11–20 of 56 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok but I read that founder should own only 10% of 250K which means 25K - 1 year of illegal work on gas station in NJ.
um, huh? what are you talking about? please cite a link or reference.
look for "10%" in the text
Be ready for influx of "startup founders", that would bring to the country taxi cab drivers, gardeners, all kind of "engineers" from India, China, Mexico, North Africa and so on.. Did you forget that very recent scandal with Satyam... They did what I just described...
not sure i understand your concern? the proposal we're working on is a modification to the EB-5 Visa, which currently requires a $1M investment (or a $500K investment in economically targeted area). even with a lower capital rqmt of say $100K-$250K, i don't think many people would be willing to put up that kind of cash for a taxi driver. on the other hand, it might be useful to make sure the source(s) of capital are…
It doesn't just threaten to pollute the 'immigration space' with folks trying to seem like 'founders', it also pollutes the start-up space with these folks. If someone is 'creating jobs' with the goal of securing a VISA, they could put out ads (which real job seekers will try to answer), then hire only their friends, get the wages paid kicked mostly back to them and have a VISA pretty cheaply since they would get back a good proportion of their money.
Sure, you could have regulators looking for people who did stuff like this but it would get clunky and I'm sure folks could think of umpteen other schemes to get around this. I'm not a Austrian or free-market nut but I think the Austrian arguments are most plausible when governments try to micro-manage enterprises.
It would simpler to elimenate h1b's, skip the 'founders' and give N VISAs to individuals with documented skills and M to individuals who just pay a million dollars directly. That would bring skilled workers and investors here without a lot of falderal. If you wanted to make sure they were never unemployed, make them put up a bond.
And Taxi drivers can make up to $100K/year if they are committed (a lot of them work literally 24 hours/day). A beach-head in the States is worth a lot in many parts of the world since once you arrive you can bring your entire family. $100K for ten people to immigrate here is a good deal. It's not something I'm even opposed to as such - my father and ex-wife were both immigrants. In fact, the main thing I oppose is the way present system creates distortions which helps neither the economy nor the immigrants.
#Let's say someone comes over, starts a company with $500K and it fails. Then what? Legally, they would have to leave at that point, right? If not, why not? Brad says no, they just have to found another company. That makes me squeamish; while they may be working for themselves, it's not that different than bonding to a trade.
#How many founders can you bring over for one company? What's going to stop them from setting up a consulting shop instead of a product company? We've seen that consulting jobs are very clearly 1-to-1 displacement of American citizens.
#There are a lot of issues with the verification of "bona fide founder" status. I get that VCs are OK with being gatekeepers (yeah, I plead guilty for my one year on the dark side), but it's really distasteful to hand over any part of immigration to non-government officials. More here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=556908
#The pro arguments now are based on anecdotes, not data. There is no data on how many jobs we're "losing out on" by not having a more founder-friendly immigration system.
#Lastly, there's a solution that works right now: find an American co-founder. It's not pretty, as you have a distributed company in the early days, but it works.
I acknowledge the intelligence of the tactical decision to give up on H1-Bs and go after changes to the EB-5, but America would be a better place if we actually reformed the H1-B process. I do wish Brad, Eric, Dave, etc. would tackle the H1-B elephant in the room publicly. We shouldn't be trying to steal startups from other countries; we should be trying to cultivate an environment where everyone here legally - citizens and immigrants on their path to citizenship - can start one and have it thrive.
Also, and everyone's heard me on this before - this group would do a lot more for startups if they channeled this energy into healthcare reform. Job lock-in is real and affects many, many more potential startup founders than immigration policy. VCs/investors from outside SF/NY (cough Brad Feld cough Josh Kopelman cough) would especially be credible, useful voices on a matter that's actually front and center right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course they will not be hired by other companies...Legally...But USA is not the country where illegal employment is punished People who choose to work illegally do so today by arriving for free on a tourist visa. Why would anyone put up capital and start a company in order to do it?
It's sad how the founders visa isn't even close to reality yet, and already has vocal opponents bringing up bogus reasons why it's a bad thing. How long will it take until somebody complains about "foreigners taking away startup opportunities from Americans"?
There are a bunch of issues with the proposal, but hey: #Let's say someone comes over, starts a company with $500K and it fails. Then what? Legally, they would have to leave at that point, right? If not, why not? Brad says no, they just have to found another company. That makes me squeamish; while they may be working for themselves, it's not that different than bonding to a trade. #How many founders can you bring ove…
Totally agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's sad how the founders visa isn't even close to reality yet, and already has vocal opponents bringing up bogus reasons why it's a bad thing. How long will it take until somebody complains about "foreigners taking away startup opportunities from Americans"?
I do not see anything bogus in my reasons. There a lo mor important problems to be solved for making the market for software/internet startups better place. Namely - fixing pharmaceutical industry which is main reason why such an evil corporation like USPTO exists, which inflicts problems on software/internet industry by means of issuing bogus patents for buttons on webpages so on. I kno many American people who suff…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not sure i understand your concern? the proposal we're working on is a modification to the EB-5 Visa, which currently requires a $1M investment (or a $500K investment in economically targeted area). even with a lower capital rqmt of say $100K-$250K, i don't think many people would be willing to put up that kind of cash for a taxi driver. on the other hand, it might be useful to make sure the source(s) of capital are…
It saddens me to see so much effort put into this kind of proposal. I favor loosened immigration conditions but this is a poorly thought-out scheme that seeks to create private initiative via government intervention. It doesn't just threaten to pollute the 'immigration space' with folks trying to seem like 'founders', it also pollutes the start-up space with these folks. If someone is 'creating jobs' with the goal of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course they will not be hired by other companies...Legally...But USA is not the country where illegal employment is punished People who choose to work illegally do so today by arriving for free on a tourist visa. Why would anyone put up capital and start a company in order to do it?
It's sad how the founders visa isn't even close to reality yet, and already has vocal opponents bringing up bogus reasons why it's a bad thing. How long will it take until somebody complains about "foreigners taking away startup opportunities from Americans"?
It seems like the founder's visa already has a lot of emotional traction with people but immigration isn't something should be decided by emotional resonance but by well thought-out arguments - if you take the discussion to the emotional level, things won't go well for those favoring immigration.
Be ready for influx of "startup founders", that would bring to the country taxi cab drivers, gardeners, all kind of "engineers" from India, China, Mexico, North Africa and so on.. Did you forget that very recent scandal with Satyam... They did what I just described...
not sure i understand your concern? the proposal we're working on is a modification to the EB-5 Visa, which currently requires a $1M investment (or a $500K investment in economically targeted area). even with a lower capital rqmt of say $100K-$250K, i don't think many people would be willing to put up that kind of cash for a taxi driver. on the other hand, it might be useful to make sure the source(s) of capital are…
I do believe that affordable health care attached to employers is a huge problem for enjoying a larger pool of U.S. entrepreneurs of every variety. Fixing this, which is an issue on the table with current Health Care reform, should bring far more new entrepreneurs than any new visa program would. Since the Health Care legislation is currently in process, why not write your congressman about this instead?
This current founders visa proposal sidesteps fixing what's already abusive with H1-Bs. Skilled immigrants deserve a better process than they current have. It would seem to do more good to fix this than inventing some new category and ignoring the existing problems.
Another problem is this agenda may not get a lot of love from U.S. entrepreneurs or would-be ones as there is a subtext to the founders visa agenda which says 1 - there are not enough good entrepreneurs in the U.S., which is very insulting; I've never seen any credible evidence to support this and 2 - VCs get to be "accredited" providing various leverage problems as discussed.
Last, but not least, how many of these visas do you expect to create each year and at what cost to the government? Just to issue the first visa could have a fixed cost of hundreds of millions. Have you ever worked in government or anything related to INS? The rules and documentation and training required for this program would be costly. Do the investors plan to give the gov shares in these startups to make up for these cost? You can say that the reward will be job creation. Maybe, but I have seen interesting numbers on this.
There are a bunch of issues with the proposal, but hey: #Let's say someone comes over, starts a company with $500K and it fails. Then what? Legally, they would have to leave at that point, right? If not, why not? Brad says no, they just have to found another company. That makes me squeamish; while they may be working for themselves, it's not that different than bonding to a trade. #How many founders can you bring ove…
How many founders can you bring over for one company?
That's hardly an issue. The optimal number of founders is basically known. You can argue about 2, 3, or 4, but it's obviously way less than 10.
The pro arguments now are based on anecdotes, not data
The proposal is based on reasoning, not anecdotes, and it seems like pretty clear reasoning to me. The anti arguments are a lot of spaghetti thrown at a wall. The current thread is a good example.
There are a lot of issues with the verification of "bona fide founder" status.
That's not an argument against the proposal, it's an argument in favor of sensible policy design - something that is lacking in the status quo.
there's a solution that works right now: find an American co-founder.
A profoundly ignorant statement. Arbitrary co-founder relationships are a predictor of failure. "Marry an American" would be better advice, and it's horrible advice. (Edit: I mean horrible advice for startup immigration! I'm all in favor of marrying Americans generally :))
We shouldn't be trying to steal startups from other countries
Yes "we" should. That's one of the most intelligent things a country that wants to build wealth could do.
this group would do a lot more for startups if they channeled this energy into healthcare reform
Visa issues are a huge obstacle facing startups (edit: and startup investors); there are many, many examples. How many times does "health care" appear on such a list? I've never heard it cited once.