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

Study: Immigrants and their kids founded 45% of U.S. Fortune 500 companies

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 156 posts

Re: Study: Immigrants and their kids founded 45% of U.S. Fortune 500 companies

#71

Post by SkyBelow »

pjc50 wrote: post #18
metalchianti wrote: post #8

Definitely some selection bias. Many wealthy people in the US are immigrants. Also, many wealthy people probably choose to immigrate to the US to start their business because of lower barriers to entry. EDIT: Also, if this [1] is correct, 13.7% of people in the US are immigrants. So how many people are immigrants OR first-gen? And since ANY of the founders can be immigrants/first-gen, more founders means higher likel…

Not all these people were wealthy before they arrived; Andy Grove of Intel was a Hungarian refugee, for example.

I don't see someone claiming they all were. A selection bias does not mean the issue causing the bias happens to every single individual in the group.

Re: Study: Immigrants and their kids founded 45% of U.S. Fortune 500 companies

#73

Post by admax88q »

pjc50 wrote: post #18
metalchianti wrote: post #8

Definitely some selection bias. Many wealthy people in the US are immigrants. Also, many wealthy people probably choose to immigrate to the US to start their business because of lower barriers to entry. EDIT: Also, if this [1] is correct, 13.7% of people in the US are immigrants. So how many people are immigrants OR first-gen? And since ANY of the founders can be immigrants/first-gen, more founders means higher likel…

Not all these people were wealthy before they arrived; Andy Grove of Intel was a Hungarian refugee, for example.

"My anecdote trumps your data."

Re: Study: Immigrants and their kids founded 45% of U.S. Fortune 500 companies

#74

Post by cronix »

testvox wrote: post #59
hartator wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Andy Grove came in the US at 20. He was never on government assistance nor saw his family having to adapt to a new place.

He may have acquired his grit through other means, in his words: > By the time I was twenty, I had lived through a Hungarian Fascist dictatorship, German military occupation, the Nazis' "Final Solution," the siege of Budapest by the Soviet Red Army, a period of chaotic democracy in the years immediately after the war, a variety of repressive Communist regimes, and a popular uprising that was put down at gunpoint... […

I'd be really curious about his viewpoints on the current US political landscape, considering he experienced real, actual fascism and not the label everyone throws around willy-nilly trying to tar and feather each other. Personally, whenever I hear the terms racist or fascist thrown around, racism and fascism never actually enter my mind, or at least extremely rarely. I just think "Oh, another person who disagrees with someone else," because that's how the words are used in modern day politics. The words have lost their actual meaning to me due to their incorrect usage, and over saturation of their usage. You can only cry wolf so much.

Re: Study: Immigrants and their kids founded 45% of U.S. Fortune 500 companies

#75

Post by will4274 »

close04 wrote: post #22
kediz wrote: post #15

The publisher of this "Study" is from New American Economy, a think tank "fighting for smart federal, state, and local immigration policies that help grow our economy and create jobs for all Americans." So I don't think it is 100% neutral in terms of its view on immigrants.

But do you suspect the methodology, the results, or the conclusion were "faked" or inaccurate? Or do you consider it an accurate piece but suspect the reasons behind publishing it? ...And suddenly a wave of downvotes in less than 2 minutes. No justified concerns attached to them though.

> But do you suspect the methodology, the results, or the conclusion were "faked" or inaccurate?

Yes. As other commentators have noted, the methodology is terrible (counting a single immigrant cofounder as a "company founded by immigrants" even if the other 8 cofounders were all non-immigrants, counting a merged company as founded my immigrants if any of the companies that merged were founded by immigrants, even if those founders didn't have any role in the post merger world) and seems to have been chosen to give a specific conclusion.

Looking at the biases of the author usually gives a good heads up to these sorts of methodology problems.

Re: Study: Immigrants and their kids founded 45% of U.S. Fortune 500 companies

#76

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

joshuaheard wrote: post #65
save_ferris wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: what does a neutral view on immigrants look like? How does one take a view on immigrants without aligning with one side of the debate? You bring up a valid point in identifying the authors of this study. I'm just not sure what a truly neutral position in that debate would look like.

Maybe if the study was not published by a pro-immigrant think tank, but was published by a think tank focused on, say, economics or social policy.

In my experience, most articles that advocate for a particular action or policy make unstated assumptions about metaphysics / ethics. I'm not sure economics or social-policy articles would be an exception.

For example: It's pretty uncontroversial to say that ${N} persons cross the Mexican-to-American border, not at official government checkpoints, annually.

It's slightly more controversial to claim that ${M} of them are doing so illegally, because matters of law are complicated and matters of judgment.

But when we get to actual policy decisions, we have competing concepts of what's good and worth attempting. For example, how do we balance competing concepts of justice? How do we balance justice and mercy? What's the proper balance for the U.S. government regarding protecting immigrants vs. current residents?

Personally, I haven't found any good, reasoned way to argue about those metaphysical issues. I have personal preferences, and I know which things rub me the wrong way more than others. But in the end it seems like a matter of taste, so I'm not even sure it's worth trying to persuade others.

Re: Study: Immigrants and their kids founded 45% of U.S. Fortune 500 companies

#77

Post by tracer4201 »

RenRav wrote: post #46

Aren't already established/rich and successful foreigners more likely to migrate and set up shop here? 45% shouldn't be a surprise if so, you are basically comparing against the cream of the crop from every other country.

I care less about what anyone thinks is likely and care more about the actual data.

My parents were immigrants. My mother raised kids while my dad had two jobs that paid minimum wage. My annual comp at my day job is > $400K. My older sibling is a medical doctor. My family certainly came from no privilege at all. The only advantage we had was my father getting the opportunity to immigrate to the US.

Saying that 45% is all “cream of the crop” is a pathetic level of mental gymnastics.

Re: Study: Immigrants and their kids founded 45% of U.S. Fortune 500 companies

#78

Post by SkyBelow »

harryh wrote: post #31

The way they handle companies with > 1 founder is a bit weird. If there is at least one immigrant / 1st gen American it's counted in the "founded by" category. And then the 45% is taken by looking at things just at the company level. I think it would tell a clearer picture to count the total number of founders and count the percentage of people who were immigrants / 1st gen americans. Then, to give context, you would…

Compare the level of critique a study with a very disagreeable conclusion has (specifically a study whose conclusion is disagreeable to the majority of people regardless of political affiliation) compared to one which has an agreeable conclusion.

As someone else called it, these statistical slights of hand are selectively tolerated and are one reason that science, especially social sciences, have a lower level of trust than one would have initially assumed.

Re: Study: Immigrants and their kids founded 45% of U.S. Fortune 500 companies

#79

Post by BeetleB »

IloveHN84 wrote: post #68
metalchianti wrote: post #8

Definitely some selection bias. Many wealthy people in the US are immigrants. Also, many wealthy people probably choose to immigrate to the US to start their business because of lower barriers to entry. EDIT: Also, if this [1] is correct, 13.7% of people in the US are immigrants. So how many people are immigrants OR first-gen? And since ANY of the founders can be immigrants/first-gen, more founders means higher likel…

I would not call H1B a "low entry barrier"..

He was not referring to H1B. If you have sufficient funds and want to start a business, there are alternative routes to the Green Card.

Re: Study: Immigrants and their kids founded 45% of U.S. Fortune 500 companies

#80

Post by blululu »

sudosteph wrote: post #14

In case it's unclear from the title, the study showed that 45% of Fortune 500 companies had at least 1 founder that was an immigrant or child of an immigrant. For example, Facebook is considered "founded by an immigrant" in this categorization, which sort of surprised me at first.

The title is a bit misleading. I get the sense that the data analysis is pretty biased toward proving a point. Having a single founder who is a second generation immigrant is not equal to having all founders being third generation + immigrants. Taking the total percentage of all founders of Fortune 500 companies might be more reasonable.
Post reply on HN