@2gov - Visas for startup founders movement • Hacker News Board

Re: @2gov - Visas for startup founders movement

#21

Post by tptacek » Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 12:56 AM UTC

miloshh wrote: post #17

joe_the_user wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As pointed out by gruseom below, if somebody wants to game the system, they will come on a tourist visa and simply not leave. I don't think these convoluted scenarios of possible abuse are realistic at all. Furthermore, if the founder's visa law is any good, it will not require the founders to create jobs. It will simply assume that from 2500 startups a year, many will create a lot of jobs.

Which is a faulty argument, because you flat-out can't work in the US on a tourist visa.

Re: @2gov - Visas for startup founders movement

#22

Post by tptacek » Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 12:58 AM UTC

sachinag wrote: post #13

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…

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.

Absolutely. The "founders visa" thing isn't bad because it's scary policy; it can't be scary since it will never happen. It's bad because it's diverting our attention from the real issues.

Re: @2gov - Visas for startup founders movement

#23

Post by jhancock » Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 1:04 AM UTC

maxwin wrote: post #16

ilkhd2 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

this is a logical fallacy. Other more important issues don't make this issue less important. This is a hackers website not a health care/doctors website.

The topic is a visa proposal which proposes to "hack our economy". Although I don't completely agree with likhd2, bringing up health care is of relevance if fixing certain of those issues would create more jobs and startups than this visa proposal.

Re: @2gov - Visas for startup founders movement

#24

Post by jibiki » Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 1:04 AM UTC

gruseom wrote: post #20

sachinag wrote: post #13

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…

These "objections" are just getting out of hand. 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…

> How many times does "health care" appear on such a list? I've never heard it cited once.

It comes up occasionally. Here's an example I found with searchyc:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=764255

Re: @2gov - Visas for startup founders movement

#25

Post by gruseom » Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 1:14 AM UTC

jibiki wrote: post #24

gruseom wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These "objections" are just getting out of hand. 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…

> How many times does "health care" appear on such a list? I've never heard it cited once. It comes up occasionally. Here's an example I found with searchyc: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=764255

I grant you that it's a data point (well, sort of), but what I meant is that I've never heard it being cited by people who know a lot about startups, and they cite visa issues all the time.

Anyway, bringing up health care in this context is the very definition of a red herring. Nothing stops one from being in favor of both sensible health care and sensible immigration.

Re: @2gov - Visas for startup founders movement

#26

Post by jhancock » Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 1:16 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #22

sachinag wrote: post #13

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…

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. Absolutely. The "founders visa" thing isn't bad because it's scary policy; it can't be scary since it will never happen. It's bad because it's diverting our attention from the…

Well said, if something like this actually got passed, which I doubt, it wouldn't be one of the many things that I "fire" my representative for come election time.

Re: @2gov - Visas for startup founders movement

#27

Post by netsp » Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 1:19 AM UTC

johnnybgoode wrote: post #9

This appears to have started with PG's Founder Visa essay. Be sure to read the original HN thread about that essay: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=556908 At the time, I thought PG's idea was so flawed that I nearly registered just to point out why. Fortunately, bokonist did a great job of explaining what was wrong with the idea in that thread.

Thanks for pointing to that thread. Bokonist makes a strong case against accreditation bodies in general, barriers to entry and the associated slippery slope.

While I am sympathetic to that idea, we have to remember that the Founder Visa is a type of liberalisation, not a type of barrier. The solution mightn't be perfect, but it could be better then no founder immigration. While accreditation is possibly bad in general, it may be worth it if it pokes a hole in the immigration barrier.

However, I think that there is a strong case against startup visas specifically. I think you would have to be willing to live with quite serious market distortions if you are prepared to support something like this.

I made this argument on a previous thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=823006

Re: @2gov - Visas for startup founders movement

#28

Post by joe_the_user » Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 1:29 AM UTC

miloshh wrote: post #17

joe_the_user wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As pointed out by gruseom below, if somebody wants to game the system, they will come on a tourist visa and simply not leave. I don't think these convoluted scenarios of possible abuse are realistic at all. Furthermore, if the founder's visa law is any good, it will not require the founders to create jobs. It will simply assume that from 2500 startups a year, many will create a lot of jobs.

Uh,

While one can overestimate the number of folks gaming the system, there certainly are some.

It is much more desirable to attain the legal right to reside in the US and/or the legal to work in the US compared to simply getting to the US and residing illegally. Thus there are those who attempt to gain these things under false pretense - sometime they succeed now. Sometimes they are even people we'd want here but even then, it would be better if they come in an orderly fashion rather than scheming up ways to work legally here.

Re: @2gov - Visas for startup founders movement

#29

Post by jhancock » Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 1:30 AM UTC

gruseom wrote: post #20

sachinag wrote: post #13

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…

These "objections" are just getting out of hand. 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…

If I were an immigrant from China or India under this new visa program, the first thing I would do in hiring programmers is fly back home and crank up a top quality, low cost team. As things progressed, I would take it further: anything not absolutely necessary to be within 50 miles of my investor would be done back in my home country.

As an investor, I would fully expect/encourage these founders to behave like this.

The typical cultural and communication problems of outsourcing do not apply in this case. You are taking someone from their home country that will have experience working with their own people and processes.

> "Visa issues are a huge obstacle facing startups (edit: and startup investors); there are many, many examples."

Can you please provide these examples?

> "How many times does "health care" appear on such a list? I've never heard it cited once."

Quite a bit actually. Given how much Health Care reform is in the news, I find it surprising the proponents of the founders visa didn't think about this issue already.

Re: @2gov - Visas for startup founders movement

#30

Post by ilkhd2 » Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 1:33 AM UTC

ilkhd2 wrote: post #14

miloshh wrote: post #8

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…

I knew that not especially bright people would read my post and think that is about doctors. No, my post is about patents: USPTO is US Patent authority, that gives patents for all industries; it is carried/lobbyed by pharma, that itself have millions of questionable patents, and very interested to leave thing as they are; attempt to dismantle software patents would disturb the swamp, and as side effect should be prevented.