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

671–680 of 701 posts

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

#671

Post by mozumder »

Arizhel wrote: post #663
drewrv wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assert that there's more similarity between American and Australian culture than American and Mexican. I don't believe that. US cuisine borrows more heavily from Mexico than Australia. We have more Spanish speakers than Spain. We have Veep candidates pandering to them. The US and Mexico both like fake wrestling. We have large cities with Spanish names and an entire state named after Mexico. But it's a dumb argume…

>US cuisine borrows more heavily from Mexico than Australia. This is just dumb. US cuisine borrows more heavily from China than from Australia too, but no one is going to claim that US culture is very similar to Chinese culture. I live in a little town and there's 3 Chinese restaurants here, and only 1 Mexican. >We have more Spanish speakers than Spain We probably have more Chinese speakers than Hong Kong too, but th…

So, you're saying we need more Mexicans in this country since we don't have enough of their culture? Sounds good.

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

#672

Post by int_19h »

dragonwriter wrote: post #659
int_19h wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who criticize H1B are not generally criticizing skilled immigration in general. They're pointing out that the way H1B is set up, it's a very poor implementation of skilled immigration, especially when you compare it to other countries (like, say, Canada). The ongoing discussion about switching to a points-based system for workers, for example, necessarily implies that skilled immigration track remains.

> They're pointing out that the way H1B is set up, it's a very poor implementation of skilled immigration H-1B is primarily a guest worker program, not a skilled immigration program. That is why despite allowing dual intent, the H-1B is a non-immigrant visa. There are skill-based immigrant visas in the US system, the H-1B just isn't one of them.

H-1B is de facto a skilled immigration program. The fact that it's dual intent, and that you can get a green card through employer sponsorship, seems to indicate that it is at least partially by design.

Those other programs that you reference are for "extraordinary talent" and such, and the bar there is much higher than for ordinary skilled immigration.

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

#673

Post by int_19h »

masondixon wrote: post #647
int_19h wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Family-based migration doesn't exist in other countries Family-based migration absolutely does exist in other countries, including those you have specifically named. It may not be as extensive as in US, but that's a different matter. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/ https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Brin And yes, having an eligible family member does effectively "guarantee you a spot as an immigrant you…

> Family-based migration absolutely does exist in other countries, including those you have specifically named. Sorry, I genuinely meant that its not as extensive. "Australia admits approximately two-thirds of its immigrants on skill criteria and strives to recruit persons during their peak working ages (Walsh, 2008). By contrast, about two-thirds of U.S. immigrants are family sponsored, without regard to skills or a…

The reason why the difference is so big is only partially because family immigration is less extensive in those countries. The bigger part is that US doesn't have a well designed skilled immigration track, while those other countries do. Most skilled immigrants come to US via H-1B or L-1, neither of which were originally designed for that purpose. Because H-1B specifically has an elaborate quota system, the number of people that can come under it is limited. But there's no similar quota on family immigration, and so the immigration system is dominated by the latter.

So if you want to see ratios more like in Australia or Canada, the first thing you should do is not clamp down on family immigration, but open up skilled immigration - e.g. by removing H-1B quotas, or (better yet) creating a proper work-your-way-to-citizenship visa with no quotas. That will increase the overall number of immigrants, but most of that increase will come from skilled immigration, evening things out.

Of course, at that point you'll want to have some merit-based system (points etc), because otherwise you'll get too many skilled immigrants to process...

I think that a lot of people on the left would actually be fine with that kind of tradeoff - point-based system, but without quotas. So larger number of immigrants overall, but eligibility bar is higher, and skilled immigration is more prominent compared to family immigration. Would you be okay with that?

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

#674

Post by cromwellian »

masondixon wrote: post #657
cromwellian wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could not find the quote from Bannon or Miller saying that "Camp of the Saints is my favourite novel"? Where can I find this? So you are able to dig up quotes supporting your spin, but couldn't run a Google search finding a quote on Camp of the Saints? Here, this HuffPo article links directly to SoundCloud interviews where you can hear him say it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-camp-of-the... Re…

> Here, this HuffPo article links directly to SoundCloud interviews where you can hear him say it: I cannot find it. Please give me a timecode. It being his favourite novel is implied from MSM is it not? > Bannon: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think...” Bannon responded before trailing off, according to the Post. Me and you will both have the oppo…

You're in denial, the evidence is staring you in the face, you're just not concerned. That's your prerogative, but you're probably not one of those who are going to be hurt by Bannon's misguided nationalism.

As for H1-Bs, the reason Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, et al, hire them is not to lock in slaves at low wages who can't leave. Yes, there are companies that do this, but the reality is, tech companies love to hire new advanced degree graduates and a large chunk of those with master degrees and above are immigrants.

If I want to hire a bunch of Phds in machine learning, optics, materials engineering, etc chances are they will be F-1 Visas and you won't see many native born in these programs in proportion to their representation in the population. This is just an uncomfortable fact.

What I find interesting is, conservatives will often tout this "pipeline problem" to explain away low representation of women and minorities in STEM jobs -- as a natural outcome that nothing should be done about it. However, when it comes to native born American (primarily white) males, who have their own "pipeline problem" at the advanced degree level relative to legal immigrants, you see them crying for government policy changes to protect what they assume to be their birthright privilege.

Most of the H1-Bs I have worked with, including my wife, were exceedingly talented, and hired by companies for their talent, not low wage slaves. This may not be true of consulting firms, but we can address those who abuse the system without lowering the overall number of H1-Bs allow -- that should be defined by market demand and right now, with unemployment at 2% in the STEM fields and salary inflation going through the roof, along with valuations, I question how much "protection" citizens need against importing the smartest people from around the world.

I leave you with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0Y9j_CGgM

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

#675

Post by Mikeb85 »

int_19h wrote: post #626
Mikeb85 wrote: post #190

Good study and all, but I think it misses the point of the current sentiment in the US. Regardless, yes, immigrants are more likely to found businesses than natives. Whether or not their businesses become billion dollar startups because of their efforts or venture capitalists is another question, but yes, they help the economy (As much as those who are a drag on it? Who knows). I wrote a lengthy post about the effect…

You do understand that the implication of your argument is that those people who come to US should be, effectively, forced to stay in their countries of birth, and work for their benefit? You talk in terms of benefits and drawbacks for societies collectively. What about benefits and drawbacks for individuals? A person who is coming from, say, India to US is doing so because they want to, not because they're forced to…

> A person who is coming from, say, India to US is doing so because they want to, not because they're forced to. If you deprive them of that ability and that choice, you're harming them - specifically, you're restricting their individual natural right to freedom of association and to pursuit of happiness.

Here's a question for you: Can the US absorb all 1.3 billion people in India? Then how about another billion from Africa? May as well throw in another half billion from other poor countries around the world.

Yes, it's all nice and good to say an individual should be able to do what they want. But at some point you're faced with limited space, resources, and social and economic issues.

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

#676

Post by eugeneionesco »

rat87 wrote: post #461
eugeneionesco wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many of those founders are muslims?

Tons. Although I'm sure many aren't very religious

How about you give me a number or at least some percentage, not just "tons".

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

#677

Post by kakarot »

rat87 wrote: post #457
kakarot wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the comment that takes the middle ground and explains to both of you that nothing is black and white and there are bad and good things about Trump's immigration agenda. His plans could actually be philanthropically motivated, but they are undeniably being prematurely spun into action without reasonable consultation from an array of experts and this is the source of most of its flaws. These flaws may or may no…

There's no false middle ground We're dealing with an extremely xenophobic white house and need to unite against it.

Don't say "There's no false middle ground" ... That is extremely assumptive and cocky.

Say what you really mean: "I only see this issue in black and white as a byproduct of my nascent understanding of the various forces at play in American politics and the motivations behind them."

You do understand that the average person sympathizes more with middle-ground attitudes, right? That speaking in extremes, except when necessary, can have the unintended effect of polarizing people? Affirming the beliefs of proponents and strengthening the resolve of opponents.

There is a reason that social disrupters who use Persona Management software aim for the middle ground when they speak. They use moderate voices that give a "balanced" view of both sides, before concluding one way or the other. Why? Because it has been shown to be a lot more effective and a greater number of people will be willing to digest the argument presented to them. Most people are on the fence and just need a little push in the right direction. They are more inclined to listen to a voice they sympathize with and less inclined to automatically become defensive and closed.

But keep up your strategy and we'll see how it goes. I'm sure your extremist "Everyone in the White House is xenophobic" argument is doing just fine.

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

#678

Post by masondixon »

int_19h wrote: post #673
masondixon wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Family-based migration absolutely does exist in other countries, including those you have specifically named. Sorry, I genuinely meant that its not as extensive. "Australia admits approximately two-thirds of its immigrants on skill criteria and strives to recruit persons during their peak working ages (Walsh, 2008). By contrast, about two-thirds of U.S. immigrants are family sponsored, without regard to skills or a…

The reason why the difference is so big is only partially because family immigration is less extensive in those countries. The bigger part is that US doesn't have a well designed skilled immigration track, while those other countries do. Most skilled immigrants come to US via H-1B or L-1, neither of which were originally designed for that purpose. Because H-1B specifically has an elaborate quota system, the number of…

> So larger number of immigrants overall

What is the rationale behind this? Or how will this benefit existing citizens? Where do you draw the line for a cap on immigration, and why?

There is an almost infinite number of people who want to come to the US. Decisions must be made fairly and consistently, and to the benefit of the standard of living of existing citizens.

H1-B = 236K applicants / 85K spots

So that is ~150K high-skilled people who want to come but cannot right now. I would say the first priority is to ensure this system is not being used to drive down wages, and not being used to abuse migrants.

If companies still need these people to grow the economy, and cannot find US people to do it, then we should get them in first.

Family-based immigration must be done in a way to ensure that we are not creating greater demands on the economy. They should be able to support themselves and not contribute to the decrease in participation rate, and increasing unemployment.

> "28% of new [tech] startups in America are started by immigrants," - Ron Conway > "Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Doll..."

This says that there should have some kind of entrepreneurial visa.

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

#679

Post by masondixon »

cromwellian wrote: post #674
masondixon wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here, this HuffPo article links directly to SoundCloud interviews where you can hear him say it: I cannot find it. Please give me a timecode. It being his favourite novel is implied from MSM is it not? > Bannon: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think...” Bannon responded before trailing off, according to the Post. Me and you will both have the oppo…

You're in denial, the evidence is staring you in the face, you're just not concerned. That's your prerogative, but you're probably not one of those who are going to be hurt by Bannon's misguided nationalism. As for H1-Bs, the reason Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, et al, hire them is not to lock in slaves at low wages who can't leave. Yes, there are companies that do this, but the reality is, tech compani…

> I could not find the quote from Bannon or Miller saying that "Camp of the Saints is my favourite novel"? Where can I find this?

>> You're in denial, the evidence is staring you in the face, you're just not concerned. That's your prerogative, but you're probably not one of those who are going to be hurt by Bannon's misguided nationalism.

Its a book he has read. That is all. Fake news and false outrage.

> What I find interesting is, conservatives will often tout this "pipeline problem" to explain away low representation of women and minorities in STEM jobs -- as a natural outcome that nothing should be done about it.

You are saying the government needs to tell women and minorities to apply for STEM courses, because they are incapable of doing so? This is a cultural problem and it is fixing itself without government intervention.

> "pipeline problem" at the advanced degree level relative to legal immigrants

As Dr. Kaku says in the video, "the scientific establishment would collapse...50% PhD are foreign-born.". So your solution is immigration? Wouldn't the solution be to fix the education system?

What we are saying is focus on a sustainable solution - looking after the people you have. If you keep bringing people in, and they bring their families, and their kids turn out to be dummies because of poor education system, then you need to bring in more foreign-born...who will just perpetuate the problem and increase the burden on the country of dummies. Its a ponzi scheme. And it is actually an argument for restricting family visas, and favouring increase numbers of H1-B.

> Most of the H1-Bs I have worked with, including my wife, were exceedingly talented, and hired by companies for their talent, not low wage slaves.

Anecdotal, but yes, some/most immigrants are talented - of course. But there is documented abuses, and conditions available for abuses - which means abuses certainly happen.

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

#680

Post by timthelion »

gwern wrote: post #669
timthelion wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No amount of statistics change the fact that arguing against open borders is an authoritarian stance. I could throw just as many statistics against you and your drug use if I wanted, but I'm not an authoritarian. And as to lying with statistics, I don't think that the left is alone in that.

> No amount of statistics change the fact that arguing against open borders is an authoritarian stance. That so? > I could throw just as many statistics against you and your drug use if I wanted, but I'm not an authoritarian. Go right ahead. > And as to lying with statistics, I don't think that the left is alone in that. And yet, that still doesn't make it right.

> That so?

Yes, by way of tautology arguing for a regulation on the movement of people is arguing for a regulation which effects the freedom of individuals and arguing to regulate the freedom of individuals is authoritarian.

> Go right ahead.

" In 2002, 29% of convicted inmates reported they had used illegal drugs at the time of the offense, down from 35% in 1996." - https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm

Vs foreign born people with a total incarceration rate of just 0.57% vs native born people with an incarceration rate of 2.23%.

Obviously, from a statistical standpoint, you are far worse than your average mexican when it comes to crime ;)

Post reply on HN