On Immigration, Engineers Simply Don’t Trust VCs

Just on the subject of programmer salaries, I was talking with someone who had much more experience in the computing industry than myself and he pointed out something I'd never known. He said that programmer salaries from pre-bubble days was six-figures, and that we're still in that range, and not higher is proof that salaries have been kept low. Six-figures today is not what six-figures was worth in 1998. Inflation alone from $100,000 1998 to 2014 is $144,877.91 using http://www.usinflationcalculator.com

And yes, I don't trust anyone who cries foul about a shortage of workers and then offers 40% under market wages, anecdote of course.

A fundamental question not being answered is: Who gets to come to America?

Right now, our system massively favors immediate relatives and refugees, and only lets in a trickle of everyone else. If you are a person who wishes to move to the US, don't have relatives here, and are not a refugee -- then good luck, because you'll have a really hard time getting in.

Stories of people who literally sell everything to get a chance to live here, like that of Claudia Mendoza, bring tears to ones' eyes: http://app.fwd.us/stories/429 Now her husband was probably not among the 1% in his field. But he was hard-working person, valued by his colleagues, who added and contributed to our society. He and his family were kicked out of the country, for not winning the H-1B lottery.

So to people who oppose skilled worker immigration, I have a question: Should only refugees and people with family relations be admitted? Should everyone else be completely blocked off? People who oppose skilled worker immigration are essentially advocating this.

I was working a minimum wage factory job in an area where it is very easy to get a job not that long ago, (it took 4 days from the phone call) and I asked my line manager if they had problems hiring. 'Yes', I was told, hiring was a major problem and keeping staff on was really difficult. I asked why they though that was. Apparently they think it is because state benefits are too high.

edit - I'm still working it, I am rubbish with cash.

They are not bad people, but they honestly cannot see that they may actually save money by paying slightly more. I am planning to point this out in the next week or two, but luckily I have nearly sorted my cash-flow issue, so I can afford the license.

On the subject of risk, I found "Capital vs labor: who risks more?" convincing. The author opines labor risks more, and I agree.

http://yosefk.com/blog/capital-vs-labor-who-risks-more.html

"VCs" aren't responsible at all, as far as I can tell, for the Google/Apple/et-al wage-fixing that cost the trust of engineers. That shouldn't be pinned on them, and it certainly shouldn't be pinned on Paul Graham.

What VCs do that is wrong is that they've created a culture of co-funding and collusion-- a feudal reputation economy-- which thwarts independence in decision making and generates a small set of big winners before startups can start hiring and get to the market. Comparing notes on who they like and who they don't is sleazy and creates an in-crowd that is mostly incompetent, but it's not illegal, and it's a subtle-enough offense that average engineers (who probably have little interest in being founders, anyway) dislike them.

As for why they do this, it comes from the fact that building a good portfolio, though technically their job, is a game at which feedback cycles are slow. You might have a strategy that is going to make 40% annual returns (on average) each year, but if macroeconomic events take you down over 3 years, you don't get to prove yourself. So, the VCs have (justifiably) learned that their career benefit is maximized not by building the best portfolio, but by having association (even if the percentage they end up with is tiny) with the very-rare "home runs" that happen every 5 years or so. That requires them to spread information around and create the culture of co-funding, much like an academic department where 20 names get on a paper when 2 researchers did most of the work.

It's not that we "don't trust" the technology elite. We know what their economic interests are and we trust them to pursue them. And that's fine, if this pursuit involves openly advocating what is best for them and what they believe is best for us and for the country. What's not morally OK is lying to the government about a "talent shortage". If they want to come out and say, "our economic interests favor , and here's why we think our interests are aligned with yours", I'd be fine with that. Just don't fucking lie. Immigration is a complex topic and there's no simple answer. "Talent shortage" is a lie, and the ethical status of claiming one exists actually is black-and-white: it's fucking wrong. There's no talent shortage when it's this hard for women, or minorities, or people over 40, or people who spent their careers outside of California, to get themselves taken seriously in tech.

The problem with FWD.us is that they're using their wealth to get access to government officials, and then lying to them, with the intention of bringing economic changes that may or may not harm us, but we've been left out of the discussion.