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

On Immigration, Engineers Simply Don’t Trust VCs

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 196 posts

Re: On Immigration, Engineers Simply Don’t Trust VCs

#61

Post by mrottenkolber »

fhadley wrote: post #5

I don't read a lot of techcrunch to be honest, so maybe this is their standard fare and isn't worth the time I'll take to write this. On the other hand, I dislike that this man just painted my entire industry as xenophobes, without so much as a quote from the party in question. Is this acceptable now? I certainly reject the idea of a world in which psuedo-journalistic conjecture is taken at face value, without so muc…

It's usually better to not go TC et al. I just wanted to see how to write an article from an HN threads a few hours earlier.

Re: On Immigration, Engineers Simply Don’t Trust VCs

#62

Post by wdewind »

jacquesm wrote: post #55
wdewind wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The worst possible position to be in is early hire in a start-up. You're going to see all of the downsides but only 1% of the upside of being a founder. Let's expand on this, because that's me and I'm quite happy (but also willing to be convinced otherwise :D). Financially, you're balancing lower salary with a potential for a large upside later. That upside can be great if you believe in the company and/or the valu…

It's simple math: the equity a founder gets is paid for with less cash than your salary downside as an early hire. So it makes no sense at all to me. Just about the same risk and none of the upsides. In contrast, a later hire comes on-board at a time that most of the risk has been absorbed or mitigated. And in most cases there won't be any later hires because the company has folded.

Again, where do you get the "same risk" from? Edit: and I know we are both comparing anecdotal experiences, not asking for a repeat of that, I'm asking specifically for yours (or an expansion on your point of view).

> It's simple math: the equity a founder gets is paid for with less cash than your salary downside as an early hire.

I'm not sure why that matters. To me the only thing that matters is my salary downside vs. interest I could be making on a larger salary else where. I might be misunderstanding what you mean though.

Re: On Immigration, Engineers Simply Don’t Trust VCs

#63

Post by Jormundir »

barrkel wrote: post #48
gsibble wrote: post #16

This whole set of lies really makes me angry. Ever notice how it's only the most powerful of powerful who complain about "talent shortage"? Those who have the most to gain from reducing technology salaries? Sure, you might hear about it being a competitive market with high salaries and all, but that's what it's supposed to be! Engineering talent is in high demand and salaries are supposed to go up! If anything, they…

For a variety of economic and historical reasons, many software companies are only likely to succeed in the US. Without an influx of new people at a faster rate than education, increased salaries from demand will just shuffle existing engineers around. Instead of working at company A, they'll work at company B, earning a few percent extra; and company A, not being able to afford engineers, will either find something…

You have some good points, but a lot of your argument is hinged on the idea that higher salaries would not bring more talent into the field. It's a statement that isn't backed up, and one I feel very skeptically about.

I think both sides have fine points. I don't support immigration barriers, but I also don't think we should tear the wall down in one fell swoop. If we significantly lower the boundary to immigration all at once, it will probably create a painful cycle in which all workers are significantly under paid until the businesses find the right balance in salary in order to get enough quality.

Ultimately lowering the immigration barriers will probably be good for everyone, tech workers included as the talent market globalizes and opens up more opportunities all around the world. Right now the need for good software globally seems to far outweigh the supply.

I've heard a lot of companies reason for locating in the Bay Area is for access to high quality engineers, way more than it is for financing. It's way easier to take money outside the Bay Area than it is to convince good engineers to move to X.

Re: On Immigration, Engineers Simply Don’t Trust VCs

#64

Post by skybrian »

gsibble wrote: post #16

This whole set of lies really makes me angry. Ever notice how it's only the most powerful of powerful who complain about "talent shortage"? Those who have the most to gain from reducing technology salaries? Sure, you might hear about it being a competitive market with high salaries and all, but that's what it's supposed to be! Engineering talent is in high demand and salaries are supposed to go up! If anything, they…

I can't get behind this because it's not workers versus management, or at least not only that. It's also workers versus other workers. Don't you have any friends who have had immigration issues? Screwing with them (or rather, supporting the politicians who do it) to get an even higher salary when we're already paid very well is pretty callous.

The reputation of tech employees is bad enough without this infighting over getting an even better seat at the table.

Re: On Immigration, Engineers Simply Don’t Trust VCs

#65

Post by Bahamut »

michaelochurch wrote: post #15
sosuke wrote: post #2

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…

What seems to be happening is that Silicon Valley wages are flat or down (relative to 1998) but the rest of the country is improving. There actually is good news here, though it might seem otherwise if one takes a Valley-centric approach. In 1998, software engineers in the Midwest generally didn't make six figures. $70,000 was a strong salary for a mid-career (5-10 years) engineer. The $100-140k figures were limited…

That is not true - my compensation has grown by about 100% moving from DC to the Valley a half year ago, and it still isn't as high as I believe it should be. From what I understand, DC is one of the better areas in the country for tech as well.

Re: On Immigration, Engineers Simply Don’t Trust VCs

#66

Post by JabavuAdams »

There's something interesting missing from this discussion -- do the most-skilled international developers want to move to the US? The US's reputation is at a low ebb.

I mean, I like visiting, and I would love to work on some of the projects that are only available in the US, but the idea of actually living there? That's a really tough sell.

Re: On Immigration, Engineers Simply Don’t Trust VCs

#67

Post by [deleted] »

gsibble wrote: post #16

This whole set of lies really makes me angry. Ever notice how it's only the most powerful of powerful who complain about "talent shortage"? Those who have the most to gain from reducing technology salaries? Sure, you might hear about it being a competitive market with high salaries and all, but that's what it's supposed to be! Engineering talent is in high demand and salaries are supposed to go up! If anything, they…

[deleted]

Re: On Immigration, Engineers Simply Don’t Trust VCs

#68

Post by jacquesm »

wdewind wrote: post #62
jacquesm wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's simple math: the equity a founder gets is paid for with less cash than your salary downside as an early hire. So it makes no sense at all to me. Just about the same risk and none of the upsides. In contrast, a later hire comes on-board at a time that most of the risk has been absorbed or mitigated. And in most cases there won't be any later hires because the company has folded.

Again, where do you get the "same risk" from? Edit: and I know we are both comparing anecdotal experiences, not asking for a repeat of that, I'm asking specifically for yours (or an expansion on your point of view). > It's simple math: the equity a founder gets is paid for with less cash than your salary downside as an early hire. I'm not sure why that matters. To me the only thing that matters is my salary downside…

The risk that the company folds hits the early employees just as hard as it hits the founders.

Founders don't typically provide a whole lot of capital.

Three guys meet in a room somewhere, hash out an idea, assign themselves CEO, CFO and COO, plunk $1000 on the table each, call each other 'founder', then get some funding and then hire you to implement their vision.

Their risk is just about the same as yours, only you get to share - if you're lucky - maybe in 1% or so of the success (assuming you don't get screwed somewhere along the line) and in 100% of the failure.

And if you're in for a profit share the odds are even worse.

If you're good enough to be engineer #1 you're good enough to be a co-founder.

Re: On Immigration, Engineers Simply Don’t Trust VCs

#69

Post by winter_blue »

walterbell wrote: post #40
winter_blue wrote: post #4

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…

There's also 50,000 annual "diversity visa" immigrants from countries with low immigration rates to the US.

For someone wishing to move to the U.S. the diversity lottery is a non-option, as the odds of winning it is a tiny fraction of 1%.

Practically speaking, if you're not being persecuted, and don't have immediate relatives in the US -- you can only come as a skilled worker. It's the only route available to the vast majority of those who wish to come here.

And the US is incredibly hostile to skilled workers by allocating a tiny number of visas for skilled workers. For comparison, Australia with 1/15th the US population lets in nearly as many skilled workers as the US does in a year -- i.e. approximately 15 times as many, per capita.

Re: On Immigration, Engineers Simply Don’t Trust VCs

#70

Post by [deleted] »

wdewind wrote: post #27
jacquesm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the reality for an entrepreneur coming out of a business is usually not super easy. Few companies are looking to hire people who ran unsuccessful businesses - the entrepreneur skillset tends to make it hard to market oneself. That's just about 100% opposite to my experience, both firsthand and by observing others. Why do you state this with such certainty? Keep in mind that there are huge differences from count…

True that I don't have any citation, like you only going off my own experience. My own experience in hiring has been that short of consultant positions ex-CEOs don't have specific enough skillsets to be put to work in many places in a company. When I have worked with them they have been unmitigated disasters. I'm curious about your experiences because, correct me if I'm wrong, I think you were pretty successful early…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN