yes, you're right. But since the point of the article is "this immigration ban is bad!", it makes sense to restrict the discussion to people from countries actually listed on the ban.

To put it another way, what if the article mentioned Canadian immigrants, South African immigrants, German immigrants, British immigrants.... but no Iranians? No Syrians. No Iraqis. The conclusion of the article could then be portrayed as "see? muslim immigrants don't do anything useful anyway! ban them!" For every immigrant you put in the article that isn't affected by the ban, the case for the ban becomes stronger. That's why I think we should limit our conversation to the context implied by the article's conclusion.

Post reply on HN