Fewer foreign entrepreneurs say they need the U.S.(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Fewer foreign entrepreneurs say they need the U.S.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/09/13/fewer-foreign-entrepreneurs-say-they-need-the-u-s-thats-a-problem/
240 comments
> This situation is a dramatic departure from the original immigration spirit of the US which used to welcome creative immigrants with $0 in their pockets dreaming of success.
I'm not sure this was ever true. A blunt review of historical American attitudes towards immigrants shows they were typically despised and discouraged, and only allowed here at all for the purpose of being exploited as cheap labor for industrial projects.
I'm not sure this was ever true. A blunt review of historical American attitudes towards immigrants shows they were typically despised and discouraged, and only allowed here at all for the purpose of being exploited as cheap labor for industrial projects.
Despised and discouraged is one thing, actually kept out is another.
And if there is any take-away point to distill from your post, it seems to be that even the cheap-labour kind of immigration works out well.
And if there is any take-away point to distill from your post, it seems to be that even the cheap-labour kind of immigration works out well.
It's been a while since I studied the topic, so there may be some holes, but my recollection is that this is not quite true.
In the 1800s, laws were passed that produced immigration quotas, where each country was assigned a number of immigrants permitted as a percentage of national origins of current Americans as indicated by the census. This law permitted plenty of immigrants from "favorable" countries like England and France, but few from countries like Italy, Ireland, or China. At the same time, the US saw very few people attempting to immigrate from England and France but large amounts coming from Italy, Ireland, and China.
For those immigrants who got in, the attitude towards them is well documented...
In the 1800s, laws were passed that produced immigration quotas, where each country was assigned a number of immigrants permitted as a percentage of national origins of current Americans as indicated by the census. This law permitted plenty of immigrants from "favorable" countries like England and France, but few from countries like Italy, Ireland, or China. At the same time, the US saw very few people attempting to immigrate from England and France but large amounts coming from Italy, Ireland, and China.
For those immigrants who got in, the attitude towards them is well documented...
Pretty sure a hundred or so years ago laws were passed that literally stopped immigration from different countries (China, Italy, Eastern European countries). So that's happened before.
> it seems to be that even the cheap-labour kind of immigration works out well.
At least when you have unlimited undeveloped land, and thus a nearly unlimited need for workers to develop it.
Developed countries? I'm not convinced.
At least when you have unlimited undeveloped land, and thus a nearly unlimited need for workers to develop it.
Developed countries? I'm not convinced.
Except that we don't need cheap labor immigrants anymore. We just vilify illegal immigrants while allowing the US businesses that exploit their situations to stuff their pockets with money. If anyone was really concerned about illegal immigration you wouldn't build walls or complicated visa structures -- you just eliminate the demand for their labor by enacting harsh penalties on the businesses that exploit them. But it's much easier to vilify the immigrants themselves, so that's what we do.
I don't disagree with many of your points, but I think perhaps what is missing is perspective. Playing a bit of devil's advocate:
> I think that what's lacking in the american system is the recognition of "normal" entrepreneurs, those making $200 dollars at a time, and growing their high-potential tech-product business from $0 to $1M in 5 years
This doesn't move the needle in the biggest economy in the world. That's not even a viable business in most cities with high cost of living. At that rate you probably wouldn't even be able to pay yourself a decent wage, let alone hire anyone, within the first 2-3 years. Why would the United States want to let you in where there are more promising businesses/entrepreneurs on the path to $100m/year companies within 5 years?
> I think that what's lacking in the american system is the recognition of "normal" entrepreneurs, those making $200 dollars at a time, and growing their high-potential tech-product business from $0 to $1M in 5 years
This doesn't move the needle in the biggest economy in the world. That's not even a viable business in most cities with high cost of living. At that rate you probably wouldn't even be able to pay yourself a decent wage, let alone hire anyone, within the first 2-3 years. Why would the United States want to let you in where there are more promising businesses/entrepreneurs on the path to $100m/year companies within 5 years?
> This doesn't move the needle in the biggest economy in the world. That's not even a viable business in most cities with high cost of living.
This sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish thinking is the root of the problem. Many large, important businesses start very small and stay small for a while. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#1972.E2.80.9384:_Fou... , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.#1976.E2.80.9384:_Fo... ) By admitting only founders of companies that are already large, you ensure that many of these companies are established and grow elsewhere.
> Why would the United States want to let you in where there are more promising businesses/entrepreneurs on the path to $100m/year companies within 5 years?
Blatant false dichotomy. Nothing prevents the US from admitting both.
This sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish thinking is the root of the problem. Many large, important businesses start very small and stay small for a while. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#1972.E2.80.9384:_Fou... , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.#1976.E2.80.9384:_Fo... ) By admitting only founders of companies that are already large, you ensure that many of these companies are established and grow elsewhere.
> Why would the United States want to let you in where there are more promising businesses/entrepreneurs on the path to $100m/year companies within 5 years?
Blatant false dichotomy. Nothing prevents the US from admitting both.
In reality number of people trying to game the system is to a point preventing relaxation of rules.
How terrible. Others want access to the same opportunities we have.
They should have worked harder to be born to the right parents, I guess.
I am not saying it's a good idea but it is a valid concern.
The US doesn't have infinite resources.
I didn't say only admit people that are already running large companies, though those are welcome as well.
I said "on the path to 100m in 5 years"
That could be $0 through year 1-3, but it would be wholly different if that company was a technology startup creating value vs a services business like a non-chain Mexican restaurant mentioned below that is not necessarily creating an outsized impact on the US economy with low wage service jobs.
Apple was incorporated and immediately had $250,000 in capital invested. Me thinks you did not read the wiki page.
> During the first five years of operations revenues grew exponentially, doubling about every four months. Between September 1977 and September 1980 yearly sales grew from $775,000 to $118m, an average annual growth rate of 533%.
I said "on the path to 100m in 5 years"
That could be $0 through year 1-3, but it would be wholly different if that company was a technology startup creating value vs a services business like a non-chain Mexican restaurant mentioned below that is not necessarily creating an outsized impact on the US economy with low wage service jobs.
Apple was incorporated and immediately had $250,000 in capital invested. Me thinks you did not read the wiki page.
> During the first five years of operations revenues grew exponentially, doubling about every four months. Between September 1977 and September 1980 yearly sales grew from $775,000 to $118m, an average annual growth rate of 533%.
[deleted]
Did Facebook know that they will be worth 100s of billions when they started. Neither did Google.
Anyone who is net positive on the welfare system should be welcome to US. Even a company which makes a million dollar profit per year in 5 Years should be welcome.
Anyone who is net positive on the welfare system should be welcome to US. Even a company which makes a million dollar profit per year in 5 Years should be welcome.
Exactly. Jessica Livingston mentioned in a video, many founders don't know for sure where things are headed in the beginning. It's hard to picture you are going to be a billion dollar company when you are starting.
How would immigration officials recognize Facebook or Google among the millions of web sites that won't be successful?
Anyone who can create a startup should be allowed as long as they can pay themselves and their employees. If they employ more than 5 citizens/green card holders who are more than 50% of employees and have more than 0 profit for 3 years give them a green card. These company should build products and not provide services.
Were Facebook or Google able to pay themselves and their employees a living wage before they got venture capital?
You gotta start somewhere. Right now the situation is an utter clusterf*!
And if an Entrepreneur who is moving to US can't pay for food and lodging to himself and his employees - how are they gonna survive.
To give some idea of how small a 1M company is, a non-chain Mexican restaurant in the suburbs of Virginia was making 3M / year.
On the other hand, it matters how many people are involved in the operation. A small two or three-person tech startup making a million dollars is different from a restaurant with thirty (? estimate) employees making a million dollars.
There were niche startup doing niche programming language (BASIC) with less revenue that ended up being Microsoft.
Is that an accurate comparison? Gates was born into weatlh and a pre-existing social network. His company's success has a foundation of winning the genetic lottery.
It's reasonably accurate. IMO, MS grew because of DOS.
They were hoping Gary Kildall's C/PM would be the OS for the IBM PC, and only leveraged DOS "to save the language business."
It's not clear how much of a factor Gates' parents' wealth and social network was in this process. Yeah, his Mom was on the board of IBM but Microsoft was an established brand already.
They were hoping Gary Kildall's C/PM would be the OS for the IBM PC, and only leveraged DOS "to save the language business."
It's not clear how much of a factor Gates' parents' wealth and social network was in this process. Yeah, his Mom was on the board of IBM but Microsoft was an established brand already.
His company didn't spring into being without a history. He had access to educational and tutoring resources, specifically technology related resources, his entire life. I'd say it's very clear his parents' circumstances were a huge factor in his early successes, and arguably much more important than those successes were to later ones.
There are millions of people who are equally as lucky as Bill Gates in terms of family economic and social status. Luck plays a role but it is not the defining factor.
"Millions?" How do you figure? Gates was born well into the top 1%. Tens or hundreds of thousands is more accurate. Luck isn't the deciding factor, especially in what endeavors to pursue, but it is a prominent factor in the success of those endeavors.
Let's say you are right that he was born into the top 1% in the US. I am not confident that is true without data but let's say that is it for the sake of argument.
.01 * 330,000,000 = 3,300,000
So yes, millions. And yet there are only a handful of Americans like Bill Gates.
.01 * 330,000,000 = 3,300,000
So yes, millions. And yet there are only a handful of Americans like Bill Gates.
It's usually not easy to compare across industries, though. A software company with $1M revenue could easily end up with higher net profit than a restaurant with $3M revenue.
1. How do you know if an entrepreneur is on the path to a 100m business prior to reaching product/market fit?
2. Why do only >100m businesses move the needle? Do 10,000 1m businesses not move the needle?
2. Why do only >100m businesses move the needle? Do 10,000 1m businesses not move the needle?
I'm really glad US has such tight immigration norms. As someone from India, it is great the see that those innovators who couldn't get visas, are innovating outside US and living a much better life. why move be an alien in US, when you can live in home country and innovate?
I think the author (also an Indian turned American) has been making this point for quite a few years. Not all, but some of America's loss is China and India's gain.
India and China are so vastly different markets, that most of the products made for US really dont fit outside US. And innovating in China / India truly help these countries!
I think the author (also an Indian turned American) has been making this point for quite a few years. Not all, but some of America's loss is China and India's gain.
India and China are so vastly different markets, that most of the products made for US really dont fit outside US. And innovating in China / India truly help these countries!
I totally agree. As a company, we lost two of our best engineers who emigrated to the US in the past year. And no, it was not because of the pay or working conditions or no equity. People have been sold the "American Dream" to people outside America over the decades. Young people have seen their relatives from previous generations live much better lives in the US over India.
Bringing people back will take time and I think once the infrastructure is fixed (which is very fixable in the next 10-15 years), most people will not think of emigrating. Having lived in the US and India, I think the society in India is as free as in the US, without the anxiety of "fitting in" and leaving your family behind. Also today you have access to the best products, technology and knowledge being in India so other than the physical infrastructure (housing, travel, cleanliness) the gap is much reduced.
I sincerely hope the immigration laws get tighter in the US so that we can build great companies, create wealth for the society, create jobs and remove hardship and poverty in India.
Bringing people back will take time and I think once the infrastructure is fixed (which is very fixable in the next 10-15 years), most people will not think of emigrating. Having lived in the US and India, I think the society in India is as free as in the US, without the anxiety of "fitting in" and leaving your family behind. Also today you have access to the best products, technology and knowledge being in India so other than the physical infrastructure (housing, travel, cleanliness) the gap is much reduced.
I sincerely hope the immigration laws get tighter in the US so that we can build great companies, create wealth for the society, create jobs and remove hardship and poverty in India.
Your comment is a little off-putting.
It would be like me writing "I sincerely hope India doesn't fix its infrastructure so their best and brightest decide to come work in the US".
It would be like me writing "I sincerely hope India doesn't fix its infrastructure so their best and brightest decide to come work in the US".
If you're an employer then, from a pure cold calculating stand-point, nobody would blame you for having that thought for you wouldn't say it out loud. If your country is the destination of choice of many talented people, you'd have access to a larger pool and an advantage over other employers in countries that are less attractive. Also, none of your tax dollars went to educating and training these prospects.
Think about the influence the exodus of the Soviet Union's best and brightest had on the U.S. The influx of that massive brain power had tangible consequences. It wasn't the first time this had happened: many of very bright scientist and engineers fled (or were "paperclipped") to the U.S. during/at the end of WWII.
For the U.S. in general, this was a windfall and it was a direct consequence of dire conditions in Europe. The newcomers crushed anyone not at the same level who was getting by fine hitherto, many of whom quit academia altogether.
Think about all the people trained for free as M.D's or engineers in other countries who are not able to find jobs for lack of degree recognition in the U.S. and are forced to work as nurses or paramedics or jobs for which they are overqualified which effectively raises the bar. The U.S. and several countries are getting talent that was subsidized by other states.
But it also works, slightly differently, within the same country. If unemployment is high, many qualified people are forced to take menial jobs. For employers, this is a windfall. There was a manager in Courchevel on TV that could hardly hide his joy about the economic conjecture. He was showing the news crew the résumés of people applying for unqualified jobs. People with college degrees in STEM, speaking many languages. For a place at a high-end resort like that, snatching people like that with the same pay an average person would get is a very good deal.
It hurts people who are not yet established in their careers, and some people who are but are unwilling to evolve. Recent graduates must hit the ground running jumping from a truck going a 100mph.
Think about the influence the exodus of the Soviet Union's best and brightest had on the U.S. The influx of that massive brain power had tangible consequences. It wasn't the first time this had happened: many of very bright scientist and engineers fled (or were "paperclipped") to the U.S. during/at the end of WWII.
For the U.S. in general, this was a windfall and it was a direct consequence of dire conditions in Europe. The newcomers crushed anyone not at the same level who was getting by fine hitherto, many of whom quit academia altogether.
Think about all the people trained for free as M.D's or engineers in other countries who are not able to find jobs for lack of degree recognition in the U.S. and are forced to work as nurses or paramedics or jobs for which they are overqualified which effectively raises the bar. The U.S. and several countries are getting talent that was subsidized by other states.
But it also works, slightly differently, within the same country. If unemployment is high, many qualified people are forced to take menial jobs. For employers, this is a windfall. There was a manager in Courchevel on TV that could hardly hide his joy about the economic conjecture. He was showing the news crew the résumés of people applying for unqualified jobs. People with college degrees in STEM, speaking many languages. For a place at a high-end resort like that, snatching people like that with the same pay an average person would get is a very good deal.
It hurts people who are not yet established in their careers, and some people who are but are unwilling to evolve. Recent graduates must hit the ground running jumping from a truck going a 100mph.
I think it's a great argument for opening up immigration law in the US. It'd make any US citizen feel uncomfortable and I think that's basically the point.
Would you still feel it off-putting if you accepted there isn't any inherent morality to either statement?
You should never hope for less freedom of movement. You can never know what lies ahead in the future of your country, and the freedom to move elsewhere could be your only option to protect your safety and inalienable rights.
As an American, I hope so too - there's a real cost to emigrating and I would think that home is always home and people should have the option of being there. I'd like to be able to buy cool things no matter where they are made.
In principle, I'm also for pretty much unrestricted immigration but that's politically ... difficult. It may also be practically difficult.
In principle, I'm also for pretty much unrestricted immigration but that's politically ... difficult. It may also be practically difficult.
"people should have the option of being there" != people's only option is to stay there
> why move be an alien in US, when you can live in home country and innovate?
for example, because president of your (my) country is a dictator.
for example, because president of your (my) country is a dictator.
so you want to move to police state to be under constant surveillance (as a foreigner it means forever, including your relatives), you want to support corrupt war machinery with your taxes that literally feeds of death of hundreds of thousands of innocent all over the world? in the country with highest nr of prisoners per capita, where one mistake (or not even) will ruin your life forever?
that ain't american dream, that is american reality. you can try to do better than that
that ain't american dream, that is american reality. you can try to do better than that
Huh, what you know about bad government. I'm trying to leave country where 99.99% of all Judge verdicts are "guilty" (it's official statistics - you have 1/1000 chance to remain free if you are in court). I'm trying to leave police state where all phone calls and sms messages are _officially_ tapped and cellular operators have to store records for 3 years. Where government officially wants to decrypt all of your ssl traffic (it's just impossible technically, but they are too stupid to realize it), and all non-encrypted traffic is already being monitored. In Russia, if policeman is going to your direction on the street - you are nervous. If he is knocking to your door - you know there's a big chance of big problems.
I can say much more, about feeding wars also, it's just offtopic. But trust me, US reality right now is something we can't even dream about. And I know about US not from movies, it's not so difficult to monitor US-related news.
I'm sure my comment doesn't apply to all countries, especially ones run by a dicatator (since it means zero innovation).
If you have trouble immigrating to US, you should checkout Canada or India.
If you have trouble immigrating to US, you should checkout Canada or India.
Also, Tighter immigration is just one part of the story. India itself has grown up and fixed a lot of its issues. Apart from the current generation, even the generation that saw the first wave of benefits of 1990's reforms has already reaped far more benefits than their peers who moved to US around the same time. Most are disproportionately rich, have had better careers and family/social circles in India.
My guess is as more things get fixed in India(which they will), and more situation improves here, it will be harder by the day to think of restarting your life elsewhere while your peers do better than you back home. At the end nobody wants to end up being worse off than their peers despite doing a lot more of that extra work as immigrant in a foreign land.
Now we are in the second generation of this trend. Among my friends who moved to the US for MS and never returned. Most of us in India have done better on nearly every count.
Essentially today immigration to a foreign country in India has been reduced to a social status issue.
The actual financial reasons have been drying out for a while and very few remain today.
My guess is as more things get fixed in India(which they will), and more situation improves here, it will be harder by the day to think of restarting your life elsewhere while your peers do better than you back home. At the end nobody wants to end up being worse off than their peers despite doing a lot more of that extra work as immigrant in a foreign land.
Now we are in the second generation of this trend. Among my friends who moved to the US for MS and never returned. Most of us in India have done better on nearly every count.
Essentially today immigration to a foreign country in India has been reduced to a social status issue.
The actual financial reasons have been drying out for a while and very few remain today.
I can only speak about myself, I come from a lower middle class family in India and probably was the poorest in my school. Now, I am at senior position in large well established tech company and definitely doing better than any of my class mates back in India.
My family still lives in India and I am amazed how tough their life is when dealing with every day things.
My life is so much better than my sister's who lives in Pune and also works in a similar position for a tech company. She would move to US in a heartbeat but has some personal issues.
This is how bad conditions in India are, my mother, who lost her husband when she was 34, worked all her life and raised 2 kids on her own. After several decades of employment, she needed to withdraw some money out of her PF account. She had to bribe at least 4 guys and pay a total of 20,000INR to be able to withdraw money from her account, her own hard earned money.
Life in India is pretty bad, I do believe us Indians have a "chalta hai" attitude and a lot of problems are just shoved under the rug or considered "yahan aise hi kaam hota hai" (this is how things are done here) category.
I would want India to be the same as US where I have lived now for more than 15 years and Bollywood movies keep promising me that India today is so much like any other developed country, but my 15 visits in the last 15 years break every one of those promises.
Back to the original point, no financially a person earning at the same position in India vs US is not any better off by a huge margin.
Now if your point was is it worth it moving from Germany or Australia to US, then the answer is completely different answer.
India is not there yet, a lot of work needs to be done, a lot of change needs to happen. If people in India start believing that they have arrived then they will be doing themselves a hige disservice.
My family still lives in India and I am amazed how tough their life is when dealing with every day things.
My life is so much better than my sister's who lives in Pune and also works in a similar position for a tech company. She would move to US in a heartbeat but has some personal issues.
This is how bad conditions in India are, my mother, who lost her husband when she was 34, worked all her life and raised 2 kids on her own. After several decades of employment, she needed to withdraw some money out of her PF account. She had to bribe at least 4 guys and pay a total of 20,000INR to be able to withdraw money from her account, her own hard earned money.
Life in India is pretty bad, I do believe us Indians have a "chalta hai" attitude and a lot of problems are just shoved under the rug or considered "yahan aise hi kaam hota hai" (this is how things are done here) category.
I would want India to be the same as US where I have lived now for more than 15 years and Bollywood movies keep promising me that India today is so much like any other developed country, but my 15 visits in the last 15 years break every one of those promises.
Back to the original point, no financially a person earning at the same position in India vs US is not any better off by a huge margin.
Now if your point was is it worth it moving from Germany or Australia to US, then the answer is completely different answer.
India is not there yet, a lot of work needs to be done, a lot of change needs to happen. If people in India start believing that they have arrived then they will be doing themselves a hige disservice.
Agree with this comment. The culture of corruption is anathema to a lot of middle-class workers who sincerely believe in the value of hard-work and honesty and yet are prevented from doing even the most basic things in everyday life. You do not need to "have connections" to get what you're legally supposed to. Not to mention that there is just no comparison between the compensation offered in the US to anywhere else.
I second the opinions posted above. Just a few days ago, we were comparing the costs of housing at a decent place (in the city/closer suburbs) are 3 to 4 years of my gross annual pay. If I dreamed of similar housing in India (Chennai, where I'm from), it would cost me ~30 years of my market annual salary for a similar job there. I don't want to work my life off to get a house to retire in.
And yet you can buy a house in the outskirts in any major Indian city for way less. Which used to be how most middle class Indians used to buy homes in my dad's generation.
The issue is most of us want housing in luxury apartments with amenities with no match, and with transit infrastructure closer to office. This was and always will remain very expensive in any economy on earth let alone Chennai.
It will take more or less the same in any major city in the US. Most Indians think if they land in the US, all problems will vanish in thin air, milk and honey will flow from now. While what really happens is all your problems remain as is, except that you get a little better roads.
Please take a good look on all housing related threads on this forum, young people in western economies have it way difficult than any of us.
The issue is most of us want housing in luxury apartments with amenities with no match, and with transit infrastructure closer to office. This was and always will remain very expensive in any economy on earth let alone Chennai.
It will take more or less the same in any major city in the US. Most Indians think if they land in the US, all problems will vanish in thin air, milk and honey will flow from now. While what really happens is all your problems remain as is, except that you get a little better roads.
Please take a good look on all housing related threads on this forum, young people in western economies have it way difficult than any of us.
> And yet you can buy a house in the outskirts in any major Indian city for way less. Which used to be how most middle class Indians used to buy homes in my dad's generation.
And how do you get to the city? Through the non-existent highways? Or maybe the congested public transportation, if any? Besides which, I don't know about you, but my parents could not afford a house until I was in high school. And even after buying the house, they still could not live in the house (because of aforementioned problems with commuting).
> The issue is most of us want housing in luxury apartments with amenities with no match, and with transit infrastructure closer to office. This was and always will remain very expensive in any economy on earth let alone Chennai.
Please stop projecting your opinions on others. The demand I see is mostly for livable quarters at reasonable distances with basic amenities and some expectation of privacy... which seems to be too much to ask in any of the major cities.
> It will take more or less the same in any major city in the US. Most Indians think if they land in the US, all problems will vanish in thin air, milk and honey will flow from now. While what really happens is all your problems remain as is, except that you get a little better roads.
I don't know where you're getting these ideas from. Better roads yes, but also: better work-life balance. Decent compensation. Reasonable vacation time. Great career prospects. The prospect of living and working with people from different cultures (not just American, but from many other countries as well).
> Please take a good look on all housing related threads on this forum, young people in western economies have it way difficult than any of us.
Again, please stop projecting your ideas/views on the rest of us.
And how do you get to the city? Through the non-existent highways? Or maybe the congested public transportation, if any? Besides which, I don't know about you, but my parents could not afford a house until I was in high school. And even after buying the house, they still could not live in the house (because of aforementioned problems with commuting).
> The issue is most of us want housing in luxury apartments with amenities with no match, and with transit infrastructure closer to office. This was and always will remain very expensive in any economy on earth let alone Chennai.
Please stop projecting your opinions on others. The demand I see is mostly for livable quarters at reasonable distances with basic amenities and some expectation of privacy... which seems to be too much to ask in any of the major cities.
> It will take more or less the same in any major city in the US. Most Indians think if they land in the US, all problems will vanish in thin air, milk and honey will flow from now. While what really happens is all your problems remain as is, except that you get a little better roads.
I don't know where you're getting these ideas from. Better roads yes, but also: better work-life balance. Decent compensation. Reasonable vacation time. Great career prospects. The prospect of living and working with people from different cultures (not just American, but from many other countries as well).
> Please take a good look on all housing related threads on this forum, young people in western economies have it way difficult than any of us.
Again, please stop projecting your ideas/views on the rest of us.
Surely won't project my opinion while receiving yours.
>>The demand I see is mostly for livable quarters at reasonable distances with basic amenities and some expectation of privacy... which seems to be too much to ask in any of the major cities.
But based on what you just wrote you can relocate to pretty much any city on earth and these problems would barely change. While in US most of my colleagues who had homes lived in far suburbs. This is a international trend. Places close to office had insane rents. And from what I learn property taxes are quite high in California and Texas where most of our desi dudes stay.
This is not a US vs India issue. This basically how demand and supply economics works.
>>better work-life balance. Decent compensation. Reasonable vacation time. Great career prospects. The prospect of living and working with people from different cultures (not just American, but from many other countries as well).
Again all of this is possible if you have an expensive STEM degree. Take note that they are good deal of US citizens who work on minimum wage. There is likely nearly everyone who works for $60K or less. Tech and Medical workforce that comes from India is really like people landing into good salaries at the very start. This could all change if the persons very kids don't get a STEM degree.
I understand that for most people making these immigration decisions its very hard to reconcile with these things.
>>The demand I see is mostly for livable quarters at reasonable distances with basic amenities and some expectation of privacy... which seems to be too much to ask in any of the major cities.
But based on what you just wrote you can relocate to pretty much any city on earth and these problems would barely change. While in US most of my colleagues who had homes lived in far suburbs. This is a international trend. Places close to office had insane rents. And from what I learn property taxes are quite high in California and Texas where most of our desi dudes stay.
This is not a US vs India issue. This basically how demand and supply economics works.
>>better work-life balance. Decent compensation. Reasonable vacation time. Great career prospects. The prospect of living and working with people from different cultures (not just American, but from many other countries as well).
Again all of this is possible if you have an expensive STEM degree. Take note that they are good deal of US citizens who work on minimum wage. There is likely nearly everyone who works for $60K or less. Tech and Medical workforce that comes from India is really like people landing into good salaries at the very start. This could all change if the persons very kids don't get a STEM degree.
I understand that for most people making these immigration decisions its very hard to reconcile with these things.
I have lived exactly both the scenarios you just described.
(1) Lived in a suburb of Chennai commuting 15-20 Kms to work. It took 1 hour to get to work and 1 hour back regardless of how much I can pay for it. That's 2 hours of my life wasted every day! - All the while paying my mortgage that would last until my retirement.
(2) Now, Live in a US city. Ironically, work in a suburb, but live in Downtown 20 miles away. I spend 20 mins in commuting to work, peacefully. With my pay, I'm confident I can pay off my mortgage in under 12 years.
Now, I'm not saying this is true everywhere in the US. Living in NYC might be the extreme case, whereas living in the countryside would be cheapest. I'm trying to compare equivalent in my mind.
First step towards change and improvement is to accept the need for it. IMO.
First step towards change and improvement is to accept the need for it. IMO.
I can imagine how hard it must be for you. Most of us have these stories.
But sir, If you have been out of India for ~15 years now, you are now totally out of touch about ground realities in India. Also it takes far more to get decent health care and housing in US than it takes in India. Apart from this you have the added advantage of a social circle in India in case of death, disease and debt which is totally absent in US.
In most US coastal cities(Only places where can make a decent career) rents are high, and affording a home is basically 2-3 decade venture. And after all that you still have to struggle for your retirement fund and health care during old age.
India has a lot of vacuum as a developing economy for both investments and a long term career.
Also this whole corruption issue is sometimes overplayed. The last time I dealt with a government office for anything was passport office where no bribes were paid, not even to the police who came for verification.
Political, economic and social climate in India is undergoing huge upgrades every decade and anybody who stays abroad for 10+ years essentially would have lost all context about things back home.
But sir, If you have been out of India for ~15 years now, you are now totally out of touch about ground realities in India. Also it takes far more to get decent health care and housing in US than it takes in India. Apart from this you have the added advantage of a social circle in India in case of death, disease and debt which is totally absent in US.
In most US coastal cities(Only places where can make a decent career) rents are high, and affording a home is basically 2-3 decade venture. And after all that you still have to struggle for your retirement fund and health care during old age.
India has a lot of vacuum as a developing economy for both investments and a long term career.
Also this whole corruption issue is sometimes overplayed. The last time I dealt with a government office for anything was passport office where no bribes were paid, not even to the police who came for verification.
Political, economic and social climate in India is undergoing huge upgrades every decade and anybody who stays abroad for 10+ years essentially would have lost all context about things back home.
The US coastal cities are the only place you can make a decent career? As someone who doesn't live in a coastal city, and makes a very, very good living, I find that hilariously inaccurate. If I look at the list of fortune 500 companies with a large presence in Chicago, Dallas, Houston and Minneapolis, I'd say you're about as wrong as could possibly be. Unless by "decent living" you mean "startup valued at billions of dollars".
Largely depends on what you work on. I have relatives from India who are doctors who stay in non-coastal cities and make a decent living. Unfortunately if you have to make it big money wise you have to ultimately play the start up game, where the biggest center in the world today is the Bay Area.
Also as some one who has lived both in Bangalore and Bay Area, I know well to understand cities matter in the sense if you are in the middle of all the action chances of progress and growth are higher. Or your long term competitiveness and career will likely suffer.
Sure some hipster culture exists in the Bay Area, but for all of it. There is a lot of good work in Bay Area, and I think if you are in tech and are an immigrant you must absolute stay there.
Also as some one who has lived both in Bangalore and Bay Area, I know well to understand cities matter in the sense if you are in the middle of all the action chances of progress and growth are higher. Or your long term competitiveness and career will likely suffer.
Sure some hipster culture exists in the Bay Area, but for all of it. There is a lot of good work in Bay Area, and I think if you are in tech and are an immigrant you must absolute stay there.
I speak to my friends and family in India on a daily basis, I also visit India almost every year and I stand by every word I wrote above. If you think life in India is up to the standard of living of any other developed country, then you need to educate yourself.
Never did I say things in India have are better than US. But things have so drastically improved incentives to go foreign lands are lesser.
India has grown by leaps and bounds. Opportunities compared to what was 15-20 years back aren't even comparable now. Unless you come and live here, you wouldn't have a clue. Calling and talking to relatives won't give you a good idea. They think you are living in heaven, this perspective exists because NRI's send pictures of vacations and their cars and people in India think its all coming either for free or through magic.
I have faced this issue too. People think all they have to do is land in US and pretty much all their issues are solved without doing anything at all. Most people staying in India haven't a clue about life in US. They have never heard about how expensive higher education is, or health care for that matter. They do not realize what it takes to have a mortgage in a place like Bay Area. They haven't heard of minimum wage. They don't know how strict tax laws are. They don't even know how few options their kids have in life if they don't get into STEM branches. This along with harshness of what can happen to your dependents should something happen to your life. Without a strong social circle all these things are hard and set back life for dependents.
Most people, aspiring to come to US are thinking on the lines of Disneyland and Yosemite. And at best the US 101 freeway.
Plus I see this whole thing among NRI's about wishing bad things to happen to India and overplay things about conditions in India to make their own decisions look good. Its sad.
I have lived in US and India. Things are just going full hyper in India. Things might not be same as US, but its no longer the binary 1 or 0 it used to be in the pre-2003/90's era.
India has grown by leaps and bounds. Opportunities compared to what was 15-20 years back aren't even comparable now. Unless you come and live here, you wouldn't have a clue. Calling and talking to relatives won't give you a good idea. They think you are living in heaven, this perspective exists because NRI's send pictures of vacations and their cars and people in India think its all coming either for free or through magic.
I have faced this issue too. People think all they have to do is land in US and pretty much all their issues are solved without doing anything at all. Most people staying in India haven't a clue about life in US. They have never heard about how expensive higher education is, or health care for that matter. They do not realize what it takes to have a mortgage in a place like Bay Area. They haven't heard of minimum wage. They don't know how strict tax laws are. They don't even know how few options their kids have in life if they don't get into STEM branches. This along with harshness of what can happen to your dependents should something happen to your life. Without a strong social circle all these things are hard and set back life for dependents.
Most people, aspiring to come to US are thinking on the lines of Disneyland and Yosemite. And at best the US 101 freeway.
Plus I see this whole thing among NRI's about wishing bad things to happen to India and overplay things about conditions in India to make their own decisions look good. Its sad.
I have lived in US and India. Things are just going full hyper in India. Things might not be same as US, but its no longer the binary 1 or 0 it used to be in the pre-2003/90's era.
Things have improved (drastically?) only for a sliver of population. I talk to so many of my relatives and apart from some already well-off, working in high-tech industry most of them are way worse in term of living standard than they were 15-20 years back. Everything is so much expensive when compared to their rupee income.
Things can become violent at any time even in big cities. Just look at Bengaluru etc situation now due to Cauvery issue. It has already caused Rs 22000 crore worth of loss.
Things can become violent at any time even in big cities. Just look at Bengaluru etc situation now due to Cauvery issue. It has already caused Rs 22000 crore worth of loss.
>>Things have improved (drastically?) only for a sliver of population. I talk to so many of my relatives and apart from some already well-off, working in high-tech industry most of them are way worse in term of living standard than they were 15-20 years back.
Same in US too right?
Its not like everyone works at Wall Street and drives Rolls Royce. You don't hear about these things in US simply because you haven't set up a family big enough there. Whoever is in US would have generally come on tech work or Medical degree, which are paid well in the US. Other people especially in Non-STEM branches, are basically the equivalent of people you talk about it in India. And please don't even have me start on inequality in the US.
And small businesses in US are not like in India. So most of that population in US works at Warehouses and Walmart sort of places.
>>Everything is so much expensive when compared to their rupee income.
Food is relatively expensive in India(Based on inflation figures). Otherwise higher education is far more expensive in US and student debt takes a good few years to climb out of. Housing in any major US city is a 2 decade mortgage undertaking. And retirement with health care(even other wise) is very expensive in the US.
>>Things can become violent at any time even in big cities. Just look at Bengaluru etc situation now due to Cauvery issue. It has already caused Rs 22000 crore worth of loss.
And you talk of Law and order situation, shooting incidents at schools in US are everyday news these days.
Things are no more the binary they used to be.
Same in US too right?
Its not like everyone works at Wall Street and drives Rolls Royce. You don't hear about these things in US simply because you haven't set up a family big enough there. Whoever is in US would have generally come on tech work or Medical degree, which are paid well in the US. Other people especially in Non-STEM branches, are basically the equivalent of people you talk about it in India. And please don't even have me start on inequality in the US.
And small businesses in US are not like in India. So most of that population in US works at Warehouses and Walmart sort of places.
>>Everything is so much expensive when compared to their rupee income.
Food is relatively expensive in India(Based on inflation figures). Otherwise higher education is far more expensive in US and student debt takes a good few years to climb out of. Housing in any major US city is a 2 decade mortgage undertaking. And retirement with health care(even other wise) is very expensive in the US.
>>Things can become violent at any time even in big cities. Just look at Bengaluru etc situation now due to Cauvery issue. It has already caused Rs 22000 crore worth of loss.
And you talk of Law and order situation, shooting incidents at schools in US are everyday news these days.
Things are no more the binary they used to be.
"no bribes were paid, not even to the police who came for verification"
But there are the daily annoyances like even having to have the police come to verify you live somewhere. Having to get X, Y, Z documents and then waiting for them to get stamped for basic services.
On the other hand transferring money to other person's bank account is actually easier and cheaper than in the US.
But there are the daily annoyances like even having to have the police come to verify you live somewhere. Having to get X, Y, Z documents and then waiting for them to get stamped for basic services.
On the other hand transferring money to other person's bank account is actually easier and cheaper than in the US.
Procedures regarding legal work are same in every country and equally expensive. Especially if your work is some how related to government or its security.
If anything these checks are harsher in other countries than in India.
If anything these checks are harsher in other countries than in India.
> India and China are so vastly different markets, that most of the products made for US really dont fit outside US.
What? Most successful US companies end up developing massive international markets. In fact, for many top tech companies their international revenue can exceed domestic revenue.
This is in stark contrast to Indian and Chinese companies where even the biggest successes have a lot of difficulty appealing internationally.
What? Most successful US companies end up developing massive international markets. In fact, for many top tech companies their international revenue can exceed domestic revenue.
This is in stark contrast to Indian and Chinese companies where even the biggest successes have a lot of difficulty appealing internationally.
Uh, it's not that clear cut. Also, the line is drawn along the lines of developed vs. developing economies.
Having lived in India and had some experience with US multinational companies, the 'massive international markets' in developing countries are limited to electronics, automobiles, and computer science: a few companies like Ford, GM, Microsoft, Intel, and most significantly, Apple. In other industries, companies like Unilever, P&G, etc. setup subsidiary structures because the markets in India and China are often much smaller in $s. At the same time, in structures similar to how P&G or Ford manage their Indian or Chinese businesses, Indian and Chinese companies control US/European corporations: Jaguar Land Rover, Volvo, Starwood Hotels, AMC Theaters, etc.
Having lived in India and had some experience with US multinational companies, the 'massive international markets' in developing countries are limited to electronics, automobiles, and computer science: a few companies like Ford, GM, Microsoft, Intel, and most significantly, Apple. In other industries, companies like Unilever, P&G, etc. setup subsidiary structures because the markets in India and China are often much smaller in $s. At the same time, in structures similar to how P&G or Ford manage their Indian or Chinese businesses, Indian and Chinese companies control US/European corporations: Jaguar Land Rover, Volvo, Starwood Hotels, AMC Theaters, etc.
> Uh, it's not that clear cut. Also, the line is drawn along the lines of developed vs. developing economies.
It really is. No developing economy companies enjoy anywhere near as much international success as American companies do, however you want to parse it.
Since this is a tech forum, we're talking about tech companies. You already noted how Apple, Intel, Microsoft. Add on Google, Facebook, and Amazon and you can see that almost every single major US tech company has strong international profits.
It really is. No developing economy companies enjoy anywhere near as much international success as American companies do, however you want to parse it.
Since this is a tech forum, we're talking about tech companies. You already noted how Apple, Intel, Microsoft. Add on Google, Facebook, and Amazon and you can see that almost every single major US tech company has strong international profits.
Your comment might have more weight if Indians weren't queuing up to work in USA.
They're saying that because there is a queue, the innovators are staying in India.
Can you provide some examples of product-market mismatch outside US - for types of things cities akin to Silicon Valley come up with?
Credit cards are far less common, and especially far less used for ecommerce. Figuring out how to do payment on delivery is what helped Flipkart in India (and doomed a competitor who couldn't). Example article http://indianonlineseller.com/2016/01/cash-on-delivery-cod-s...
It seems that markets such as India and China[1] are more comfortable with apps packed with numerous features (i.e. WeChat or LINE), whereas US apps seem to usually be more focused on minimalism [2]. Snapchat is a notable US counter-example.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/technology/china-mobile-te...
[2] https://blog.benroux.me/your-app-has-one-feature/
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/technology/china-mobile-te...
[2] https://blog.benroux.me/your-app-has-one-feature/
Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong all have fantastic mobile infrastructure, unlike anything offered in the US.
Innovators there don't have to code with data caps in mind.
Minimalism with associated lighter data requirements is a US market peculiarity.
Innovators there don't have to code with data caps in mind.
Minimalism with associated lighter data requirements is a US market peculiarity.
That's not really a feature that people are "comfortable with", that's because Chinese Internet has been captured by monopolists, like the AOL of USA in the 1990s.
I doubt that's all there is to it, there really are some cultural differences that show when you take western services and put them on the chinese market.
Amazon for example found that their site simply looked too "clean", had too much whitespace, for the chinese market. All that empty space was not taken as a clean look by users, but as a sign that there weren't a lot of products available. If I go to amazon.com now, there are literally 5 products on the landing page. On amazon.cn, more like 30-50.
(I am recounting this story as it was told by an Amazon employee who came to my Uni a while back)
Amazon for example found that their site simply looked too "clean", had too much whitespace, for the chinese market. All that empty space was not taken as a clean look by users, but as a sign that there weren't a lot of products available. If I go to amazon.com now, there are literally 5 products on the landing page. On amazon.cn, more like 30-50.
(I am recounting this story as it was told by an Amazon employee who came to my Uni a while back)
[deleted]
WeChat and related services
Line and related services
Multi-sim phones
Emojis
language/script support for local languages
... and many more
basically thinking like a local lets you disrupt many age old creaky systems.
Line and related services
Multi-sim phones
Emojis
language/script support for local languages
... and many more
basically thinking like a local lets you disrupt many age old creaky systems.
To be a little crude, and in my opinion, what you are basically saying is that you are glad that the choice and autonomy of other people unrelated to you is restricted so that your vision of what the world should look like can be realized.
> why move be an alien in US
I think you may have missed the whole point about USA. Nobody is an alien in this country, a lot of people would life to make you feel that way, but I know a lot of people from Sikkim regularly get asked where in China are they from.
I think you may have missed the whole point about USA. Nobody is an alien in this country, a lot of people would life to make you feel that way, but I know a lot of people from Sikkim regularly get asked where in China are they from.
> Nobody is an alien in this country [USA] ...
There may be some terminology or crossed wires here. For example I have a US government issued card that literally says on it that I am a "resident alien", and is the reason I can be in the US. When filling out forms, such as employment related, or opening a bank account there will be somewhere that I have to say (again literally) that I am an alien. Also the government can revoke this at any point for any reason they deem fit, there is no right of appeal, nor do they even have to tell me why.
This is at least one way that someone is an alien in this country, using US government terminology.
There may be some terminology or crossed wires here. For example I have a US government issued card that literally says on it that I am a "resident alien", and is the reason I can be in the US. When filling out forms, such as employment related, or opening a bank account there will be somewhere that I have to say (again literally) that I am an alien. Also the government can revoke this at any point for any reason they deem fit, there is no right of appeal, nor do they even have to tell me why.
This is at least one way that someone is an alien in this country, using US government terminology.
An immigrant will always be somewhat alien. I moved to the U.S. when I was five, and I'm pretty Americanized. But most of my family is still 10,000 miles away, and I never had much connection with my grandparents, aunts and uncles, or cousins. Indeed, I often feel anxious and self-conscious around them because of our significant differences in values and worldview. At the same time, I still don't really get some things Americans do (e.g. treating dogs like people).
Meanwhile, my wife's family came over to Oregon on the wagon trains. Almost all her grandparents, cousins, etc. live within a few hours' drive in Oregon and Washington. If you drive along the pacific coast highway, you'll pass a scenic overlook named after her family, marking where their homestead was before the government took it to build the highway. You can see the lighthouse where her ancestors were lighthouse keepers.
America is probably the most welcoming place in the world for immigrants, but that doesn't change the fact that immigrating means basically severing yourself from your roots to come live in a very different country. Many people would not make that sacrifice if they had adequate opportunities in their own homeland.
Meanwhile, my wife's family came over to Oregon on the wagon trains. Almost all her grandparents, cousins, etc. live within a few hours' drive in Oregon and Washington. If you drive along the pacific coast highway, you'll pass a scenic overlook named after her family, marking where their homestead was before the government took it to build the highway. You can see the lighthouse where her ancestors were lighthouse keepers.
America is probably the most welcoming place in the world for immigrants, but that doesn't change the fact that immigrating means basically severing yourself from your roots to come live in a very different country. Many people would not make that sacrifice if they had adequate opportunities in their own homeland.
>At the same time, I still don't really get some things Americans do (e.g. treating dogs like people).
Do you mean having pets at all? I'm pretty sure that's not at all unique to Americans; most dog breeds I've heard of came from Europe or Asia.
Personally, as an American, I don't understand why so many people love dogs so much either, but not all Americans are dog people. We're basically divided into a few different camps, the biggest two being "dog people" and "cat people" (I'm the latter). There's a few other weirdos out there: "bird people" are the strangest. And definitely stay far, far away from any "horse women" (trust me on this one: do NOT date a woman who loves horses!).
Anyway, in all seriousness, pet ownership is not a uniquely American phenomenon by any means. Having cats as revered pets goes back to ancient Egypt, after all. And to my knowledge, having dogs as pets goes back to the stone age.
Do you mean having pets at all? I'm pretty sure that's not at all unique to Americans; most dog breeds I've heard of came from Europe or Asia.
Personally, as an American, I don't understand why so many people love dogs so much either, but not all Americans are dog people. We're basically divided into a few different camps, the biggest two being "dog people" and "cat people" (I'm the latter). There's a few other weirdos out there: "bird people" are the strangest. And definitely stay far, far away from any "horse women" (trust me on this one: do NOT date a woman who loves horses!).
Anyway, in all seriousness, pet ownership is not a uniquely American phenomenon by any means. Having cats as revered pets goes back to ancient Egypt, after all. And to my knowledge, having dogs as pets goes back to the stone age.
Not just pet ownership, but e.g. "bring your dog to work" policies. I also find it strange how highly dogs are valued relative to kids (at least among millennials), but also how over-the-top Americans are about how much effort they invest in both pet ownership and parenting.
I have never personally seen a company with "bring your dog to work" policies, and I've worked at quite a few. I've never been to a business where it was normal for people to bring their pets in, except for pet stores and veterinarians. I've heard of "bring your dog to work" places, but I suspect it's just some hipster-run startups that are like this. It is not even remotely representative of American business culture.
I think you're been paying too much attention to some small group of Americans and assuming they represent them all. I can't really speak for Millenials and their dogs vs. kids attitudes, but a lot of people do have dogs, but again I don't think it's unusual; Europeans have kept dogs as pets for millennia.
The helicopter parenting, OTOH, is an epidemic in America these days. Now it seems kids under the age of 10 can't go anywhere alone without the cops being called and parents getting in trouble for "child abandonment". It certainly wasn't like that when I was that age in the 1980s.
I think you're been paying too much attention to some small group of Americans and assuming they represent them all. I can't really speak for Millenials and their dogs vs. kids attitudes, but a lot of people do have dogs, but again I don't think it's unusual; Europeans have kept dogs as pets for millennia.
The helicopter parenting, OTOH, is an epidemic in America these days. Now it seems kids under the age of 10 can't go anywhere alone without the cops being called and parents getting in trouble for "child abandonment". It certainly wasn't like that when I was that age in the 1980s.
It's not just hipster startups, but also some major companies: http://www.mnn.com/family/pets/photos/10-companies-that-let-... (Google, Ben & Jerry's, Autodesk, Amazon).
And dogs are kept as pets everywhere (including Bangladesh, where I am from), but don't feature as prominently in peoples' lives. My Facebook feed is full of pictures and comments about peoples' dogs. People let their dogs sleep in their beds, favor restaurants with outdoor seating so they can bring their dog along, etc.
And dogs are kept as pets everywhere (including Bangladesh, where I am from), but don't feature as prominently in peoples' lives. My Facebook feed is full of pictures and comments about peoples' dogs. People let their dogs sleep in their beds, favor restaurants with outdoor seating so they can bring their dog along, etc.
Those companies are not even remotely representative of American workplaces. Especially Ben & Jerry's; WTF??
Also, I'd sincerely like to know how they deal with employees who are allergic to dogs. Not to mention dogs shitting in the office, barking, getting in fights with other dogs, etc. Pit bulls in particular are infamous for attacking and killing other (smaller) dogs, and of course some "pit bull advocate" is going to insist on bringing her pit bull to work to prove to everyone how "sweet" he his, and then act shocked when it kills her coworker's Chihuahua, and worse she'll blame the Chihuahua owner somehow. Honestly, letting people bring dogs to work is one of the stupidest company policies I've ever heard of.
You're not going to get much of an argument from me about dogs; I honestly don't know why people like them so much. But as I said before, I'm one of those "cat people", so of course I'm not going to understand why people want to have a big, smelly, slobbering animal around that can't even figure out how to take a shit in a relatively clean and hygienic manner. Cats are far more sensible pets: they're smart enough to always crap in a litter box where it's easily managed, they're small (even the rare huge breeds aren't over 20 pounds or so), they don't smell (because of their fanatical cleaning habits and the chemistry of their saliva), and the only downside is the dander is an allergen to some people. You can even get automatic litter boxes these days which make the bathroom part really, really easy.
But I do think you're overblowing things a lot. As I said, I've never seen a workplace myself that allowed dogs (I never worked at Google, just like most of the nation; their ridiculous interview process keeps most qualified people out anyway), and I very rarely see a restaurant that allows them at all, in or out, or where people have them. In fact, I can't even remember the last time I saw someone with a dog at a restaurant, except for one time about 6 months ago inside a Panera where a guy had his service animal (which is something entirely different; very few people get those; I'm pretty sure this guy was visually impaired IIRC). The main places I see these dog-lovers out in public with their dogs is on hiking trails, at parks, etc.
Don't forget that Facebook is not a good way to judge peoples' lives. FB is infamous for having people post all kinds of crap on there trying to show how wonderful their lives are and one-up their friends, and it's driven a lot of people into depression because they see all these happy, smiling pictures. Real life isn't like that; what you see on FB is a tiny non-random snapshot or worse an act, or the shameless self-promotion of a vocal minority. Of course, all the dog proponents who can't spend 30 seconds without thinking about their dog are going to post a bunch of crap about dogs and their dog and how wonderful dogs are and "look! here we are going somewhere with our dog!" and "this restaurant sucks!! they wouldn't let us bring our dog in!!", and you see this and now you're thinking the whole country is like that. My advice: figure out who all these idiot dog-loving people on your FB feed are, and de-friend them, for the sake of your own sanity. Do you really want to see all kinds of dog-related posts on there every time you log in?
Also, I'd sincerely like to know how they deal with employees who are allergic to dogs. Not to mention dogs shitting in the office, barking, getting in fights with other dogs, etc. Pit bulls in particular are infamous for attacking and killing other (smaller) dogs, and of course some "pit bull advocate" is going to insist on bringing her pit bull to work to prove to everyone how "sweet" he his, and then act shocked when it kills her coworker's Chihuahua, and worse she'll blame the Chihuahua owner somehow. Honestly, letting people bring dogs to work is one of the stupidest company policies I've ever heard of.
You're not going to get much of an argument from me about dogs; I honestly don't know why people like them so much. But as I said before, I'm one of those "cat people", so of course I'm not going to understand why people want to have a big, smelly, slobbering animal around that can't even figure out how to take a shit in a relatively clean and hygienic manner. Cats are far more sensible pets: they're smart enough to always crap in a litter box where it's easily managed, they're small (even the rare huge breeds aren't over 20 pounds or so), they don't smell (because of their fanatical cleaning habits and the chemistry of their saliva), and the only downside is the dander is an allergen to some people. You can even get automatic litter boxes these days which make the bathroom part really, really easy.
But I do think you're overblowing things a lot. As I said, I've never seen a workplace myself that allowed dogs (I never worked at Google, just like most of the nation; their ridiculous interview process keeps most qualified people out anyway), and I very rarely see a restaurant that allows them at all, in or out, or where people have them. In fact, I can't even remember the last time I saw someone with a dog at a restaurant, except for one time about 6 months ago inside a Panera where a guy had his service animal (which is something entirely different; very few people get those; I'm pretty sure this guy was visually impaired IIRC). The main places I see these dog-lovers out in public with their dogs is on hiking trails, at parks, etc.
Don't forget that Facebook is not a good way to judge peoples' lives. FB is infamous for having people post all kinds of crap on there trying to show how wonderful their lives are and one-up their friends, and it's driven a lot of people into depression because they see all these happy, smiling pictures. Real life isn't like that; what you see on FB is a tiny non-random snapshot or worse an act, or the shameless self-promotion of a vocal minority. Of course, all the dog proponents who can't spend 30 seconds without thinking about their dog are going to post a bunch of crap about dogs and their dog and how wonderful dogs are and "look! here we are going somewhere with our dog!" and "this restaurant sucks!! they wouldn't let us bring our dog in!!", and you see this and now you're thinking the whole country is like that. My advice: figure out who all these idiot dog-loving people on your FB feed are, and de-friend them, for the sake of your own sanity. Do you really want to see all kinds of dog-related posts on there every time you log in?
My pets are literally treated as family members. I treated my dogs like they were my brothers, or sisters.
I am one of those people who think animals should have rights. I know it's crazy, but it just how I feel.
I had a girlfriend move out because she didn't like my Bull Mastiff's period. She told me to get rid of the dog, or I'm leaving. I literally packed her bags. She had her own apartment, so she wasen't homeless. You would not believe the words she yelled at me. "You love that dog more than me--you a-hole!" Me, "Maybe?"
I didn't think it was an American thing. I guess I just didn't think about it.
(I will say this; I sometimes think family bonds are tighter in other countries. I don't know? I've seen some nasty immoral acts--akways over money in the United States. I loved animals way before I realized how immoral certain family members were though.)
I am one of those people who think animals should have rights. I know it's crazy, but it just how I feel.
I had a girlfriend move out because she didn't like my Bull Mastiff's period. She told me to get rid of the dog, or I'm leaving. I literally packed her bags. She had her own apartment, so she wasen't homeless. You would not believe the words she yelled at me. "You love that dog more than me--you a-hole!" Me, "Maybe?"
I didn't think it was an American thing. I guess I just didn't think about it.
(I will say this; I sometimes think family bonds are tighter in other countries. I don't know? I've seen some nasty immoral acts--akways over money in the United States. I loved animals way before I realized how immoral certain family members were though.)
> Nobody is an alien in this country
Legally, any person who is not a citizen (including a legal immigrant who has not yet been naturalized) is an alien in this country.
Legally, any person who is not a citizen (including a legal immigrant who has not yet been naturalized) is an alien in this country.
And continues to be an alien for years, and sometimes decades. You only stop being an "alien" after naturalization ceremony. "Alien" terminology is not some emotional made up word, it's a real term that America calls any non-citizen.
>>I know a lot of people from Sikkim regularly get asked where in China are they from.
Every one has their own axe to grind based on what they want out of life. But this is plain ridiculous. Discrimination exists on every country on earth.
Every one who is following US elections and speeches from a particular candidate knows what is happening there. Racism has and may be will always exist due to identity consciousness among humans.
On an average US probably has the same levels of this sort of racism as much as there is in India.
Every one has their own axe to grind based on what they want out of life. But this is plain ridiculous. Discrimination exists on every country on earth.
Every one who is following US elections and speeches from a particular candidate knows what is happening there. Racism has and may be will always exist due to identity consciousness among humans.
On an average US probably has the same levels of this sort of racism as much as there is in India.
I guess most of it has to do with education. I genuinely had no idea that there people in Inda who look different than what I see around me till I was in my late teens. I guess its lot better now with the internet but diversity education won't hurt.
[deleted]
The author of the article, Vivek Wadhwa, is one of the most famous academic proponents of the H-1B visa. When I read the title, I initially thought the article would be about innovation and the startup climate in SV, but as I was progressing through, it confirmed my suspicions--it was another veiled opinion piece for increasing H-1B visa numbers. Maybe there is some value to his observations and arguments, but other readers should be aware what the ultimate goal is here...
I think you guys are missing the point. I know he normally is in favor of H1 but not this article.
He mentions two mains things in his post: 1. Give a path of Green Card to entrepreneurs.
2. Do not bound h1b employees to current jobs. Right now US is allowing quasi slavery by bounding workers to their jobs and making it really difficult to switch. If employers couldn't enslave h1 workers it wouldn't be economically viable for them and they are get lot less h1 workers.
I have worked at startups all of my career, built the biggest social network to come out of India, built another startup, sold it to Dropbox, currently head the innovation group at a Fortune 15. All I want to do is build startups. But on H1 I can't hold majority stake in my own company, and because of my previous experience I don't want to do a startup again on h1.
It will take me 20 years to get a Green Card on EB-2. I am trying for EB-1 but even with my background it will be difficult. If I don't get a Green Card by next year I will move out of US.
I am also discouraging any Entrepreneurs I know in India against a move to US.
I sincerely hope that the situation improves.
He mentions two mains things in his post: 1. Give a path of Green Card to entrepreneurs.
2. Do not bound h1b employees to current jobs. Right now US is allowing quasi slavery by bounding workers to their jobs and making it really difficult to switch. If employers couldn't enslave h1 workers it wouldn't be economically viable for them and they are get lot less h1 workers.
I have worked at startups all of my career, built the biggest social network to come out of India, built another startup, sold it to Dropbox, currently head the innovation group at a Fortune 15. All I want to do is build startups. But on H1 I can't hold majority stake in my own company, and because of my previous experience I don't want to do a startup again on h1.
It will take me 20 years to get a Green Card on EB-2. I am trying for EB-1 but even with my background it will be difficult. If I don't get a Green Card by next year I will move out of US.
I am also discouraging any Entrepreneurs I know in India against a move to US.
I sincerely hope that the situation improves.
> I am trying for EB-1 but even with my background it will be difficult.
If you have probed this possibility already, what is the evidence that speaks against you reaching EB-1A status? I assume making three out of the ten categories won't be problematic, but I myself am unclear about qualitative judgments in totality.
What I do know is, that the many EB-1 grantees from any YC batch were decimated to 50% sometime around 2014.
If you have probed this possibility already, what is the evidence that speaks against you reaching EB-1A status? I assume making three out of the ten categories won't be problematic, but I myself am unclear about qualitative judgments in totality.
What I do know is, that the many EB-1 grantees from any YC batch were decimated to 50% sometime around 2014.
thanks @alex_hirner. I have applied for EB-1 EA. Doing whatever I can to get it and will find out the result next year.
However I have significant resources at my disposal right now, which many other entrepreneurs wouldn't have - supporting the point raised by Vivek Wadhwa. If I had a Green Card, I wouldn't have sold to Dropbox and would be doing running a startup right now :)
Didn't quite understand your last line. Did it mean that 50% of YC batch applicants for EB-1 got it?
Thanks once again!
However I have significant resources at my disposal right now, which many other entrepreneurs wouldn't have - supporting the point raised by Vivek Wadhwa. If I had a Green Card, I wouldn't have sold to Dropbox and would be doing running a startup right now :)
Didn't quite understand your last line. Did it mean that 50% of YC batch applicants for EB-1 got it?
Thanks once again!
An E-2 investor visa could also do the trick in case of affluent resources. I wouldn't know about limits on the controlling stake though.
> Did it mean that 50% of YC batch applicants for EB-1 got it?
That was unclear of me. Actually, the ratio of granted vs. rejected applications dropped by around 50% (from a discussion in Feb this year). Thus, I don't know how many applied for in total in a typical cohort.
> Did it mean that 50% of YC batch applicants for EB-1 got it?
That was unclear of me. Actually, the ratio of granted vs. rejected applications dropped by around 50% (from a discussion in Feb this year). Thus, I don't know how many applied for in total in a typical cohort.
Indians aren't part of the E-2 treaty.
Based on your last line, I guess number of granted have gone down.
Doing all I can to get EB-1 EA. Let's see how it goes.
Based on your last line, I guess number of granted have gone down.
Doing all I can to get EB-1 EA. Let's see how it goes.
Oh I remember the questionable articles Vivek Wadhwa used to post on Techcrunch from a few yrs back about immigration, H1B, and startups that used to get derided on HN for lack of quality. Lots of opinion and hype, with very little data to back it up. Just look at this sweeping statement:
> The world’s entrepreneurs used to dream of coming to Silicon Valley because it was the innovation capital of the world and there were few opportunities elsewhere. This is no longer the case, as I learned during my recent trip to New Delhi. There are start-up incubators sprouting up all over India, and the quality of the start-ups is second only to those in Silicon Valley and China, which are running head to head.
You could argue that China is possibly #2 but how is India any where near #3? What has come out of India in the last decade besides the export of some good talent?
> The world’s entrepreneurs used to dream of coming to Silicon Valley because it was the innovation capital of the world and there were few opportunities elsewhere. This is no longer the case, as I learned during my recent trip to New Delhi. There are start-up incubators sprouting up all over India, and the quality of the start-ups is second only to those in Silicon Valley and China, which are running head to head.
You could argue that China is possibly #2 but how is India any where near #3? What has come out of India in the last decade besides the export of some good talent?
Is there a country that has more high valued startups than India after US and China? (I hate the term Unicorns)
I've seen far more Israeli startups acquired for 8-9 figures than Indian startups.
That's because most Israeli startups are targeted to US market because of lack of local market. Many get acquired when either they are threat to a US Industry Major or if they have saturated the market. Some get acquired for talent (Engineers from Israel are awesome) and it is easier to move Israelis to US vs trying to move Indians (Green Card waiting line for Indians is 20 years while it is instantaneous for Israelis - smart people don't want to become slaves).
One other thing most people don't realise is that life on an H1 is shit. You have to do a shitload of paperwork. You have to answer stupid questions when entering US. You have to answer stupid questions at Consulate when getting Visa. There is a lot of paperwork and uncertainty when you are changing job. No one should be stuck on h1 for 20 years. I did my 6 and am looking to get out next year if I don't get a Green Card by then.
With Indian companies, most are operating in Indian Market, are nowhere close to saturating Indian Market. I expect quite a few of them to be worth 10B or more.
One other thing most people don't realise is that life on an H1 is shit. You have to do a shitload of paperwork. You have to answer stupid questions when entering US. You have to answer stupid questions at Consulate when getting Visa. There is a lot of paperwork and uncertainty when you are changing job. No one should be stuck on h1 for 20 years. I did my 6 and am looking to get out next year if I don't get a Green Card by then.
With Indian companies, most are operating in Indian Market, are nowhere close to saturating Indian Market. I expect quite a few of them to be worth 10B or more.
Because a magic number picked mostly at random is the optimal number of H1B visas?
http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-optimal-number...
http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-optimal-number...
> Because a magic number picked mostly at random is the optimal number of H1B visas?
No, the optimal number of H-1B visas is zero, because the concept is fundamentally and irrepairably flawed.
No, the optimal number of H-1B visas is zero, because the concept is fundamentally and irrepairably flawed.
Oh, it's Wadhwa. I read the article and didn't even notice.
Wadhwa isn't a real academic. He doesn't have a doctorate. His academic appointments are "entrepreneur in residence" or some other vague affiliation like that. He's mostly a pundit, writing for the Washington Post and the WSJ.
Wadhwa isn't a real academic. He doesn't have a doctorate. His academic appointments are "entrepreneur in residence" or some other vague affiliation like that. He's mostly a pundit, writing for the Washington Post and the WSJ.
Thanks for the information! I too thought the article would be able innovation and markets.
America definitely does not need more H1B workers.
America definitely does not need more H1B workers.
Yea America needs a different visa that allows people in without a lottery.
H1B visas smack of indentured servitude.
The idea that everything must be in California to matter dying is a good thing for everyone except those in California who refuse to change. Maybe people will realize you can do most technology jobs from anywhere in the world.
No one is at the top forever, that includes the US.
No one is at the top forever, that includes the US.
It is very clear that the US is no longer the top in many areas, and is slipping fast. The USA is actively rearranging the deck chairs in what is going to be a monumental Titanic the rest of the world will enjoy watching sink. As a "leader nation" we've been deplorable in many of the aspects that matter. Few outside the USA will shed many tears, as we've been ruthless towards other nations not subservient to our corporations. Yeah, we do just enough good to pass, and not much more, and then only when it serves our corporate masters.
US will not sink during my life time (2050?). The odds are so decked in US's favor. As Ian Bremmer said, what makes America great is, two oceans, canada and mexico.
The turmoil in Eurasian continent and Population explosion in Africa when you compared to improved peace in Americas. I will bet by shirt on Americas in general and USA in particular. No, Sir China is not going to touch US in military terms during my life time and probably have some economic benchmarks they may dominate but per-capita will suck. For all the hew and cry, China is middle-income nation with 17 neighbors, Middle East even with Petro-dollars in basket case, Europe is demographically falling and struggling with Immigration.
America will remain the power to reckon for next 50 years if not more.
The turmoil in Eurasian continent and Population explosion in Africa when you compared to improved peace in Americas. I will bet by shirt on Americas in general and USA in particular. No, Sir China is not going to touch US in military terms during my life time and probably have some economic benchmarks they may dominate but per-capita will suck. For all the hew and cry, China is middle-income nation with 17 neighbors, Middle East even with Petro-dollars in basket case, Europe is demographically falling and struggling with Immigration.
America will remain the power to reckon for next 50 years if not more.
You're in for a rude awakening if you think "China is not going to touch US in military terms during my life time"
Most people believe that the US will always have the better fighter planes, the better missiles, or the better tanks. In reality, we are about to be parity. They will be stronger in some aspects, we will be stronger in others.
If you don't believe me, go check out the Chinese J-20, J-31 aircraft. Their DF-41 ICBM. The Type-99 tank.
They have been catching, and fast. They already have some systems that are better than ours. They also have twice as many soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines.
Source: Former Intelligence Analyst.
Most people believe that the US will always have the better fighter planes, the better missiles, or the better tanks. In reality, we are about to be parity. They will be stronger in some aspects, we will be stronger in others.
If you don't believe me, go check out the Chinese J-20, J-31 aircraft. Their DF-41 ICBM. The Type-99 tank.
They have been catching, and fast. They already have some systems that are better than ours. They also have twice as many soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines.
Source: Former Intelligence Analyst.
If China gets to the point they're actually a military threat to the US, they'll be so busy trying not to go to war with Russia it won't matter. The only reason Russia and China get along right now is because neither is happy about being second fiddle to the US. Eventually their focus will turn on one another.
Which is why measuring military is a moot point when comparing economies between major world powers.
Economic battles are fought through puppets (Syria, Iran/Iraq, Koreas, etc.), not between the major powers themselves, thanks to nuclear proliferation.
Economic battles are fought through puppets (Syria, Iran/Iraq, Koreas, etc.), not between the major powers themselves, thanks to nuclear proliferation.
Well first before looking at military strength there has to be a motivation by China to want to attack the US. What in the next 50 years would make china interested in attacking the US? In what way would it benefit?
2050 : their Navy will not be close to US.
Currently their Navy is not even close to Japan.
Power projection on Earth in 20th century and 21st century is about Maritime. That may change. Chinese may finally master flying saucers and make some of the previous structure irrelevant, but that is unlikely for now.
But if I you were interested in countries and power, I would not focus on J-20 or J-31 but the current purges and anti-corruption drive in China. The most interesting question about China in 2035 is, how will communist party hold power now on.
But if I you were interested in countries and power, I would not focus on J-20 or J-31 but the current purges and anti-corruption drive in China. The most interesting question about China in 2035 is, how will communist party hold power now on.
Their Navy will be closer than you think. Take a look at the rate they are building ships. Their destroyer squadrons (Luyang II and III are amazing ships) have been rapidly growing, as well as their replinishment ships, subs, frigates, and smaller boats. These DDGs and supply ships are the foundations of a CSG. You're right they only have one carrier at the moment, and its only used for training. But this is their modus operandi: Buy something already built, reverse engineer it, tailor to our needs, mass produce. They have 30 years to manufacture 10 more carriers (and associated ships) to reach the power project with the current US Navy. If they continue at their current rate, they will easily reach that.
I don't know where you're getting the notion that the Chinese navy doesn't compare to Japan, because its stronger/larger in every measurable way. Are you accounting for the 30+ ships the Chinese navy has been building every year recently? I would agree with that statement six years ago.
You are absolutely correct: The most interesting question is can they sustain their current output. Will the party hold up?
I don't know where you're getting the notion that the Chinese navy doesn't compare to Japan, because its stronger/larger in every measurable way. Are you accounting for the 30+ ships the Chinese navy has been building every year recently? I would agree with that statement six years ago.
You are absolutely correct: The most interesting question is can they sustain their current output. Will the party hold up?
Their navy doesn't have to get close to the US because it isn't spread so thin around the world.
Kinda 20th century thinking. Military might is important, yes, but economically things are too dependent upon one another. All it is going to take is global pop culture to shift away from Americanism to whatever flavor is next (probably some Asian cross cultural identity). Then the USA and our economy too dependent upon cultural exports will kinda run dry, and boobs like Trump will become more common. It's gonna be a shit show. (Actually, already is!)
No it is not 20th century thinking, Mexico and some other countries in Latin America are becoming the workshop of the Americas. Once China firmly transforms into middle income country, the global supply chain will look else where for cheaper labor. But with 3D printing and high automation many factory floors will return to US or will be closer to US than China.
China has more basic problems, their coastal provinces are prosperous and their interior is not, and they have their own centrifugal forces. Long story short, you are overestimating america's problems and underestimating China's problems.
China has more basic problems, their coastal provinces are prosperous and their interior is not, and they have their own centrifugal forces. Long story short, you are overestimating america's problems and underestimating China's problems.
You may not get all teary but let's remember why US has had to keep a such massive arsenal and expand so much energy globally. It was to counter Nazi Germany, Russia, and Japanese Empire.
Before WW1 and WW2, US was indeed a 2nd tier nation but they were quite happy.
And don't forget, corporate masters are everywhere, not just in US.
Before WW1 and WW2, US was indeed a 2nd tier nation but they were quite happy.
And don't forget, corporate masters are everywhere, not just in US.
The US has been in decline since before I was even born, mid 30s now. Things have gotten better in other developing countries, yes. And things have gotten better here as well.
The only people that truly believe the US is in decline are Trump voters, neoliberals, and survivalists.
The only people that truly believe the US is in decline are Trump voters, neoliberals, and survivalists.
If this was truly the case why are salaries in the Bay so high? You would figure startups would hire people in other places with lower salaries.
High salaries mean good work only occurs in California?
It couldn't be that there is an idea you MUST be in California and by and large remote work is not offered?
It couldn't be that there is an idea you MUST be in California and by and large remote work is not offered?
>handsets without headphone jacks long before Apple did
This is not an innovation. Not every change is an innovation. In fact, this is the straw that broke the camel's back for me, and I intend on never buying an Apple product again.
This is not an innovation. Not every change is an innovation. In fact, this is the straw that broke the camel's back for me, and I intend on never buying an Apple product again.
Yeah I really don't understand this move. Looks like I'll stick with my iPhone SE until it dies and never "upgrade".
I'm predicting Android manufacturers will follow suit within 2 years.
I'm sure some will, but the sheer variety of Android handsets means it's highly unlikely it'll disappear from all of the viable ones anytime soon if people actually want them.
There are a huge number of niche, speciality phones, such as phones with extra many SIM-slots - max I've seen is five - extra large batteries, up to 10,000mAh - extra rugged - huge extra antennas - water proof - models with walkie talkie functionality, and many other special purpose models. This is the advantage of reference designs that get copied and adapted over and over cheaply, allowing tons of different companies to churn out variations cheaply.
Given that, I'm sure there will be ones with wired headphone connectors for a very long time.
There are a huge number of niche, speciality phones, such as phones with extra many SIM-slots - max I've seen is five - extra large batteries, up to 10,000mAh - extra rugged - huge extra antennas - water proof - models with walkie talkie functionality, and many other special purpose models. This is the advantage of reference designs that get copied and adapted over and over cheaply, allowing tons of different companies to churn out variations cheaply.
Given that, I'm sure there will be ones with wired headphone connectors for a very long time.
The problem is, the manufacturers will not be able to follow suit with thunderbolt. So... what will device makers use? The BIG problem is they will likely not even use the same "standard" across Android devices... what is a headphones manufacturer to do?
>So... what will device makers use?
USB Type-C, if they were so inclined.
USB Type-C, if they were so inclined.
> The BIG problem is they will likely not even use the same "standard" across Android devices... what is a headphones manufacturer to do?
USB Type-C has provisions for putting audio directly onto auxiliary pins exactly for this purpose.
However, I suspect most won't get rid of the standard audio jack without a good reason.
USB Type-C has provisions for putting audio directly onto auxiliary pins exactly for this purpose.
However, I suspect most won't get rid of the standard audio jack without a good reason.
I was surprised by this but this is indeed the case. [1][2][3][4]
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/4nsp5p/usb_type_c_... [2] http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/ [3] http://i.imgur.com/y6xCS9u.png [4] http://www.anandtech.com/show/10273/intel-proposes-to-use-us...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/4nsp5p/usb_type_c_... [2] http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/ [3] http://i.imgur.com/y6xCS9u.png [4] http://www.anandtech.com/show/10273/intel-proposes-to-use-us...
I'm still sad about the lack of disk drives. A shame. Luckily I still have my 1996 Compaq Presario.
If the US wants, it can a) start growing it's own tech people instead of being constrained by a lack of them, b) make immigration easier for tech people in the meantime, and c) stop focusing on bringing manufacturing back and focus instead on moving people's skills up the value chain so that they can innovate as opposed to stamping and assembling the innovations of others.
Also, not sure that putting two cameras on a phone and removing the headphone jack is exactly innovation. Those seem more like features. The Internet and mobile devices are real innovation imo.
Also, not sure that putting two cameras on a phone and removing the headphone jack is exactly innovation. Those seem more like features. The Internet and mobile devices are real innovation imo.
You idea is so protectionist. It is like saying US should not bring in great scientist and just focus on mass producing within the county. And you wouldn't have Einstein. The point is no matter how much you try to force produce talents within your country , there will always more great talents in other parts of the world. US was great because it is the centre of the universe and all the top talents want to come here. Now it is no longer the case. Gradually, US is losing this big advantage.
I don't think the majority of H1 visa holders could be considered "top talent." Perhaps "cheaper talent."
We eliminate the Tata-style H1B abuses and actually make H1B for TOP talent and not cheap talent, then those future Einsteins can come to the US. Your average "top talent" isn't going to work for Tata or Infosys. They're going to apply directly or they're going to be recruited.
Ted Cruz proposed at $100K minimum salary for H1's. Not a bad way to solve this problem. $100K is nothing for actual top talent, but it certainly means that the incentive to outsource low level IT to H1 companies is much much less.
The problem isn't the lack of talent, it's the lack of companies willing to pay for the talent. You can hire anybody you want if you're willing to pay enough. Start offering $250K for a starting salary for an engineer -- you'll have hundreds of resumes within the hour and probably one or two would be top talent. That same job at $80k -- dozens of resumes and probably not a single one that could be considered top talent.
We eliminate the Tata-style H1B abuses and actually make H1B for TOP talent and not cheap talent, then those future Einsteins can come to the US. Your average "top talent" isn't going to work for Tata or Infosys. They're going to apply directly or they're going to be recruited.
Ted Cruz proposed at $100K minimum salary for H1's. Not a bad way to solve this problem. $100K is nothing for actual top talent, but it certainly means that the incentive to outsource low level IT to H1 companies is much much less.
The problem isn't the lack of talent, it's the lack of companies willing to pay for the talent. You can hire anybody you want if you're willing to pay enough. Start offering $250K for a starting salary for an engineer -- you'll have hundreds of resumes within the hour and probably one or two would be top talent. That same job at $80k -- dozens of resumes and probably not a single one that could be considered top talent.
> We eliminate the Tata-style H1B abuses and actually make H1B for TOP talent and not cheap talent
Top talent is what the O-1A and O-1B are for. We don't need the H-1B for that.
Top talent is what the O-1A and O-1B are for. We don't need the H-1B for that.
You're insinuating that everyone coming over on H1s is the next Einstein. My experience is the VAST MAJORITY are below average tech workers who provide less value than an above average college grad. And sometimes less due to language barriers.
So because every immigrant isn't Einstein, we should have no immigrants?
Their point was that much of the talent that helped build the U.S. were skilled immigrants. Likewise, nearly 1/5 of all Fortune 500 companies in the U.S. are founded by immigrants: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-per...
Also, your anecdotal evidence is contrary to my experience with H1B co-workers.
Their point was that much of the talent that helped build the U.S. were skilled immigrants. Likewise, nearly 1/5 of all Fortune 500 companies in the U.S. are founded by immigrants: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-per...
Also, your anecdotal evidence is contrary to my experience with H1B co-workers.
My ideas are the opposite of protectionist - they are about becoming more competitive in the open market.
If you restrict the pool of talent that you draw upon, you're limiting your supply of skilled labor and thus become less competitive.
What phone were you using 10 years ago (2006), and how does it compare to phones today?
Bill Gates says that people overestimate what will happen in two years, and underestimate what will happen in ten years. It's easier to see that looking back.
Bill Gates says that people overestimate what will happen in two years, and underestimate what will happen in ten years. It's easier to see that looking back.
A Nokia feature phone. I liked it a lot.
For you younger people ... you see, Nokia was a company that made excellent phones that almost no other company could touch, and then ...
For you younger people ... you see, Nokia was a company that made excellent phones that almost no other company could touch, and then ...
And then Apple figured out the average American cares more about what they pay monthly for an object than they do about the total cost. So instead of "owning" a phone that you could run over with a truck, you "rented" a phone that would break if you looked at it wrong for 7x the price.
Brilliant move on their part, and I wouldn't trade my google maps for anything. But I miss the hell out of my blackberry email to this day.
Brilliant move on their part, and I wouldn't trade my google maps for anything. But I miss the hell out of my blackberry email to this day.
> And then Apple figured out the average American cares more about what they pay monthly for an object than they do about the total cost.
To be fair, that was a trend long before Apple made phones. To me, it looked like they tried to break that trend but got too much resistance from users who wouldn't pay the upfront cost.
To be fair, that was a trend long before Apple made phones. To me, it looked like they tried to break that trend but got too much resistance from users who wouldn't pay the upfront cost.
Phone plans existed long before the iphone.
[deleted]
Haven't finished the article, but it boggles my mind how anyone would be afraid of Chinese competition because Apple copied wechat and removed the headphone jack second. The features they are talking about where available in most other messaging apps, notably Facebook messenger, ever since Line and other Korean [Edit: LINE is Japanese] apps introduced it (there may be an even earlier case, it has been around so long). Apple plays catch up from time to time, nothing new to see here. And removing the headphone jack is not innovation.
Will continue reading the article, but if this is what America thinks is innovation, that's the dangerous thing, not China.
Besides, I'm as patriotic as the next American, but if the Chinese start making better products and we start copying them for a change is that really a bad thing besides some jingoist pride? Letting Chinese companies foot the R&D bill in a few cases would certainly be cheaper. As long as we continue to attempt to compete, and don't throw our hands up because they had chat stickers before one of our American companies.
Will continue reading the article, but if this is what America thinks is innovation, that's the dangerous thing, not China.
Besides, I'm as patriotic as the next American, but if the Chinese start making better products and we start copying them for a change is that really a bad thing besides some jingoist pride? Letting Chinese companies foot the R&D bill in a few cases would certainly be cheaper. As long as we continue to attempt to compete, and don't throw our hands up because they had chat stickers before one of our American companies.
> I'm as patriotic as the next American, but if the Chinese start making better products and we start copying them for a change is that really a bad thing
No, it would be a great thing. Competition is always good, that is practically an axiom of capitalism. I expect serious competition to enhance R+D, not diminish it. No CEO buys back shares or increases dividends when they have a serious competitor. They pour money into R+D, new equipment and strategic acquisitions.
No, it would be a great thing. Competition is always good, that is practically an axiom of capitalism. I expect serious competition to enhance R+D, not diminish it. No CEO buys back shares or increases dividends when they have a serious competitor. They pour money into R+D, new equipment and strategic acquisitions.
Competition is good.
Losing a competition is not so good. History is littered with countries, cultures, civilizations that lost. And I suspect there were many more that are simply forgotten until an archaeologist digs them up!
Losing a competition is not so good. History is littered with countries, cultures, civilizations that lost. And I suspect there were many more that are simply forgotten until an archaeologist digs them up!
Well the UK was the leading world power up to about a century ago and we've managed to survive loss of pre-eminence in a reasonably good state.
To paint with a very broad brush, the U.K. would hardly be in the position it is in if it hadn't imperialized so heavily.
English is the world's dominant language, meaning everyone else has to learn English, instead of the English having to learn Chinese, Polish, Spanish, etc.
The old connections make London a prime financial center, and even that future is questionable given Brexit and the prominence of alternatives like New York and Singapore.
The UK's edge and reach comes from its cultural products. Once the bankers have gone and the techies find better qualities of life away from London's shuttered clubs and the UK's draconian survellience and drug laws, all that's left is James Bond and Harry Potter.
I hope I don't come across as being too pessimistic about England's future, but just as it is in a reasonably good state now, it could just as easily be gearing up for a nasty nosedive.
English is the world's dominant language, meaning everyone else has to learn English, instead of the English having to learn Chinese, Polish, Spanish, etc.
The old connections make London a prime financial center, and even that future is questionable given Brexit and the prominence of alternatives like New York and Singapore.
The UK's edge and reach comes from its cultural products. Once the bankers have gone and the techies find better qualities of life away from London's shuttered clubs and the UK's draconian survellience and drug laws, all that's left is James Bond and Harry Potter.
I hope I don't come across as being too pessimistic about England's future, but just as it is in a reasonably good state now, it could just as easily be gearing up for a nasty nosedive.
[deleted]
[As a Scot I am legally obliged to point out that England != UK] ;-)
Equally as an englander, I fear I have to point out that if Scotland wants true independence, you´re going to have to persuade your politicians to drop out of the currency union as well as the political one.
... And manage without the Barnett Formula money, and low oil prices, and somehow manage your pension obligations, and the Shetlands which actually own the oilfields want to stay British anyway, and...
Still, I love Freedom, so whatever you democratically decide :-)
Still, I love Freedom, so whatever you democratically decide :-)
That's why I mostly separated them. I'm far more pessimistic about England's future than I am for Scotland's.
I'd argue more recently, up 'til Suez, and we were fortunately out-competed by a notional ally - it could have gone very differently if the USSR was the one to out-produce or out-innovate us.
I think that's apples to oranges - I really think there is a difference in loosing military control of an empire versus losing economic dominance. The US isn't going to cut spending on it's military substantially because china makes a better cellphone than Apple. Apple will continue to compete, and consumers will enjoy better phones at lower cost.
But if China makes a wide range of products better than the US then presumably they'd be able to afford to spend more on their military than the US does?
I'd argue they already do, America just captures a lot of the value of their labor back home. I don't see this arrangement changing anytime soon.
I'd also argue that, while I see your point about less tax revenue, military spending seems to march to the beat of it's own drum regardless of US's coffers. I don't know if that's sustainable to be that decoupled, but it seems like it is right now.
Agreed. At the same time, those cultures were objectively 'worse'.
They were xenophobic. They were sexist. They were racist. They were superstitious.
Disruption happens at the level of nations. The USA has reinvented itself many times before, and will do so again. So far, in the competition between the USA and China, China has moved much more towards a capitalistic, free society than the USA has moved towards totalitarianism.
I'm not stating it is a guarantee. But it is a risk worth taking. And I suspect you agree. And by all means, let's not only end up as an interesting archaelogical dig.
They were xenophobic. They were sexist. They were racist. They were superstitious.
Disruption happens at the level of nations. The USA has reinvented itself many times before, and will do so again. So far, in the competition between the USA and China, China has moved much more towards a capitalistic, free society than the USA has moved towards totalitarianism.
I'm not stating it is a guarantee. But it is a risk worth taking. And I suspect you agree. And by all means, let's not only end up as an interesting archaelogical dig.
I've had to make a similar argument in another related thread. Its like the question of "who is #1" and "whats best for you" are mingled. If china comes out strong with new products , cheaper prices, more R&D , as a consumer we will all greatly benefit!
> Competition is always good, that is practically an axiom of capitalism.
Not quite. Taken too far it leaves nothing for R&D. Fortunately this tends to balance over time, in part because as margins drop small players are squeezed out, competition cools, and margins stabilize.
In fact, one of the biggest success stories for central planning and protectionism—postwar Japan—involved removing domestic competition for a handful of megacorps to let them charge higher prices, then encouraging them to pool R&D resources so they could Go Forth and Conquer.
So, as nice as competition is, always is an overstatement.
Not quite. Taken too far it leaves nothing for R&D. Fortunately this tends to balance over time, in part because as margins drop small players are squeezed out, competition cools, and margins stabilize.
In fact, one of the biggest success stories for central planning and protectionism—postwar Japan—involved removing domestic competition for a handful of megacorps to let them charge higher prices, then encouraging them to pool R&D resources so they could Go Forth and Conquer.
So, as nice as competition is, always is an overstatement.
"Competition is good" may or may not be true. It depends.
A rough rule of thumb is that a new idea has to be 10x better than the old idea to be worth it. The count of 10x ideas is dwindling.
A rough rule of thumb is that a new idea has to be 10x better than the old idea to be worth it. The count of 10x ideas is dwindling.
Competition is always good for consumers, not producers. It brings lower prices for goods or services, but provides less freedom for producers.
I agree. The article tries to bring out an important issue: USA immigration policies need changes. But it starts the argument using unsubstantial cases.
Check out the ReSpeaker Kickstarter project
The project is clearly run by some brilliant ESL techies, who have a truly funky product:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/seeed/respeaker-an-open...
I was well chuffed to see fresh ideas. As you say, why does it matter if it comes from a US company ?
The project is clearly run by some brilliant ESL techies, who have a truly funky product:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/seeed/respeaker-an-open...
I was well chuffed to see fresh ideas. As you say, why does it matter if it comes from a US company ?
> ...if the Chinese start making better products...
China is ahead in biotech, IoT, AR, and a bunch of other areas, and have grown the only serious IaaS competitor to Amazon. The future is here already, much the rest of the world (particularly in the US) has its head in the sand, wheeling out the tired old trope about China being a nation of copycats. If that were ever true, it isn't true anymore.
China is ahead in biotech, IoT, AR, and a bunch of other areas, and have grown the only serious IaaS competitor to Amazon. The future is here already, much the rest of the world (particularly in the US) has its head in the sand, wheeling out the tired old trope about China being a nation of copycats. If that were ever true, it isn't true anymore.
I believe it. It just doesn't make sense that everyone would move to the US before starting their idea, the sheer volume of people in China means that they will have so much personal capital they should be leading a lot of these fields.
Everyone starts as "a copycat". It doesn't matter; consumers benefit from competition.
R&D should have a positive multiplier else why do it at all? Much of what's called "R&D" sort of isn't - it's not that easy to disentangle maintenance from development.
The H1B visa encourages headcount-think, which is a "policy smell" in tech development. At least some people I've known who've had H1B visas felt it was exploitative.
The H1B visa encourages headcount-think, which is a "policy smell" in tech development. At least some people I've known who've had H1B visas felt it was exploitative.
Agreed, but it's basically a dumb leader on an article that's actually about immigration policy...
Despite being a subsidiary of Naver, LINE is a Japanese company.
Thanks, I wanted to say Japanese, but changed it to Korean with after quick googling. Guess it was too quick.
It is difficult for me to imagine the level of jingoism necessary to consider it a problem that foreign entrepreneurs don't need the US. Why would you want the entire world to be dependent on the US? That doesn't help either the US or the rest of the world.
I think the reason is that, at some level, Wadhwa believes that immigrants make better entrepreneurs than (native-born) Americans. He's never said that outright, but that's been a theme in his writing for a while. For example, from the article:
America has lost an entire generation of entrepreneurs and innovators and bolstered its global competition. That is also why the proportion of immigrant-founded start-ups in Silicon Valley fell from 52 percent in 2005 to 44 percent in 2012 and is probably even lower today.
It's possible that a lower proportion of startups are immigrant-founded because there are fewer immigrant founders, but it's also possible that there may be more native-born Americans becoming entrepreneurs. One can't tell from just this statistic. If the ratio has changed because of an increase in American entrepreneurship, then Wadhwa's argument becomes that it's bad for the U.S. if more Americans become entrepreneurs.
Which is weird. And being an American myself, something I find quite offensive.
America has lost an entire generation of entrepreneurs and innovators and bolstered its global competition. That is also why the proportion of immigrant-founded start-ups in Silicon Valley fell from 52 percent in 2005 to 44 percent in 2012 and is probably even lower today.
It's possible that a lower proportion of startups are immigrant-founded because there are fewer immigrant founders, but it's also possible that there may be more native-born Americans becoming entrepreneurs. One can't tell from just this statistic. If the ratio has changed because of an increase in American entrepreneurship, then Wadhwa's argument becomes that it's bad for the U.S. if more Americans become entrepreneurs.
Which is weird. And being an American myself, something I find quite offensive.
I mean it does help the US and it's citizen's to be the center of innovation and for others to depend on american economic outputs. I'm not sure that it's Jingoism for people in the US to think that losing out of our competitive advantages as a nation is a bad thing for the future of those people.
It's really not a sign of a problem but rather a sign of improving local conditions in those up and coming countries. This development will lead to better local economies, locals with better local opportunities and ultimately better wealth distribution (rather than entrepreneur wealth/taxes contributing to American coffers they will contribute to local coffers improving the lives of locals). And additionally by having fewer people adopt our expensive lifestyle as they would had they migrated people will contribute less toward climate change so, win-win.
I also believe that the improved economies in those nations will lead to wage increases. That will, in turn make it less profitable to outsource to those nations. In turn, that will hopefully bring more jobs back to the U.S. Sounds like a win-win really.
While you what say is true, countries compete for talent/jobs/economy. Its not like US thinks we have had enough of talent, so let China and India prosper. The point the author is making is that, the USA should compete for talent by easing rules, giving PR's to talented individuals.
A problem with the H1-B visa program is the abuse of firms such as Disney in FL, Southern California Edison, and Abbott Pharmaceuticals that have used H1-B workers to replace Americans at lower cost. In fact, even the Clinton Foundation has hired (or attempted to hire) H1-B instead of Americans.
The H1-B is supposed to be used only in the case that an American can't be found to do the job. Americans can do IT. Other firms hire H1-B workers to save money using foreigners in place of Americans. Thus the hostility towards H1-B. I think it is highly unlikely that there are even 30,000 jobs per year where American where there is no American to do the job. Some obscure areas of science, for example. In many cases the Americans could be trained to do the specific job.
My great grandparents came over and started a company but I don't recall knowing that they got any preferential treatment coning to this country.
The H1-B is supposed to be used only in the case that an American can't be found to do the job. Americans can do IT. Other firms hire H1-B workers to save money using foreigners in place of Americans. Thus the hostility towards H1-B. I think it is highly unlikely that there are even 30,000 jobs per year where American where there is no American to do the job. Some obscure areas of science, for example. In many cases the Americans could be trained to do the specific job.
My great grandparents came over and started a company but I don't recall knowing that they got any preferential treatment coning to this country.
A good example is Google. How many H1-B visas does Google employ? Why? They are the premier company in the US. They have their pick of employees. The idea they cannot find qualified employees is laughable. They want to keep rates low. Period.
Google very actively employees people from outside US given all the BS in US Immigration system they usually move them to
UK or Switzerland or whatever dev center that has much more reasonable options.
The only reason H1-Bs are attractive to employers is because the employee is effectively chained to them (through the Green Card process) - which in the case of employers looking to cut costs suppresses wages.
I think the best solution is to decouple the work visa and green card like Canada - and hand over more control to the employees. It will solve a lot of problems!
Canada also does the Labor Market Opinions/US-PERM Certification in the visa phase instead of the Green Card phase in the US - which can theoretically cut down on the abuse of H1-Bs by companies like Disney via. consultancies.
I think the best solution is to decouple the work visa and green card like Canada - and hand over more control to the employees. It will solve a lot of problems!
Canada also does the Labor Market Opinions/US-PERM Certification in the visa phase instead of the Green Card phase in the US - which can theoretically cut down on the abuse of H1-Bs by companies like Disney via. consultancies.
Actually, they are also attractive to employers because under the current rules, they can offer H1-B workers lower than the prevailing wage so they save money that way as well.
Also, in most of the cases, as I pointed out in my comment, there are Americans that can do the jobs which violates the conditions of the H1-B.
Also, in most of the cases, as I pointed out in my comment, there are Americans that can do the jobs which violates the conditions of the H1-B.
It frustrates me that this article conflates a true and serious problem (the harm to American innovation caused by bad immigration policies) with blatant hyperbole.
The narrative is also totally inconsistent. Is the problem that foreign entrepreneurs don't want to come to the US at all (what it seems to start with/imply) or that our immigration policies make it exceedingly difficult even when you want to (the truth and meat of the article)? This would be a much better piece if it cut out the bullshit and focused on immigration.
The iPhone 7 has literally nothing to do with foreign entrepreneurs not coming to the US, so why is that the lede? It makes the whole article start on terrible footing.
> There are start-up incubators sprouting up all over India, and the quality of the start-ups is second only to those in Silicon Valley and China, which are running head to head.
Only someone with their head in the sand could actually think this is true. I've spent time in non-US startup hubs, including Chinese ones, and they're definitely not neck-and-neck. Chinese startups might be catching up, but they're still a distant second place by any conceivable metric.
> The reality is that America’s most innovative company is no longer the world’s most innovative company.
Apple might not be the world's most innovative company but I would happily bet that the most innovative companies in the world continue to be in the US.
> As technology designer Himanshu Khanna said, “Why should I move to Silicon Valley when I have a market 10 times as large here?”
By what conceivable metric is the Indian market 10 times larger in general? It's farcical and defies basic economics to say something like that.
The narrative is also totally inconsistent. Is the problem that foreign entrepreneurs don't want to come to the US at all (what it seems to start with/imply) or that our immigration policies make it exceedingly difficult even when you want to (the truth and meat of the article)? This would be a much better piece if it cut out the bullshit and focused on immigration.
The iPhone 7 has literally nothing to do with foreign entrepreneurs not coming to the US, so why is that the lede? It makes the whole article start on terrible footing.
> There are start-up incubators sprouting up all over India, and the quality of the start-ups is second only to those in Silicon Valley and China, which are running head to head.
Only someone with their head in the sand could actually think this is true. I've spent time in non-US startup hubs, including Chinese ones, and they're definitely not neck-and-neck. Chinese startups might be catching up, but they're still a distant second place by any conceivable metric.
> The reality is that America’s most innovative company is no longer the world’s most innovative company.
Apple might not be the world's most innovative company but I would happily bet that the most innovative companies in the world continue to be in the US.
> As technology designer Himanshu Khanna said, “Why should I move to Silicon Valley when I have a market 10 times as large here?”
By what conceivable metric is the Indian market 10 times larger in general? It's farcical and defies basic economics to say something like that.
I think this article is exaggerating. In the long run, maybe the US will lose its luster, but it is still a very desirable place to live.
The US has a secret weapon for solving its growth problems: let more people in. Is there any country in the world apart from the US that chooses to refuse a long line of highly qualified people looking to come and pay taxes?
The US has a secret weapon for solving its growth problems: let more people in. Is there any country in the world apart from the US that chooses to refuse a long line of highly qualified people looking to come and pay taxes?
Why is it any economical success outside of the US is considered a problem? There is this constant capitalistic journalism need that the US must win on all fronts. Any success outside of the US "is a problem".
For example if China does well in say for example solar research an article always seems to come out that this spells doom for the US.
I want all of the world to improve and firmly believe "the rising tide lifts all boats".
For example if China does well in say for example solar research an article always seems to come out that this spells doom for the US.
I want all of the world to improve and firmly believe "the rising tide lifts all boats".
The operating principle for the US government pretty much has to be this way. It's a "bug" in the concept of the nation-state.
The natural state of the US - with "a moat the size of two oceans" - was isolationist for almost all its history, prior to WWII. Perhaps that's again a rising idea.
And some of the writing on this subject is simply propaganda-ish.
This being said, if I were, say, from India, it would bug me that I have to emigrate to innovate. Why should this be?
Well, the US built more universities, which have lead times in decades. Okay, so send kids to school there, then make it to where they can practice back at home.
The natural state of the US - with "a moat the size of two oceans" - was isolationist for almost all its history, prior to WWII. Perhaps that's again a rising idea.
And some of the writing on this subject is simply propaganda-ish.
This being said, if I were, say, from India, it would bug me that I have to emigrate to innovate. Why should this be?
Well, the US built more universities, which have lead times in decades. Okay, so send kids to school there, then make it to where they can practice back at home.
The current visa program benefits very few other than large spaghetti farm factories like Tata/Infosys etc. It means the truly smart people have to compete with these large code farms which hire fairly mediocre talent and replaces American labor at the same time. Do away with the H1B lottery and replace it with a real visa program that takes into account the truly value people bring to this country. There are some very smart people from other countries that I would love to work with, but they are denied the ability to work here because of vested corporate interests in importing cheaper labor, not smarter labor.
Brain drain from developing to developed countries is far from a clear win. Here's some good links talking about the effect of emigration of Kenyan health care workers (mostly to the UK and the US) on Kenya:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1538589/
https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/files/cont...
Half of Kenyan-trained doctors live and work outside of Kenya. That represents a multi-million dollar direct cost just in the governmental and societal resources used to train those doctors, and a much larger cost to society of the limited health care infrastructure thanks to a loss of so many workers.
Half of Kenyan-trained doctors live and work outside of Kenya. That represents a multi-million dollar direct cost just in the governmental and societal resources used to train those doctors, and a much larger cost to society of the limited health care infrastructure thanks to a loss of so many workers.
American policies towards immigration are plain stupid, destructive and damaging economy potential long term.
The solution IMO is very simple: open up easy immigration path to USA for those with advanced degrees (MS/PhD in science/technology) from world's accredited universities. Thats it!
Attract top talent! Start today! Not throw it away to your tomorrows competitors. Build better society/economy here in USA using help and labor of educated people who are eager to come here to build better lives for themselves and ultimately the entire country.
People still want to come here despite even this shifting tide - the reason again simple - it is still one of the best place to live and work (there are plenty of other countries in Europe and outside of Europe as well), despite all the problems that USA has (like any country).
Do not wait until we have to beg people to come here, because by then it will probably be too late.
The solution IMO is very simple: open up easy immigration path to USA for those with advanced degrees (MS/PhD in science/technology) from world's accredited universities. Thats it!
Attract top talent! Start today! Not throw it away to your tomorrows competitors. Build better society/economy here in USA using help and labor of educated people who are eager to come here to build better lives for themselves and ultimately the entire country.
People still want to come here despite even this shifting tide - the reason again simple - it is still one of the best place to live and work (there are plenty of other countries in Europe and outside of Europe as well), despite all the problems that USA has (like any country).
Do not wait until we have to beg people to come here, because by then it will probably be too late.
>open up easy immigration path to USA for those with advanced degrees (MS/PhD in science/technology) from world's accredited universities.
AKA How to create diploma mills in one easy step.
AKA How to create diploma mills in one easy step.
>>for those with advanced degrees (MS/PhD in science/technology) from world's accredited universities
no, there should be a list of accredited universities - problem solved! (Insead, MC Gill, Oxford, MSU, UCL ... top schools !) If USA can steal that kinda of talent on a routine basis, can you imagine the things we can do for the economy/politicies/society?
no, there should be a list of accredited universities - problem solved! (Insead, MC Gill, Oxford, MSU, UCL ... top schools !) If USA can steal that kinda of talent on a routine basis, can you imagine the things we can do for the economy/politicies/society?
As someone who's been involved with university recruiting, it's clear to me that even great schools run moneymaker degree mill programs. There are degree mill programs in Top 5 CS schools because people from overseas are willing to pay substantially for the credential (and OPT).
Are you telling me Mc Gill or Oxford or Insead, for instance, are going to put their name on a crappy diploma where person is completely clueless? Come on!
Create a list of best ranked foreign universities and make an easy path for their graduates to come to USA / look for work / start families and and eventually naturalize if they want to.
USA should really use the opportunity where Europe and other parts of the world are unstable and they have a pool of good brains/talents looking to potentially escape those places.
Look at Russia for instance - they lost top brains in science in the late 80-90's due to instability in the country. Where are these guys today? Running science labs at universities/companies in USA/Europe and all over the world. Where is Russia today? Completely screwed and not able to replenish the talent pool. Do you think they do not wish today that they had paid their professors or grad students a bit more than 10$/month to keep them from leaving the country back in the 90's?
How would history develop if Sergei Brin's family was not allowed to get an entry visa to USA? (personally i do not think that google would exist today here or in russia).
The situation with immigration today is unprecedented. USA is given free golden ticket and it does not want to take it.
Create a list of best ranked foreign universities and make an easy path for their graduates to come to USA / look for work / start families and and eventually naturalize if they want to.
USA should really use the opportunity where Europe and other parts of the world are unstable and they have a pool of good brains/talents looking to potentially escape those places.
Look at Russia for instance - they lost top brains in science in the late 80-90's due to instability in the country. Where are these guys today? Running science labs at universities/companies in USA/Europe and all over the world. Where is Russia today? Completely screwed and not able to replenish the talent pool. Do you think they do not wish today that they had paid their professors or grad students a bit more than 10$/month to keep them from leaving the country back in the 90's?
How would history develop if Sergei Brin's family was not allowed to get an entry visa to USA? (personally i do not think that google would exist today here or in russia).
The situation with immigration today is unprecedented. USA is given free golden ticket and it does not want to take it.
That is a catch-all argument against basically anything. So my catch-all response: "Obviously. So what? Not a super hard problem to fix."
Compared to 2009-2011, when I saw most of European startups dreaming of going to the Silicon Valley or East Coast, the tide indeed has changed and many are building their companies now in their home countries, with no wish to even think of going to the US.
As a serial entrepreneur, I consider China to be awesome right now. Not only is cash easier than ever to get (perfect storm of low domestic interest rates, government outbound forex controls, stock market scares, private sector domestic financial institution mismanagement and bankruptcies, and the widely recognized end of the era of easy real estate sector profits: the previous go-to for parking domestic assets), but overheads are low and the country has the world's most efficient supply-chain[0] (~2-3 days for anything, 24x7x365) for almost any electronics or components (perfect for hardware startups), a central location in Asia and a huge domestic market. On the flip side, international internet can be a drag (slow) and a stable visa situation, while achievable, affordable and essentially permanently secure (unlike most western countries), takes a few months to settle.
At my current startup[1] we are currently locking down a rental agreement on an office and may use the rest of the space (significant) to re-start a local makerspace concept that failed to get enough fiscal traction last year.[2] If anyone out there is working on a hardware project and looking for a low-cost base of operations, we can give you a home. In time I would love to transition to an incubator.
Previously I worked in the US (establishing the first foreign office of a London startup), for the US remotely (new SF-based startup), in the UK, China and Australia. I feel the US has a great ecosystem for investment but this is largely outweighed by hassles on visas, litigation, cost and zero life-stability for non green card holders with families. The UK is simply expensive (also with visa hassles) and other than fintech or UK university-related research spinoffs seems sub-optimal. Australia is very strong on research but overheads, lack of VC and a small and widely dispersed domestic market mean that commercialization remains a bigger hurdle than it needs to be.
[0] http://taobao.com/ [1] http://8-food.com/ [2] http://cave.pratyeka.org/
At my current startup[1] we are currently locking down a rental agreement on an office and may use the rest of the space (significant) to re-start a local makerspace concept that failed to get enough fiscal traction last year.[2] If anyone out there is working on a hardware project and looking for a low-cost base of operations, we can give you a home. In time I would love to transition to an incubator.
Previously I worked in the US (establishing the first foreign office of a London startup), for the US remotely (new SF-based startup), in the UK, China and Australia. I feel the US has a great ecosystem for investment but this is largely outweighed by hassles on visas, litigation, cost and zero life-stability for non green card holders with families. The UK is simply expensive (also with visa hassles) and other than fintech or UK university-related research spinoffs seems sub-optimal. Australia is very strong on research but overheads, lack of VC and a small and widely dispersed domestic market mean that commercialization remains a bigger hurdle than it needs to be.
[0] http://taobao.com/ [1] http://8-food.com/ [2] http://cave.pratyeka.org/
From your experience in terms of money, entrepreneurship, lifestyle, and research... which is a safer option between Edinburgh and Melbourne?
Let's not pretend the author doesn't have an ulterior motive.
"I was one of the first to outsource software development to Russia in the early '90s. I was one of the first to use H-1B visas to bring workers to the U.S.A.," Wadhwa says. "Why did I do that? Because it was cheaper." That tactic is even more lucrative for corporations today, says Wadhwa: "When you have a person on H-1B waiting for a green card, you have them captive for six to 10 years."
http://www.cio.com/article/2437741/outsourcing/the-next-wave...
"I was one of the first to outsource software development to Russia in the early '90s. I was one of the first to use H-1B visas to bring workers to the U.S.A.," Wadhwa says. "Why did I do that? Because it was cheaper." That tactic is even more lucrative for corporations today, says Wadhwa: "When you have a person on H-1B waiting for a green card, you have them captive for six to 10 years."
http://www.cio.com/article/2437741/outsourcing/the-next-wave...
If things are so great and looking up in China, why do Chinese millionaires send their kids and families to USA/Canada? Why do they buy up the majority of real estate in New York, Boston, San Francisco, Vancouver, London?
When I've asked people from China why they put up with the hassle, the answer has been - they want their kids to be Americans. It's really pretty impressive.
Buying real estate is a hedge strategy. You might as well; productive investment is treated shabbily ( in terms of returns) in this economy.
Buying real estate is a hedge strategy. You might as well; productive investment is treated shabbily ( in terms of returns) in this economy.
Sure money laundering and legalizing it in the USA etc by buying real estate in USA/Great Britain / Canada is the thing to do today. Pretty simple scheme thats being completely ignored by the FEDs today. They'd rather chase after some pathetic shoe bombers.
I think we should tax the ... fire out of them. Is that ...chauvinistic? SFAIK, I cannot buy land in Mexico at any price. They got burned and banned it.
So, I'm going to get down voted for this, but as a US citizen, I don't want there to be more H1B status workers granted. They are my direct competition as a new graduate. Bringing them in here drives down the cost of labor for software engineering because most of the timer those status workers don't have leverage and will accept a below market salary or wages. Yes, I know it's been stated at huge companies like Facebook that the H1B holders get paid the same, that can't possibly be true for all the companies that hire software engineers.
What about Australia guys?... Recently I got an offer from university of Melbourne (Msc in CS), and i am deciding whether to accept or not. My main area of Interest is NLP/ML and I am interested in a professor's research, that was my main interest in the university…. However, i do not know if Australia and Melbourne will give me the opportunity of develop into the tech scene (is there a tech scene in Melbourne?)… My options are a two fold... to wait a year and apply to the USA or to the UK or to take Melbourne alternative?.
The Australian tech scene is ok - it isn't Silicon Valley, but nowhere is.
Sydney has more action than Melbourne, but it's only a half-hour away.
Sydney has more action than Melbourne, but it's only a half-hour away.
It isn't a problem, it is the effect of the rest of the world's economy growing up. We are getting smaller and that is a good thing globally. Instead more Americans need to be focusing outward.
[deleted]
I would propose that fewer American entrepreneurs would say they need the U.S. as well. The world is globalizing—and I think that's a good thing.
That is a good thing. USA's ridiculous immigration norms is a big problem.
Really? How so?
Bring it on! The more in this party the merrier.
If other countries want to create competing systems in similar markets, fantastic, it can only create more innovation and ideas.
If other countries want to create competing systems in similar markets, fantastic, it can only create more innovation and ideas.
> America’s most innovative company
Apple?
Apple?
Microsoft is a strong contender for this title now that their teams are no longer constrained by a narrow focus on Windows.
It's hard to imagine any company making consumer devices or software is really the most innovative. Innovative to me means changing the way a society behaves. Uber is a great example despite all the negative things that could be said about them. Tesla is another.
The introduction of the iphone made everyone in a public space look downwards instead of forwards...
But seriously, Apple has done more than Uber has. Uber's function is just a different form of taxi - they haven't changed the way the public behaves. Big-screen smartphones have.
But seriously, Apple has done more than Uber has. Uber's function is just a different form of taxi - they haven't changed the way the public behaves. Big-screen smartphones have.
The first iPhone only barely beat to market theHTC Dream. It was very similar to the iPhone in terms of being a modern smart phone, and the way we use smart phones today would not be that much different or that much less common if the iPhone never existed.
If there was a bigger gap between the iPhone and HTC Dream, you could maybe make an argument that one influenced the other. But that's not really the case.
If it wasn't for the first ride-sharing company like Uber getting successful, we could have very well seen another decade+ of shitty taxi cabs.
If there was a bigger gap between the iPhone and HTC Dream, you could maybe make an argument that one influenced the other. But that's not really the case.
If it wasn't for the first ride-sharing company like Uber getting successful, we could have very well seen another decade+ of shitty taxi cabs.
.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12490501 and marked it off-topic.
> We do not pay H1B's less.
According to some people I know (they are all on H1B) typically H1B offer is 10-15% less than average at software big corp such as Microsoft and Google.
According to some people I know (they are all on H1B) typically H1B offer is 10-15% less than average at software big corp such as Microsoft and Google.
That may not be completely true. All H1Bs I know make 10-15% more. At some point - we need to accept that US has broken education and health system. And don't have enough talent to fill all the positions. H1B is cheap - is indeed true, but that is not the fundamental problem.
[deleted]
> I have hired at a company like Google and we want to hire the best person period.
The law is that the H1-B is supposed to be used in those (rare) cases where there are no Americans that can do the job. Frequently "the best person to do the job" is loaded with subjectivity. But also, it is against the law.
The law is that the H1-B is supposed to be used in those (rare) cases where there are no Americans that can do the job. Frequently "the best person to do the job" is loaded with subjectivity. But also, it is against the law.
Cost of the paperwork is laughable. It's probably sometimes less than paying a recruiter's commission.
Maybe the hiring salary is on par with other engineers, but later on it is easy to never touch this salary since the non-immigrant worker is bound to staying with Google or be deported.
Maybe the hiring salary is on par with other engineers, but later on it is easy to never touch this salary since the non-immigrant worker is bound to staying with Google or be deported.
> since the non-immigrant worker is bound to staying with Google or be deported.
Why do people keep repeating this? It's not true. You can totally change employers on an H1 (I've done it twice). It just takes longer; 4 weeks to transfer your visa + 2 weeks notice. Your hypothetical Google H1 has recruiters contacting him/her day and night.
Why do people keep repeating this? It's not true. You can totally change employers on an H1 (I've done it twice). It just takes longer; 4 weeks to transfer your visa + 2 weeks notice. Your hypothetical Google H1 has recruiters contacting him/her day and night.
I used to be on a H1B and changed employer 3 times, I'm well aware that it is possible.
But having a H1B comes with a stigma, not all companies are willing to get involved with a new petition.
And let's burst the myth of the "grace period", it doesn't exist. If you're fired you have literally 24 hours to leave the country. There is no "2 week grace period" to find a new employer. So yes, it is possible to find a new job, but it makes it very difficult to fight back when you're asked to work nights/weekends for example.
But having a H1B comes with a stigma, not all companies are willing to get involved with a new petition.
And let's burst the myth of the "grace period", it doesn't exist. If you're fired you have literally 24 hours to leave the country. There is no "2 week grace period" to find a new employer. So yes, it is possible to find a new job, but it makes it very difficult to fight back when you're asked to work nights/weekends for example.
I am willing to guess that turn-over rate from immigrant workers is considerably less than the average american, all things considered.
.
Introducing 65,000 new workers each year, and lobbying to increase, or even lift, this CAP is definitely a way to drive salaries down.
Differences in salary are negligible? Well, then let's give a 10% raise to all engineers employed by Google, would that work?
It's not just about paying H1Bs less than American workers, it's about keeping salaries low for these very workers as well.
Differences in salary are negligible? Well, then let's give a 10% raise to all engineers employed by Google, would that work?
It's not just about paying H1Bs less than American workers, it's about keeping salaries low for these very workers as well.
In economics, Google, Microsoft, Intel, Facebook, Apple have what are called "monopolist rents" a form of "economic rent" which mean because of the nature of their product they get higher profits than they would in an efficient market.
A result is that the leadership of these firms are worth tens of billions of dollars in the case of Google (two leaders), Microsoft, Facebook). Instead of sharing the benefit of the "monopolistic rents" the leadership hire H1-B visas and also colluded with each other to keep tech labor rates low.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
A result is that the leadership of these firms are worth tens of billions of dollars in the case of Google (two leaders), Microsoft, Facebook). Instead of sharing the benefit of the "monopolistic rents" the leadership hire H1-B visas and also colluded with each other to keep tech labor rates low.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
I think that what's lacking in the american system is the recognition of "normal" entrepreneurs, those making $200 dollars at a time, and growing their high-potential tech-product business from $0 to $1M in 5 years. In the UK, and in most places in Europe, an immigrant can take a job, change job, build a business on the side, and then manage the business full-time. In the american system, this is not possible :
- If you come as a worker you are stuck in the H1B system where changing employer is a pain, starting a company requires sophisticated immigration layers, and the path to the green card often takes one decade or more - which entrepreneur with a burning idea in his mind would accept that ?
- Otherwise, coming as an entrepreneur directly, requires $$$ which young people with creativity and energy simply do not have yet.
The american system works fine as soon as you are backed by venture capital but is at present time not very welcoming for creative and talented people without deep pockets. This lack of exhaustivity is the issue. As far as I am concerned, I've been successful in the UK and am setting up an operation in the US now that I have the dollars. However I have decided to keep my headquarters and the bulk of my operations in the UK. Therefore I totally understand the feelings of the people quoted in the article who applied for a US visa a few years ago and are today saying "Why would I even go there ?"
The US should really not underestimate the long-term destructive potential of this phenomenon.
This situation is a dramatic departure from the original immigration spirit of the US which used to welcome creative immigrants with $0 in their pockets dreaming of success. These people were largely influential in building the wealthy nation we know today but the country seems to be kind of losing what made them great in the first place. Perhaps this is the time to Make America Great Again.
(Sorry, too tempting)