Free the H-1Bs, Free the Economy(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Free the H-1Bs, Free the Economy
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/30/free-the-h-1bs-free-the-economy/
75 comments
But these same protectionist rules that made Sparta glorious for little time, led to Sparta decline in the long run.
What did for the Spartans was all dying glorious deaths before having enough kids. The Spartan economy, operated by the Perioikoi and Helots, was strong enough, but it relied on there being a critical mass of adult male Spartans to maintain it. Protectionism was little to do with the fall - the Perioikoi could trade with whomever they pleased.
What did for the Spartans was all dying glorious deaths before having enough kids. The Spartan economy, operated by the Perioikoi and Helots, was strong enough, but it relied on there being a critical mass of adult male Spartans to maintain it. Protectionism was little to do with the fall - the Perioikoi could trade with whomever they pleased.
1. Yes but Spartan rules of being killer fighters made immigration impossible.
2. The Perioikoi could trade with whomever they pleased - but - but no one wanted to trade with them because of the iron slabs being used as currency of exchange.
Dig a little deeper into the motives as to why such rules were made by the Spartans and you will see that it was pure protectionism.
2. The Perioikoi could trade with whomever they pleased - but - but no one wanted to trade with them because of the iron slabs being used as currency of exchange.
Dig a little deeper into the motives as to why such rules were made by the Spartans and you will see that it was pure protectionism.
where would you suggest digging to uncover the motive of illiterate bureaucrats from 2500 years ago?
I imagine it should be easy compared to uncovering the motives of living politicians in information societies.
I imagine it should be easy compared to uncovering the motives of living politicians in information societies.
The Spartans were not illiterate - they preferred oral history and verbal contracts to written records. Similarly they were perfectly capable of building things, yet they preferred that Sparta itself was a city of small buildings without walls. There's nothing left of it today.
Spartans, basically, eschewed possessions, apart from their personal weapons. They didn't want to grow soft and weak, so they made luxury impossible. An adult male Spartan owned some land, which was farmed by Perioikoi or Helots, and he was responsible for providing his share of food to the barracks in which he lived, but he could not "profit", ever. Perioikoi (permanent residents of Sparta but not Spartiate themselves) could and did get rich. Even Helots (slaves from conquered enemies) usually lived materially richer lives than Spartans.
What they should have done was announced that glorious deaths didn't count until a Spartan had had so many kids, that would have made everyone happy.
Spartans, basically, eschewed possessions, apart from their personal weapons. They didn't want to grow soft and weak, so they made luxury impossible. An adult male Spartan owned some land, which was farmed by Perioikoi or Helots, and he was responsible for providing his share of food to the barracks in which he lived, but he could not "profit", ever. Perioikoi (permanent residents of Sparta but not Spartiate themselves) could and did get rich. Even Helots (slaves from conquered enemies) usually lived materially richer lives than Spartans.
What they should have done was announced that glorious deaths didn't count until a Spartan had had so many kids, that would have made everyone happy.
On a slightly unrelated note, the way to win in Afghanistan is to plumb every Afghan home with hot running water.
Are you being ironic? It's fairly amusing hearing (usually Americans) revive some colonialist axiom or piece of logic as if it is new & brilliant.
The relationship between wealth & compliance is complex.
The relationship between wealth & compliance is complex.
Isolationism is not the same as protectionism.
And Spartans sucked anyway, not leaving much to the history except barracks sodomy, heroic deaths and a handful of 2nd grade poets. Must have something to do with all the weaklings they gotten rid of.
And Spartans sucked anyway, not leaving much to the history except barracks sodomy, heroic deaths and a handful of 2nd grade poets. Must have something to do with all the weaklings they gotten rid of.
> Hundreds of thousands of mostly very smart and highly educated workers who could be starting companies are not.
Alright, but millions of Americans could be starting companies as well, but are not.
In fact, America is _not_ as an entrepreneurial country with lots of little small business owners as we'd like to think. That is the propaganda bullshit we get fed on every election cycle "we got help America's small business. We gotta help Joe The Plumber...blah...blah."
In fact America businesses are mostly large behemoths employing tens of thousands of minions.
There was just a recent report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research ( http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/int-comp-... ) that compared employment in small businesses among the developed nations. US is consistently at the bottom when it comes to self-employment or employment in business with less then 20 people. The biggest reason -- the high cost of health insurance.
So I don't buy the bullshit about "if immigrants could only start their companies, then our economy would boom..." Unless, of course, the author is implying that immigrants are going to run sweatshops where employees don't get health insurance...
Alright, but millions of Americans could be starting companies as well, but are not.
In fact, America is _not_ as an entrepreneurial country with lots of little small business owners as we'd like to think. That is the propaganda bullshit we get fed on every election cycle "we got help America's small business. We gotta help Joe The Plumber...blah...blah."
In fact America businesses are mostly large behemoths employing tens of thousands of minions.
There was just a recent report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research ( http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/int-comp-... ) that compared employment in small businesses among the developed nations. US is consistently at the bottom when it comes to self-employment or employment in business with less then 20 people. The biggest reason -- the high cost of health insurance.
So I don't buy the bullshit about "if immigrants could only start their companies, then our economy would boom..." Unless, of course, the author is implying that immigrants are going to run sweatshops where employees don't get health insurance...
Even within YC, our own Summer 08 batch, there are several startups by non-Americans that have been very successful at building useful products, raising money, and altogether creating value for the US economy.
But those same startups have to jump through a million hoops just for the right to exist in our borders. So this effect is real. I don't claim to know to what extent our economy could be affected positively or negatively, but it is real.
But those same startups have to jump through a million hoops just for the right to exist in our borders. So this effect is real. I don't claim to know to what extent our economy could be affected positively or negatively, but it is real.
Four of the ten Techstars Boulder 09 companies were founded by people born outside the US. Two of the companies are run by folks like me who spent close to a decade earning green cards at big firms, but the other two face significant barriers to basing themselves in the US, even with investment.
Why does this matter? Even in the short term startups spend a lot of money here on services, and long-term they'll provide jobs for a lot of native workers.
Why does this matter? Even in the short term startups spend a lot of money here on services, and long-term they'll provide jobs for a lot of native workers.
OK, just for full disclosure I am still trying to collect a large enough body of knowledge on immigration issues to make an informed opinion. That said, I'll let it be known that I am inclined to have immigration be open everywhere. Preferably with other places even being more attractive than the US. This way immigration contributes more to global development, and not just development in the US.
Now with this out of the way, I have to say that if these companies you are talking about are 'raising money', then they have not created any value for the US economy. You are hoping that they will create value for the US economy. When the companies turn profitable, then they will be creating value. Until that point, they are being used to recycle currency, not to create wealth.
Just a little nit pick on your post. The propensity to confuse 'raising money' with 'creating value' or 'creating wealth' is a pet peeve of mine.
Now with this out of the way, I have to say that if these companies you are talking about are 'raising money', then they have not created any value for the US economy. You are hoping that they will create value for the US economy. When the companies turn profitable, then they will be creating value. Until that point, they are being used to recycle currency, not to create wealth.
Just a little nit pick on your post. The propensity to confuse 'raising money' with 'creating value' or 'creating wealth' is a pet peeve of mine.
> But those same startups have to jump through a million hoops just for the right to exist in our borders.
> I don't claim to know to what extent our economy could be affected positively or negatively, but it is real.
The question then is, who are we trying to help here? Do we want to help the immigrants or the American economy?
Unless, we can show how the hassle of immigrants trying to setup startup is seriously damaging our economy, then this starts to look more and more like we just want to provide some convenience for the immigrant workers. Of course, we should provide convenience, and should certainly not make it difficult on purpose, but that is not a top priority. We shouldn't be called xenophobes if we don't push this task to the priority of our things to do at the moment.
> I don't claim to know to what extent our economy could be affected positively or negatively, but it is real.
The question then is, who are we trying to help here? Do we want to help the immigrants or the American economy?
Unless, we can show how the hassle of immigrants trying to setup startup is seriously damaging our economy, then this starts to look more and more like we just want to provide some convenience for the immigrant workers. Of course, we should provide convenience, and should certainly not make it difficult on purpose, but that is not a top priority. We shouldn't be called xenophobes if we don't push this task to the priority of our things to do at the moment.
> Do we want to help the immigrants or the American economy?
These aren't mutually exclusive. I was an immigrant from Canadian (first on TN, then H1), started a company with an American co-founder, provided opportunities for hundreds of Americans to make money doing what they do best - teach. American economy +1.
I learned a ton, met some amazing people, got some good experience, and am confident that I could do it again. Immigrant +1.
Problem is that US policy makes it difficult to do it again without an American co-founder.
And this is what I don't understand: doesn't America want start risk-takers who leave their country to come and start businesses, grow the total pie, and earn a small slice of it? Isn't that how the country became so great?
These aren't mutually exclusive. I was an immigrant from Canadian (first on TN, then H1), started a company with an American co-founder, provided opportunities for hundreds of Americans to make money doing what they do best - teach. American economy +1.
I learned a ton, met some amazing people, got some good experience, and am confident that I could do it again. Immigrant +1.
Problem is that US policy makes it difficult to do it again without an American co-founder.
And this is what I don't understand: doesn't America want start risk-takers who leave their country to come and start businesses, grow the total pie, and earn a small slice of it? Isn't that how the country became so great?
So--is there an acutal way to do start a company without a US citizen as your co-founder?
Just graduated from a US college on a regular foreign-student visa...
Just graduated from a US college on a regular foreign-student visa...
Would you happen to know if these non-Americans were mostly students using their post-graduation time for work (<= 29 months), and also working for US co-founders on paper? That seems like the only way it could be.
> (from the article) I have a suggestion for our President on how to boost economic growth without spending a penny:
Really? What about the additional man power needed to process the "millions" of pending applications?
Really? What about the additional man power needed to process the "millions" of pending applications?
Reassign the people now enforcing/renewing H1-Bs? (If I understand the proposal correctly, all existing H1-Bs become green cards by fiat, obviating a lot paper-pushing.)
More programmers to free the economy? Come on...
To REALLY free the economy we need a million of doctors from France, India, UK and Cuba competing here, locally, against our home grown millionaire surgeons. The #1 reason companies are outsourcing and people are leaving is this enormous burden of medical racketeering.
Come on, the world is so much larger than the information technology sector and most problems that can't be solved by coding.
To REALLY free the economy we need a million of doctors from France, India, UK and Cuba competing here, locally, against our home grown millionaire surgeons. The #1 reason companies are outsourcing and people are leaving is this enormous burden of medical racketeering.
Come on, the world is so much larger than the information technology sector and most problems that can't be solved by coding.
Liberalizing immigration in all other skilled industries is a good idea, too.
ADDED: Note that neither "programmer" nor "software" appear in the original article: the author is talking about all H1-Bs, which includes medical specialists. (Though, licensing issues might prove a more significant employment barrier for foreign doctors than immigration rules, and those also need to be addressed.)
ADDED: Note that neither "programmer" nor "software" appear in the original article: the author is talking about all H1-Bs, which includes medical specialists. (Though, licensing issues might prove a more significant employment barrier for foreign doctors than immigration rules, and those also need to be addressed.)
This reminded me of Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty (of Narayan Hrudayalaya, Karnataka, India) who created a very innovative Micro-health scheme (http://www.yeshasvini.org/) of distributing the cost of heart surgery among the masses for a meager 10 cents (5 Rs) a month.
Today, approximately 1.6 million farmers are eligible to receive heart surgeries (and 955 other surgery types)
He has recently started getting traction in New Delhi for a similar scheme.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/News/india/Delhi-does-not-want...
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4585.html
Today, approximately 1.6 million farmers are eligible to receive heart surgeries (and 955 other surgery types)
He has recently started getting traction in New Delhi for a similar scheme.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/News/india/Delhi-does-not-want...
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4585.html
Freeing the H1-B wouldn't just help out programmers, but all disciplines, including doctors.
Yes, and we could also get rid of the requirement of an undergrad before med school, as well as increase the caps on med school enrollment.
There is so much low hanging fruit that has mysteriously remained almost completely absent in the current USA health care debate.
There is so much low hanging fruit that has mysteriously remained almost completely absent in the current USA health care debate.
I know several guys, who were doctors in former USSR, came to US, and now are working in department stores, or driving a taxi, because the path to get licensed in the US is too long, overcomplicated, and costs lots of money.
After the collapse of the USSR, lots of medical doctors and other specialized workers found themselves without a job. Today in Western Europe you can find construction workers who were doctors in the Ukraine SSR or Moldova in the 1980s, These people are a huge source of qualified work, but to the best of my knowledge only one country (Portugal) has shown any interest in re-training them as doctors to meet the severe lack of qualified medical personnel. It's interesting to note that in the former Soviet republics, being a doctor did not have the same status (let alone financial compensation) as in the West.
I know that Canada has been trying to lure medical doctors from abroad (Eastern Europe and elsewhere) in recent years, but they're after the young graduates, not the old veterans who were disowned by the fall of Communism.
Unfortunately, the doctors' lobby in the U.S. is too powerful. In order to keep their salaries inflated, they will never allow the U.S. to import doctors from abroad, even if that would mean that the average American would have access to more affordable healthcare.
I know that Canada has been trying to lure medical doctors from abroad (Eastern Europe and elsewhere) in recent years, but they're after the young graduates, not the old veterans who were disowned by the fall of Communism.
Unfortunately, the doctors' lobby in the U.S. is too powerful. In order to keep their salaries inflated, they will never allow the U.S. to import doctors from abroad, even if that would mean that the average American would have access to more affordable healthcare.
That is very sad. I remember growing up in USSR, they had very good doctors. They didn't have carpeted hospitals, TVs in every hospital room, or fancy technology but doctors were good.
I remember when I was 11 I broke my front teeth on a bycicle. We went to the dentist. He sat me in the chair and said "Well, cosmonaut, let's see what we can do", and he rebuilt my teeth in 2 days. All he got in return from my mom and I were flowers and a thank you. There was no insurance, no co-pays, none of that bullshit. And I still have the same teeth he rebuilt now 20 years later. I heard that doctor moved to live in Canada...
I remember when I was 11 I broke my front teeth on a bycicle. We went to the dentist. He sat me in the chair and said "Well, cosmonaut, let's see what we can do", and he rebuilt my teeth in 2 days. All he got in return from my mom and I were flowers and a thank you. There was no insurance, no co-pays, none of that bullshit. And I still have the same teeth he rebuilt now 20 years later. I heard that doctor moved to live in Canada...
Yeah, I can second that, having been born and spent part of my childhood in the USSR.
The medicine was neither on the forefront of high technology nor equally distributed nor ideal, but the preventive tactics and the highly rigourous, fundamentals-oriented education of the doctors more than made up for it.
It's the same idea as Eastern Bloc polytechnic institutes; why do you think 15 of the 16 bank / capital crime hackers wanted by the FBI are ex-Soviet? It's certainly not because they had access to the latest and greatest Western commercial gear at any point in their education or experience. It turns out that it doesn't matter; the focus was on strong mathematics, computational theory and machine processing. They understand what a buffer overflow is and how to effect one easier, better and faster than their more empirically trained counterparts.
We have a family doctor in his 80s now who still practices medicine in what's left of the state system in Russia. After my parents get frustrated with yet another round with pointless paper-shuffling bureaucrats practising defensive medicine, with their army of office assistants, nurses, medical billing consultants and transcriptionists, they unfailingly call him for good advice - and it works.
The medicine was neither on the forefront of high technology nor equally distributed nor ideal, but the preventive tactics and the highly rigourous, fundamentals-oriented education of the doctors more than made up for it.
It's the same idea as Eastern Bloc polytechnic institutes; why do you think 15 of the 16 bank / capital crime hackers wanted by the FBI are ex-Soviet? It's certainly not because they had access to the latest and greatest Western commercial gear at any point in their education or experience. It turns out that it doesn't matter; the focus was on strong mathematics, computational theory and machine processing. They understand what a buffer overflow is and how to effect one easier, better and faster than their more empirically trained counterparts.
We have a family doctor in his 80s now who still practices medicine in what's left of the state system in Russia. After my parents get frustrated with yet another round with pointless paper-shuffling bureaucrats practising defensive medicine, with their army of office assistants, nurses, medical billing consultants and transcriptionists, they unfailingly call him for good advice - and it works.
Little Portugal can't take on the huge surplus of doctors from Eastern Europe -- many still end up construction workers as well (although the salaries compared to back home end up being worth it).
Definitely a shame we can't get them to the US. It is insane that we have roughly the same number of doctors as we did 30 years ago, despite increases in population and average age.
Definitely a shame we can't get them to the US. It is insane that we have roughly the same number of doctors as we did 30 years ago, despite increases in population and average age.
I don't know much about Portugal, but I know it's a small country. I didn't claim that Portugal can take on the huge surplus of doctors from Eastern Europe, but they seem to be taking steps in the right direction, just like they did on drug decriminalization. Other countries could and should follow Portugal's steps.
Not all of healthcare consists of curing cancer and performing open heart surgery. A lot of medical practice is terribly dull and vanilla. It would be hard to go against the doctors' lobby, but perhaps a compromise could be reached. Doctors want to keep their salaries high. People want affordable healthcare. There are a lot of people who simply can't afford healthcare anyway, so they are not even in the market. Re-training foreign doctors could be a step towards a more-affordable healthcare system.
Worst-case scenario, ask Bill Gates for a couple of billion USD. Hire foreign doctors, retrain them and place in Vancouver. Then allow American citizens to cross the border to have access to healthcare. The colluding doctors of the U.S. could not fight it.
Not all of healthcare consists of curing cancer and performing open heart surgery. A lot of medical practice is terribly dull and vanilla. It would be hard to go against the doctors' lobby, but perhaps a compromise could be reached. Doctors want to keep their salaries high. People want affordable healthcare. There are a lot of people who simply can't afford healthcare anyway, so they are not even in the market. Re-training foreign doctors could be a step towards a more-affordable healthcare system.
Worst-case scenario, ask Bill Gates for a couple of billion USD. Hire foreign doctors, retrain them and place in Vancouver. Then allow American citizens to cross the border to have access to healthcare. The colluding doctors of the U.S. could not fight it.
Nurse practitioners have a been a stopgap, providing basic care. Doctor's lobbies have been fighting against those in various states too though, sadly. They're quite powerful.
Letting an opportunity like that slide (from the perspective of US employers) cals in to question the US' supposed non socialist system.
So much passion for free markets, yet they only exist in theory...
The U.S. is run by interest groups, unfortunately. Other countries are run by interest groups, too, but at least they have the decency not to claim their system is a capitalist one.
The U.S. is run by interest groups, unfortunately. Other countries are run by interest groups, too, but at least they have the decency not to claim their system is a capitalist one.
> to the best of my knowledge only one country (Portugal) has shown any interest in re-training them as doctors to meet the severe lack of qualified medical personnel.
A lot of doctors in Israel are immigrants from former Soviet Republics.
A lot of doctors in Israel are immigrants from former Soviet Republics.
That does not surprise me, given that many Russians and Ukrainians moved to Israel after the fall of the USSR. But did those doctors start their lives in Israel as construction workers? Or did they start practicing Medicine right away?
No, they had to pass some sort of exam in order to be able to practice in Israel (and also learn the language of course).
But a few years hence, the result is that a lot of Israeli doctors are former Soviet citizens.
But a few years hence, the result is that a lot of Israeli doctors are former Soviet citizens.
Your words will be lost on most people here friend. For them, 'raising money' is 'creating wealth'.
<sigh>
I agree though, we should stop bringing in programmers and start bringing in doctors.
<sigh>
I agree though, we should stop bringing in programmers and start bringing in doctors.
Wow.. it is evident that most of the commenters here do not really understand 1. The H1B process and/or 2. What the author of the techcrunch article is saying.
In a nutshell, and H1B visa is attached to a company, so if you have one, you cannot go work for another company or even start up your own.
What the author is advocating is that the president/government lift these restrictions, so that the skilled foreigners who already live in the USA can go ahead and help the economy grow.
Of course lifting the restrictions would probably mean that employers will be less willing to sponsor people for H1B visas, knowing that they can walk away anytime they please.
In a nutshell, and H1B visa is attached to a company, so if you have one, you cannot go work for another company or even start up your own.
What the author is advocating is that the president/government lift these restrictions, so that the skilled foreigners who already live in the USA can go ahead and help the economy grow.
Of course lifting the restrictions would probably mean that employers will be less willing to sponsor people for H1B visas, knowing that they can walk away anytime they please.
To be completely accurate, H1-Bs are attached to an existing company. You can transfer your H1-B to another company, as long as that company is will to spend time (a couple of months) and money (several thousand dollars) to sponsor your H1-B. You cannot, however, start your own company. H1-Bs are, as the blog post says, a huge barrier to employee mobility and the creation of startups.
Another common type of visa in the valley is the L1. Big companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft, who have foreign subsidiaries, hire people in those countries. After they have worked in the foreign office for a year they can apply for the L1, which is an "internal transfer". This allows them to work in the US, but only for that company. You cannot ever work another company than the original sponsor of your L1. This really is indentured servitude (though of course it's usually quite well paid).
Another common type of visa in the valley is the L1. Big companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft, who have foreign subsidiaries, hire people in those countries. After they have worked in the foreign office for a year they can apply for the L1, which is an "internal transfer". This allows them to work in the US, but only for that company. You cannot ever work another company than the original sponsor of your L1. This really is indentured servitude (though of course it's usually quite well paid).
This is bullshit. Here's actual data: http://www.businessweek.com/table/08/0305_h1b.htm More (I don't know the source, but seems correct): http://www.myvisajobs.com/Top_Visa_Sponsors.aspx
Lookit, a lot of the H1-B slots are being taken up by consulting firms. We don't have a shortage of H1-Bs; we just allocate them poorly. That's what we need to fix.
As to the (what I consider a minor) founding issue, that's pretty simple: find an American co-founder. Form a company, apply for a second H1-B, and you can work for the NewCo from the minute you file (if you already have an existing one). Work on the side, make something people want, then transfer over the main H1-B once the NewCo has revenue/investment. Hell, I'm happy to sign on as a co-founder for as many companies as I can until INS stops me.
Lookit, a lot of the H1-B slots are being taken up by consulting firms. We don't have a shortage of H1-Bs; we just allocate them poorly. That's what we need to fix.
As to the (what I consider a minor) founding issue, that's pretty simple: find an American co-founder. Form a company, apply for a second H1-B, and you can work for the NewCo from the minute you file (if you already have an existing one). Work on the side, make something people want, then transfer over the main H1-B once the NewCo has revenue/investment. Hell, I'm happy to sign on as a co-founder for as many companies as I can until INS stops me.
Did you read the article? He's not saying to increase the number of H1-B's, he's saying to increase the speed at which they can convert to permanent residents with green cards.
I agree. This is like trying to fix the high rate of injuries by getting more band-aids.
To me it seems the article is advocating changing the legislation to make it more convenient for immigrant workers. That is of course followed by a stern warning to us 'xenophobes' that if we don't our economy will be ruined.
They should instead advocate for punishing large corporations for gaming the system, underpaying H1-B employees and depressing everyone else wages. For every 'smart' and 'bright' H1-B visa candidate there are a thousand of unqualified ones, with flaky academic or employment history record. The reason they are here, because they are willing to work for %30 less than Americans are.
To me it seems the article is advocating changing the legislation to make it more convenient for immigrant workers. That is of course followed by a stern warning to us 'xenophobes' that if we don't our economy will be ruined.
They should instead advocate for punishing large corporations for gaming the system, underpaying H1-B employees and depressing everyone else wages. For every 'smart' and 'bright' H1-B visa candidate there are a thousand of unqualified ones, with flaky academic or employment history record. The reason they are here, because they are willing to work for %30 less than Americans are.
Consider this, though. Even the most qualified H1-B candidate can end up getting paid less than they should simply because of the way the green card application process works.
Once an H1-B holder has filed for a GC, they can't be switch employers or be promoted. Since most companies have pay caps based on job title, this means the H1-B holder can't get raises past a certain point. The end result of all this is you have H1-B "junior engineers" who've worked at the same company for 5+ years really doing the job of a intermediate/senior engineer.
The joke is that the company is not "gaming the system" at all. By not promoting someone with an outstanding GC application, they're doing exactly what the law requires of them.
Once an H1-B holder has filed for a GC, they can't be switch employers or be promoted. Since most companies have pay caps based on job title, this means the H1-B holder can't get raises past a certain point. The end result of all this is you have H1-B "junior engineers" who've worked at the same company for 5+ years really doing the job of a intermediate/senior engineer.
The joke is that the company is not "gaming the system" at all. By not promoting someone with an outstanding GC application, they're doing exactly what the law requires of them.
Your proposal means more bureaucratic rules about what jobs are comparable and what pay rates should be. That's moving in the wrong direction, if you want growth and high-employment.
The article provides a much more simple solution: if someone qualifies to work in the USA, end the rules which tie them to a specific job. It's those rules that cause the gaming, limit competition by employers, and cause lower pay.
The article provides a much more simple solution: if someone qualifies to work in the USA, end the rules which tie them to a specific job. It's those rules that cause the gaming, limit competition by employers, and cause lower pay.
INS would stop you at the very first one. Do you think they haven't thought of this loophole?
INS has strict rules about the companies to which it will issue visas. Companies must have established physical offices, have existed for a certain length of time, have a minimum number of other employees, and be able to produce statements showing real customers and actual revenue to prove they are a "real" company.
None of these apply to a startup. Even for medium-sized companies, the lawyers, time and expense required to sponsor an H1-B is a big barrier to hiring immigrants on this visa. For a startup it's completely impossible: not just inconvenient or expensive; impossible. INS will not let H1-Bs join a startup, even a genuine one.
INS has strict rules about the companies to which it will issue visas. Companies must have established physical offices, have existed for a certain length of time, have a minimum number of other employees, and be able to produce statements showing real customers and actual revenue to prove they are a "real" company.
None of these apply to a startup. Even for medium-sized companies, the lawyers, time and expense required to sponsor an H1-B is a big barrier to hiring immigrants on this visa. For a startup it's completely impossible: not just inconvenient or expensive; impossible. INS will not let H1-Bs join a startup, even a genuine one.
This article and all others on the topic seem to confuse two different trends: 1> That there is a real incentive for the very best to return to India and China because they are self-confident and know that they can thrive anywhere, and 2> That the current H1-B regime (read indentured labor) is abused by corporations, especially IT outsourcers to bring in bodies. In my case, after a PhD at a top 5 engineering school and a 7 year wait at a Fortune 500 company, I finally got a Green card. I started a company within a month of that, we have over 100 employees (all in the US) and we are hiring today. The generation of PhD's before me used to get their Green Cards in three months. I see a lot of my friends now contemplating a return to India and China. I think this is bad for the US and bad for Silicon Valley.
It basically comes down to this, in intellectual fields, the most productive workers are 10X better than the median. Multiple that with a 10X tolerance for risk (which a lot of immigrants with much lower fixed costs and lower expectations from life tend to have) and you are talking about losing someone who is 100X more valuable (in economic terms) than the average worker. If we don't figure out who these people are and insist on having them wait in the H1B line along with everyone else, we are doing ourselves a great disservice. BTW my cofounder is American, also falls in the 100X category - so this is not a statement about "all Chinese/Indians are superior to all Americans". His daughters are learning Chinese as a backup plan.
By mixing legal with illegal immigration (due to the relative strength of some of the lobbies) and uber-skilled with somewhat skilled immigration, we are creating a mess.
Reminds me of PGs "Founders Visa" article - http://www.paulgraham.com/foundervisa.html
It is a win-win for America and hundreds of entrepreneurs in other countries where the startup ecosystem doesn't exist and ofcourse many would want to build businesses for developed economies than attempt to run something in their home economy which probably can't pay enough. They might go back and build something few yrs down the line or invest in their home countries nevertheless America would have benefited in the mean time.
And this is not even converting all H1-Bs at least the capable ones to start their own firms.
It is a win-win for America and hundreds of entrepreneurs in other countries where the startup ecosystem doesn't exist and ofcourse many would want to build businesses for developed economies than attempt to run something in their home economy which probably can't pay enough. They might go back and build something few yrs down the line or invest in their home countries nevertheless America would have benefited in the mean time.
And this is not even converting all H1-Bs at least the capable ones to start their own firms.
I've seen H1B essentially lock up some of the brightest people I've worked with... for years. Even a decade or so. You have to get sponsored, and you can't leave your corporate home. It's a strange, watered down form of identured servitude.
The fact that H1B's have no mobility also depresses wages and reduces the incentive for corporations to be a great place to work because the switching cost for these workers is much higher. So hiring a lot of H1B's actually do offer corporations an incentive that is more insidious than you might think.
That's the bad form of H1B. Corporations bringing worker drones for cheap. But that's why this specific reform can affect the system for the better.
The fact that H1B's have no mobility also depresses wages and reduces the incentive for corporations to be a great place to work because the switching cost for these workers is much higher. So hiring a lot of H1B's actually do offer corporations an incentive that is more insidious than you might think.
That's the bad form of H1B. Corporations bringing worker drones for cheap. But that's why this specific reform can affect the system for the better.
And of course the depressed wage / indentured servitude plays into the xenophobic / "dey tuk ur jerbs" crowd as an argument against immigration reform.
Totally off-topic, but this is the first thing I saw after getting my new shiny US visa. Couldn't help but share.
It's almost funny that someone from Canada would need a visa to work in the US and vice versa. For long stretches of time when I'm in Canada, I forget that I'm in a different country
This is a very biased article. The author neglects to mention that a very large portion of income generated by foreign born workers is sent home by those workers. The money doesn't stay in America to benefit the American economy.
It also doesn't benefit the case to call those opposed to more immigration Xenophobes. They aren't xenophobes, they are rationally aware of the situation.
Also, what he says is not true according to the research: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=794685 and http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=794677
Furthermore, H1-B's are not "highly skilled." The majority of H1B workers take entry level jobs. There is an O-1 visa for highly skilled workers and there is no cap on this visa. If this debate was really about bringing in more highly skilled workers, then why argue for uncapping the lower skilled visa? Wouldn't corporations just bring in more O-1 visas, for which there is an unlimited supply available?
The reality is that O-1 visas cost more than H1B visas to employ. This debate is really about concentrating more power in the corporations and erradicating the middle class in America.
It also doesn't benefit the case to call those opposed to more immigration Xenophobes. They aren't xenophobes, they are rationally aware of the situation.
Also, what he says is not true according to the research: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=794685 and http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=794677
Furthermore, H1-B's are not "highly skilled." The majority of H1B workers take entry level jobs. There is an O-1 visa for highly skilled workers and there is no cap on this visa. If this debate was really about bringing in more highly skilled workers, then why argue for uncapping the lower skilled visa? Wouldn't corporations just bring in more O-1 visas, for which there is an unlimited supply available?
The reality is that O-1 visas cost more than H1B visas to employ. This debate is really about concentrating more power in the corporations and erradicating the middle class in America.
The reality is that very, very few highly skilled technical people, even people like Jerry Yang or Sergey Brin would have qualified for O-1 visas if they had needed to try. It's also indisputable that Yahoo! and Google have each generated a lot of jobs an a lot of tax revenues for the US.
The following is from Wikipedia:
Generally, to qualify for O-1 classification, aliens of extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business, or athletics must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and recognition for achievements in the field of expertise by providing evidence of:
Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize; or at least three of the following forms of documentation:
The following is from Wikipedia:
Generally, to qualify for O-1 classification, aliens of extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business, or athletics must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and recognition for achievements in the field of expertise by providing evidence of:
Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize; or at least three of the following forms of documentation:
1. Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor;
2. Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields;
3. Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any necessary translation;
4. Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which classification is sought;
5. Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field;
6. Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional journals, or other major media;
7. Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation;
8. Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence.All economies depend on trade and division of labors to be prosperous. So money going back to India and other countries may help increase global trade.
It will increase consumption in those countries, but not necessarily consumption of american goods.
I think that money will benefit America more if it stays in America. This will happen if we employ more Americans who spend all of their money in America, rather than sending some of it to family members in other countries.
I think that money will benefit America more if it stays in America. This will happen if we employ more Americans who spend all of their money in America, rather than sending some of it to family members in other countries.
It's nice to help India's economy, or China or Russia. Unfortunately, US is not in the charitable business of helping developing economies.
You did not clearly understood the implication of "trade" part.
If trade is central to the wealth of society, then more trading with other economies of the world will lead to increased wealth in the US.
In fact, we have the largest free trade zone right here in the US. Goods and services in the US, for the most part, move freely.
If trade is central to the wealth of society, then more trading with other economies of the world will lead to increased wealth in the US.
In fact, we have the largest free trade zone right here in the US. Goods and services in the US, for the most part, move freely.
Increase in wealth for whom? The upper class or the middle class or the lower class? I think qui bono is the central question in this issue. The wealthy in America benefit, but the middle and lower class does not.
Research shows, as the middle class increases in wealth, then so does the whole economy and through increasing H1B's, we are eliminating the middle class american worker to jobs overseas.
Research shows, as the middle class increases in wealth, then so does the whole economy and through increasing H1B's, we are eliminating the middle class american worker to jobs overseas.
Common sense should already suggest that trade is mutually benefical because well, I get stuff that I wanted, and you get stuff that you want. Why should trade only specifically benefit some certain classes of society?
Read the article on comparative advantage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
This is the reason why we specialize and trade, because everybody will be better off.
Read the article on comparative advantage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
This is the reason why we specialize and trade, because everybody will be better off.
Not necessarily, it depends who controls the trade. There is rarely such a thing as "free trade" or "free market" -- it is a pipe dream. Trade is mostly about controls, tariffs and subsidies. Usually the powerful side control the trade.
> largest free trade zone right here in the US.
That is true, but I thought we are talking about internation trade.
> largest free trade zone right here in the US.
That is true, but I thought we are talking about internation trade.
That money goes after tax has been paid, house bought etc. It has many immediate benefit for the host country. The host is not subsidizing the alien's home country.
yeah that's what we need, more H1Bs...after all its not like we have a lot of unemployed. The job growth rate has dropped significantly, why should we increase our population when we don't have the jobs to support them?
these were posted on TC:
these were posted on TC:
1950’s
Population Growth = 11,516,000
Employment Growth = 7,215,000 (62.65%)
1960’s
Population Growth = 19,449,000
Employment Growth = 13,862,000 (71.27%)
1970’s
Population Growth = 30,811,000 (Depression in Mexico)
Employment Growth = 21,224,000 (68.88%)
1980’s
Population Growth = 20,865,000
Employment Growth = 17,685,000 (84.76%)
1990’s
Population Growth = 21,667,000
Employment Growth = 16,998,000 (78.45%)
2000’s (Mar. 2009)
Population Growth = 26,254,000
Employment Growth = 5,137,000 (19.57%)There's two issues here -- one is that there's a brain drain in the United States. The best and the brightest are leaving. They can't stay, because we won't let them. The fix is letting them, by reforming H1B policies.
Second is H1B abuse by large corporations. This is a legit problem -- some IT firms bring in people they shouldn't (sometimes thousands at a time), and this takes up H1B's from talented people who should get them. Again, the fix requires the government to figure out who is abusing it, and changing the policies to prevent them from doing so.
Second is H1B abuse by large corporations. This is a legit problem -- some IT firms bring in people they shouldn't (sometimes thousands at a time), and this takes up H1B's from talented people who should get them. Again, the fix requires the government to figure out who is abusing it, and changing the policies to prevent them from doing so.
i don't buy the brain drain issue, sure there are probably some geniuses in the millions of H1B people, but majority are not that much better than the average American worker. So out of those few geniuses, what tiny percentage leaves?
They aren't leaving for the sake of leaving, they are leaving to exploit the opportunities in their home countries
They aren't leaving for the sake of leaving, they are leaving to exploit the opportunities in their home countries
The emigration of even a "tiny percentage" of geniuses is a great loss -- they're geniuses!
And if the "majority" are "not that much better than the average American worker" -- but still just a little better -- why can't they stay? Everyone above average brings up the average -- why not have them producing great stuff here rather than elsewhere?
And if the "majority" are "not that much better than the average American worker" -- but still just a little better -- why can't they stay? Everyone above average brings up the average -- why not have them producing great stuff here rather than elsewhere?
because if they are at the same level, then the same level job goes to the Indian, because he can get paid half as much. When there is economic prosperity, noone really cares about immigrants because there are jobs aplenty for everyone, but when there is a down turn, people start wondering...why should we import 100,000 people who are not better than the thousands of our own unemployed people.
The geniuses are welcome, it's the lesser skilled people, who are imported solely to drive down wages and take jobs away from Americans that people have problems with.
Who said they are more skilled? You ever read code written by someone on an H1B?
Because they aren't producing great stuff, most programming jobs aren't at Google, they are at places where you maintain some crappy code written 10 years ago. This mundane crap can be worked on by the thousands of American programmers that are unemployed, because they aren't willing to work for $40K/yr like their H1B counterparts
The geniuses are welcome, it's the lesser skilled people, who are imported solely to drive down wages and take jobs away from Americans that people have problems with.
Who said they are more skilled? You ever read code written by someone on an H1B?
Because they aren't producing great stuff, most programming jobs aren't at Google, they are at places where you maintain some crappy code written 10 years ago. This mundane crap can be worked on by the thousands of American programmers that are unemployed, because they aren't willing to work for $40K/yr like their H1B counterparts
Maybe just anecdotally I know more entrepreneurial immigrants, but I just have not seen that to be the case. n=1, ymmv.
The article advocates "freeing" existing H1Bs, not expanding the H1B program (though that might be good too).
What percentage of those figures actually relates to the technology industry?
I agree with the author's thesis but I'm bothered by the way the numbers are presented. Other articles in favor of making immigration for skilled workers easier usually are guilty of the same number fudging.
In the article: "My research team documented that one quarter (http://ssrn.com/abstract=990152) of all technology and engineering startups nationwide from 1995 to 2005 were started by immigrants."
The linked source says it more precisely: "We found there was at least one immigrant key founder in 25.3% of all engineering and technology companies established in the U.S. between 1995 and 2005 inclusive."
The key words in the second quote are "at least one immigrant key founder"; there are typically 2-4 founders in a startup (YC's avg is 2.5). If we just calculate what fraction of founders are immigrants across all startups (=total_immigrant_founders/total_founders), the number should only be ~ 11% [1], which sounds less dramatic but is more accurate in terms of how much credit immigrant founders deserve for the startups.
Similarly "more than 25% of U.S. global patents had authors who were born abroad" should really mention what fraction of inventors listed on patents are foreign-born, since patents typically have many coinventors.
[1] - There's probably actual data on this somewhere, but if we assume the probability p of a founder being immigrant is independent of other founders, and the number of founders per startup = 2.5:
=> 1 - (1-p)^founders_per_startup = probability_that_startup_has_at_least_1_immigrant_founder
=> 1 - (1-p)^2.5 = .25
=> p = .1087
In the article: "My research team documented that one quarter (http://ssrn.com/abstract=990152) of all technology and engineering startups nationwide from 1995 to 2005 were started by immigrants."
The linked source says it more precisely: "We found there was at least one immigrant key founder in 25.3% of all engineering and technology companies established in the U.S. between 1995 and 2005 inclusive."
The key words in the second quote are "at least one immigrant key founder"; there are typically 2-4 founders in a startup (YC's avg is 2.5). If we just calculate what fraction of founders are immigrants across all startups (=total_immigrant_founders/total_founders), the number should only be ~ 11% [1], which sounds less dramatic but is more accurate in terms of how much credit immigrant founders deserve for the startups.
Similarly "more than 25% of U.S. global patents had authors who were born abroad" should really mention what fraction of inventors listed on patents are foreign-born, since patents typically have many coinventors.
[1] - There's probably actual data on this somewhere, but if we assume the probability p of a founder being immigrant is independent of other founders, and the number of founders per startup = 2.5:
=> 1 - (1-p)^founders_per_startup = probability_that_startup_has_at_least_1_immigrant_founder
=> 1 - (1-p)^2.5 = .25
=> p = .1087
The author Vivek Wadhwa, iirc, used to be a very prominent H1B critic. Wonder what's made him change his mind ?
1. Every Spartan citizen has to join the army and train since childhood to become the best fighter possible. Weaklings are killed at birth.
2. The currency of Spartans was changed to heavy iron bars. Prevented folks from other neighbouring city-states from doing business with Spartans.
This made Sparta very independent. And their citizens became the best fighters the world had ever seen. People looked up to them in awe. Poems are written about them.
But these same protectionist rules that made Sparta glorious for little time, led to Sparta decline in the long run.
Populations declines. Wealth declines. Progress declines.
Moral of the story has always been: protectionism brings short term benefits but long term doom.
But yet we'll always see the majority of the people rooting for protectionism for short term progress.
(I'm pretty sure I'll be slammed for this post because there is no direct relation or parallels between Spartan policies and American policies. Time was different. Threats were different. Rules were different. But I had to write it to make a point against general protectionism. And not against any specific American policy including the one being talked about here - restricting H1-Bs.)