111–120 of 198 posts
A domestic tech-industry/entrepreneurship inclusiveness effort, like 0-18yo STEM education, would be a good choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> While I am confident in the good intentions of YCombinator I'm not. YC is already operating in a club of privilege, surrounded by a bubble of questionable intentions and inflated valuations that externalize the costs onto the wider economy. Now we should grant YC (and maybe "other investment firms") a privilege that bootstrapped companies like our own can never get? We've lost the H1-B lottery multiple years runnin…
Okay how about: ...while I see no benefit to my argument in needlessly being rude and questioning the intentions of YC on this topic in the comments section of their in house news organ... Clearer? I think you'll find I clearly state this is a bad idea, even if you grant best intentions to those proposing it specifically.
I'd say that actually justifies making the issue clear. Consider why YC hosts a "hacker news" (it's not a charitable effort), and why they'd request special privileges from the government (again, not charitable).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate to break it to you, but you clearly did not have a top-notch immigration attorney if they advised you that a O1 visa was the best visa for your circumstances. The O1 is intended for people who are the top of their fields; not just those that are good. It's for people like Yao Ming (sports) or Lupita_Nyong'o (arts) that we want to steal from other countries. There were other visas that were more appropriate for…
The EB visas are basically identical to the O visas, except for two differences: 1) the requirements are slightly more stringent, and 2) they are considered immigrant visas, as opposed to non-immigrant. ie., they are green cards. That said, I agree with you that the O1 was not a perfect fit for my situation, though I did end up receiving it, while being denied the EB-1. But I would challenge you to name another visa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It shouldn't be the only way to get a (nonimmigrant in this proposal, incidentally) visa. But I really do believe it should be one way--it's hard to argue that more startups would hurt the economy. I agree with you that there is a level of discomfort inherent in letting investors influence who gets visas, but honestly they know more about what startups have a chance at great success than government officers.
> it's hard to argue that more startups would hurt the economy. It's not as clear that government subsidization of your position would benefit the economy in the long-term, especially after more closely examining the beneficiaries of the majority of wealth extracted by VC startups. It frightens that you seem to honestly believe that you -- specifically and individually -- deserve special privileges that not only will…
Would people feel better about this if YC donated their 7% stake in those 50 companies to a charity? That would more clearly separate out the "special privilege for a private company" part of this proposal from the "we're testing something of general applicability." A domestic tech-industry/entrepreneurship inclusiveness effort, like 0-18yo STEM education, would be a good choice.
It would still be beneficial to YC directly and uniquely, and a special privilege, so no.
On top of which, there are serious ethical concerns around a early-stage investors essentially controlling a founder's visa allocation and ongoing status.
People seem to be trying to deliberately misunderstand my point. 1) I don't think this should just be for YC. I'm just volunteering to beta test it. I think we are very likely to show success, which would hopefully open it much more broadly. But I'd be very happy to do it together with other investors from the beginning. I feel that in general investors (YC included) are not doing enough to push this issue. 2) I do t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a company as large as IBM systematically discriminates, I sure hope they end up in legal trouble.
Me too. But that's the point - we let them hire people until someone shows they're discriminating. Imagine a world where to get a job you had to ask the government for permission (which is precisely what immigrants have to do in our world). Then one day someone comes along and says, "why don't you just let the companies hire whomever they want?" And then do you really say, "whoa whoa, now that the employment process…
I wish government and big institutions in general were set up to allow testing of hypotheses like this. We'd all be better off, but I fear what would happen is one or two of those 100 visa people would do a company which fails (or succeeds somewhat), gets in some minor unrelated legal problem (bar fight, whatever), and then a politician uses it as an example of why immigration is bad to tar their opposition.
Under the letter of the law, I proposed using J-1 visas (Specialist or Trainee as appropriate, http://j1visa.state.gov/programs) via 500 for at least for founders from countries exempt from the two-year mandatory return period. But the American Immigration Lawyers Association/American Immigration Council had a staffer who explained the way things really work to me in shooting down the proposal.
Would people feel better about this if YC donated their 7% stake in those 50 companies to a charity? That would more clearly separate out the "special privilege for a private company" part of this proposal from the "we're testing something of general applicability." A domestic tech-industry/entrepreneurship inclusiveness effort, like 0-18yo STEM education, would be a good choice.
> Would people feel better about this if YC donated their 7% stake in those 50 companies to a charity? It would still be beneficial to YC directly and uniquely, and a special privilege, so no. On top of which, there are serious ethical concerns around a early-stage investors essentially controlling a founder's visa allocation and ongoing status.
Did we really run out of Americans who are capable of being founders?