Foreign Entrepreneurs Eye StartUp Visa Act(online.wsj.com)
online.wsj.com
Foreign Entrepreneurs Eye StartUp Visa Act
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704694004576020001550357580.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
18 comments
>>Enforce that well to avoid body shops type of miss usage.
Correct me if am wrong, but from what I have heard, it is already enforced and all the big body-shops do things being on the proper side of the law.
I see a concern. Wouldn't a lot of firms which rely on outsourced projects encash this opportunity?
I mean, I already see a lot of people willing to do anything to get an H1B and a GC. (from where I come from, if one is in the IT industry for 2 years and does not have an H1B, he would be treated like an outcast and an under-performer)
If sticking for 5 years is the only criteria, the trend I foresee is, a lot of people from outsourcing firms using the opportunity to become GC holders and then staying with corporations that can guarantee them minimum pay (cause frankly, a majority of them are not really startup material). Considering that it's relatively easy for someone from such BigCorp background to get an H1B, the real ones (real entrepreneurs / startup folks) end up missing out (I guess not many would be willing to sponsor an H1B and get him abroad, financial constraints and legal hassles being few possible reasons)
Again, please correct me if am wrong!
Correct me if am wrong, but from what I have heard, it is already enforced and all the big body-shops do things being on the proper side of the law.
I see a concern. Wouldn't a lot of firms which rely on outsourced projects encash this opportunity?
I mean, I already see a lot of people willing to do anything to get an H1B and a GC. (from where I come from, if one is in the IT industry for 2 years and does not have an H1B, he would be treated like an outcast and an under-performer)
If sticking for 5 years is the only criteria, the trend I foresee is, a lot of people from outsourcing firms using the opportunity to become GC holders and then staying with corporations that can guarantee them minimum pay (cause frankly, a majority of them are not really startup material). Considering that it's relatively easy for someone from such BigCorp background to get an H1B, the real ones (real entrepreneurs / startup folks) end up missing out (I guess not many would be willing to sponsor an H1B and get him abroad, financial constraints and legal hassles being few possible reasons)
Again, please correct me if am wrong!
How would define a prevailing wage given that in the same company two people with the same job title could be making vastly different sums of money ?
It's defined by the federal government by region and classification. The classifications are pretty formalized as part of the visa process.
My point was the data is wrong. It classifies someone doing php work for a small non-profit as the same as someone developer high-frequency trading systems for an investment bank, even though in reality there can be an order of magnitude difference in salaries.
The whole concept of "prevailing wage" is a sham in high-skill occupations. It's a hangover from blue-collar jobs.
The whole concept of "prevailing wage" is a sham in high-skill occupations. It's a hangover from blue-collar jobs.
Really good idea. Those never survive congress.
The greencard backlog is about 7 years. So either the greencard process starts as soon as you get your H-1B or your really looking at 12 years before you get a greencard.
As a Canadian, I'm actually a little appalled by this. Toronto and Vancouver are hotbeds for gaming, are fast becoming thriving startup communities, and need smart, motivated entrepreneurs more than ever... why can't Mr. Wong stick around and do some good for his country if he has already secured funding?
cal5k, Investors who invest money in your startup don't want to travel 3 hours (to Vancouver) 8-12 hours (to toronto) to manage their investment.
That is one important factor that makes startups in Toronto and Vancouver very unattractive. Most Silicon Valley investor invest money in your startup based on the fact that you are going to be within an hour distance away. It is easier for them to manage, especially when they have multiple investments. And that is why Brian can't easily just take the funding and move to Vancouver or Toronto and set up shop.
And I haven't even started talking about the difference between Canada - SFO/Mountain View with regards to talent pool and networking.
The point is, in general and this applies to 'most' companies (although not all), if you want your startup to be successful, you move to Silicon Valley. The difference is absolutely unbelievable.
That is one important factor that makes startups in Toronto and Vancouver very unattractive. Most Silicon Valley investor invest money in your startup based on the fact that you are going to be within an hour distance away. It is easier for them to manage, especially when they have multiple investments. And that is why Brian can't easily just take the funding and move to Vancouver or Toronto and set up shop.
And I haven't even started talking about the difference between Canada - SFO/Mountain View with regards to talent pool and networking.
The point is, in general and this applies to 'most' companies (although not all), if you want your startup to be successful, you move to Silicon Valley. The difference is absolutely unbelievable.
This also says a lot about the Canadian VC industry - it's small and risk-averse. It's a real problem and one that I'm in the early stages of trying to tackle. I'm a big believer that Canada can become a hotbed of tech innovation and startups. With that said, we're nowhere near there yet.
Also, there are plenty of VCs much closer to Toronto - New York, for example. Toronto is starting to become an attractive place to invest for New York-based VCs.
We have some excellent talent in Canada, and some really great government programs around research & innovation.
And you don't "have" to move to Silicon Valley. It's a cool place and it certainly has the right conditions for success, but it sort of fucks our country when all of our most ambitious entrepreneurs feel like they need to go to Silicon Valley to succeed. That's just not true, and I'd like to see more entrepreneurs thinking bigger right here at home.
Also, there are plenty of VCs much closer to Toronto - New York, for example. Toronto is starting to become an attractive place to invest for New York-based VCs.
We have some excellent talent in Canada, and some really great government programs around research & innovation.
And you don't "have" to move to Silicon Valley. It's a cool place and it certainly has the right conditions for success, but it sort of fucks our country when all of our most ambitious entrepreneurs feel like they need to go to Silicon Valley to succeed. That's just not true, and I'd like to see more entrepreneurs thinking bigger right here at home.
He isn't the only one. My co-founder and I have done the same. And about half a dozen other ones that I know.
Also, he raised it after he came here.
Also, he raised it after he came here.
He is a citizen of Earth. Why should he care about which country he is in?
Interesting that it is trying to create jobs in a sector where demand mostly outstrips supply, but specifically looks to exclude the lower growth sectors that often supply the bulk of the jobs that have gone missing in the last few years.
Not sure how you figure. The scarcity that they are targeting here is the intersect between entrepreneurs with a higher probability of success. Venture capital/angel investors follow whichever sectors offer the greatest growth / future economic value. The article does not suggest that there is any sector that is being targeted.
Would you be happier if I had said sectors instead of a sector? Or do you have in mind a sector that gets a significant amount of venture funding that also suffers from high unemployment?
Most venture also wants to see ideas that can scale well non-linearly with employee count. This leads to the few ballpark successes being pretty job light compared to their revenue. Which is better for the economy, cash hoarding and dividends or continual reinvestment in expanding into new markets?
Most venture also wants to see ideas that can scale well non-linearly with employee count. This leads to the few ballpark successes being pretty job light compared to their revenue. Which is better for the economy, cash hoarding and dividends or continual reinvestment in expanding into new markets?
I think there would be indirect job growth from such small ventures. Think of all the people that make your life happen everyday , so that you go to work - The local gas station, the local grocer, your fav coffee house etc
By letting such startups mushroom, you are also creating the seedlings for growth on the wider economy.
I sincerely hope that the congress takes a good look at this in detail and pass the bill. This would help a lot of H1 Visa struggling with huge talent and obnoxious job fits, and their urge to start something in the states. Go Startup Visa!
People are tracking all the evolution of startup visa on http://startupvisa.com/
How about automatic Green Card to any H-1B holder that has been working in the US for more than 5 years.
1. To get a H-1B there is a prevailing wage that the employer has to pay. Enforce that well to avoid body shops type of miss usage.
2. If you were continuously paid that prevailing wage, that means that there is need for that skill your bring.
5th year the green card should be in the mail. I bet a lot of current H-1B holders are itching to start a startup, but they just can't easily walk away from jobs, or their statuses will be jeopardized.
I have to remember the HN community that there is a lot of good talent that are holding H-1Bs. Many of them went to US universities and transitioned from F-1 to H-1B. By the fifth year of employment they will reach 27, a good age to start something yours.
But unfortunately a lot of H-1B holders have to wait for years, and go through massive bureaucratic procedures to convert to a GC. Only lawyers and large employers profit from the current status.
When mobility of employers is restricted by artificial means, the economy and public in general looses some, while only few actors win/make a profit out of it.
Continuous employment for 5 years with good salaries is a good balance to show that there is a need for said foreigner.