> or just stay with her current employer and somehow work on her startup.
The first two options make sense but this latter option sounds like a risk. As I understand it, she can't earn any active income from this startup unless see has an I-129 for it. A share grant counts as income.
I mean, yeah you can work on a side project in your spare time that could become a business, but the moment employment and active income enters the picture that becomes something else.
Why don't they just start a company in the country where they are from or why don't you start a company with someone who is a citizen or has a green card?
The entire premise of your question is misaligned with the intention of the H1-B visa. Yes, everyone abuses its intent, but that isn't justification for more people to find more ways to abuse it. The abuse of that visa (and other visas) is why folks just want it abolished outright. I guess the purpose of a system is what it does, but it was sold to the American electorate as a way for companies to get access to talent that they simply cannot find domestically.
Trying to use the H1-B to hire a very specific person instead of any person with the skillset needed for the role would be in contradiction with the labor market test (LMT) needed for PERM status.
An H1-B can only work for the employer on the I-129 petition. There are some forms of passive income allowed but to placing shares in a trust and having an unpaid board seat just seems like an attempt to cheat the process because ultimately the goal is for her to work for this startup. Doing what your proposing puts a target on her head where anyone that is anti-H-1B can report her to USCIS and get her deported.
Moving home, working remotely and then applying for an L-1 seems like the correct approach here for what you're trying to do.
The economy is a concept that exists strictly on Earth (until someone like Musk colonizes Mars). A huge portion of our energy comes from the Sun both in the form of plant matter from agriculture and from solar power as we increasingly build solar panels to harvest the Sun's energy. The simple fact that we can take this exogenous source of energy and feed it into our economy to grow it means that yes, it's zero sum if you consider the Universe, but from the perspective of the economy here on Planet Earth, that economy getting energy for free and grow in excess of your zero sum thinking.
The example you brought up is an interesting one because in English the work Black is the accepted term but in Portuguese the word for the color itself (preto) is the pejorative if used to describe people. So essentially the exact opposite of in English. The Portuguese pejorative is the accepted term in English and the English pejorative is the accepted term in Portuguese.
Americans sadly are now indiscriminately exporting their particularly toxic understanding of race and race relationships to other parts of the world and damaging the social fabric of these other countries. It's like introducing a new species of plant that ends up being invasive and destructive like kudzu.
> Does this model include energy that continuously decays into higher entropy states?
Nope, it doesn't. You're not wrong. You're just being pedantic. For all intents and purposes for the discussion we're having here this continuous decay into higher entropy states is a non-issue. Within the sphere of the humans involved in free exchange, it's not zero sum even if it is zero sum when you take into account the entirety of the physical world.
Wikipedia wasn't of much use. It was secondary details and not primary details. I personally wasn't able to see the controversial content and able to make up my own mind and without primary material to judge, I can't in good conscience judge the content. To do otherwise is prejudicial.
A few Hispanic that were also LGBT started Latinx. LGBT Hispanic are not some hivemind borg and when people state "LGBT Hispanic people did X" it eliminates the agency of all the individuals who are both LGBT and Hispanic.
And what about the remainder that hear it and reject it? Are they not considered?
I'm Latino myself and I find that almost no one that actually speaks either Spanish or Portuguese (or another language commonly spoken in Latin America) as their first language adopts it. The few I've seen adopt it at those that are born and raised in the US and have relatively literal cultural connection to the country of their ancestors.
If Spanish or Portuguese are truly your native tongue, Latinx feels incredibly awkward. Personally, I'm uninterested in the opinions of those who aren't native speakers of one of these two languages when it comes to using the term Latinx or not.
You can leave Twitter and social media alone, but that's no guarantee that Twitter and social media will leave you alone. That's why I think it's so important for everyone who can speak out against this to do so before it metastasizes to the point where you can't say anything anymore.
The wild thing about the term "master" and the people that want to censor it is how English-language centric it is. It really only has the sensitive connotations it has in English. In Italian for example, maestro is teacher.
My fear is that what today is "we should move away from that term" will in a few short years become "we can't hire them because they typed 'git checkout master' in their live coding interview" and at that point it discriminates against those for whom English is their second language.
This happened to a friend of mine with the word "lynch". In English it is a highly racializes term but in his native tongue, Portuguese, the connotation largely revolves around mob violence committed against rapists and adulterers (just go search for the verb "linchar" and you'll find youtube videos of mob violence against people suspected of rape and adultery).
Well he used that term in a discussion on github back when discussing the changes to a popular open source project's code of conduct about 7-8 years ago and a bunch of cancel culture folks jumped on him and it culminated in them trying to get him fired from his current job. He was lucky that it was long enough ago that his boss brushed it off, but in today's environment he's certain he would have lost his job over using a term in his native tongue that is fully divorced from how people feel about the word in English.
some transactions are zero some (pareto optimal) and some are not (nash equilibria).
The easiest observable way to see that the economy is not zero sum once you take into account delta T (time) is that the economy grows and can grow both faster or slower than population growth. If it was truly zero-sum in aggregate, the size of the economy and wealth would always be strictly proportional to population.
> So we are left with something people like and don't want to give up, and that's bad because... :)
... other people are burdened with providing it against their will.
A Southern plantation owner in the pre Civil War southeast US had something they liked and didn't want to give up and it was most certainly very very bad.
There's also nothing stopping people from accumulating all the things they need for a pleasant life of leisure and hobbies and then once they achieve that deciding to freeload off UBI and enjoy those hobbies. I'm less than a decade out from having most of the physical belongings I need for the myriad hobbies I enjoy. Once I get there free time plus 20k a year will be more valuable than being a contributing member of society. This is basically the basis of the entire "dirtbag" lifestyle that many partake in. I've known many dirtbaggers in my life.
The entire idea behind FIRE is achieving a passive income that you earn by being a productive member of society versus UBI giving you for free with no obligation to contribute to society.
It's not about them being great workers or not. It's about them carrying their own weight at minimum instead of offloading that burden to the productive members of society.
There's no lack of jobs society needs filled that provides utility to society even when done by bad employees.
I don't think it is unreasonable for the productive to be fully decoupled and unburdened from the willfully unproductive.
> How many people have you met who were happy doing nothing, living with nothing, AND who made good employees doing anything at all?
Several members of my partner's family meet this description. They fit the welfare queen stereotype to a T. That's just immediate family. I've met plenty. Maybe you just don't have contact with people who would?
> Almost certainly more than offset by the ambitious who can now take risks they otherwise couldn't, knowing that if they fail they at least aren't going to end up hungry and homeless.
This is a completely unsubstantiated claim. How are you measuring this and where's the evidence? Yeah, it sounds great and is something people want to believe is true, but where's the hard evidence?
How do you design an unemployment/UBI system that provides an incentive not to use it unless necessary and not to stay on it any longer than is necessary?
"The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."
The first two options make sense but this latter option sounds like a risk. As I understand it, she can't earn any active income from this startup unless see has an I-129 for it. A share grant counts as income.
I mean, yeah you can work on a side project in your spare time that could become a business, but the moment employment and active income enters the picture that becomes something else.