Hacker News Reader

Comment by davemc500hats | Hacker News Reader

it is likely the case that rqmt #1 -- that is, the creation of at least 5 full-time jobs in the US -- will easily be met by most entrepreneurs if they have any shred of competence and/or economic viability.

the rest of your argument is perhaps interesting from a theoretical standpoint, but not likely very relevant from a practical perspective.

it's very simple: create 5 full-time jobs in the US in 2 years time, and you get to stay. if you can't do that, at least get to break-even on $1M in revenue. if you can't do THAT, then find an investor willing to back you for another $1M every 2 years.

the rqmts are quite lenient and reasonable. the fate of the entrepreneur is very much in their own hands (& heads).

View on HN

There are no restrictions on the kinds of jobs created? In other words, it's acceptable to create 5 minimum wage jobs?

I'm not saying that's a problem, but it certainly makes the requirement easier to satisfy. A full time minimum wage job including taxes is just about $20k a year.

Yes, it's acceptable to create 5 minimum wage jobs. In other words, if you are sponsored by an appropriate financier, you can obtain permanent residency for approximately $100,000 per year over 3 years.

again you're missing the point of the investor participation in this equation -- it's unlikely that accredited investors and venture capitalists would risk time, capital, reputation, and criminal penalty to perpetrate such a pointless exercise.

while it's possible, it's not very likely.

we did not draft legislation to cover all possible edge cases, but rather to reasonably address common scenarios.

completely agree. moreover, even in this edge case, you're still pumping several hundred thousand dollars into the economy.

That's great. We should let anyone who can create 5 jobs into the country, regardless of whether a clique of financiers will "sponsor" them. We should let them in regardless of whether they wear pants.

well why not?

obviously we've let you into HN comments, & you're doing the equivalent of not wearing any intellectual pants... ;)

why are you quoting "sponsor"? why use "clique"? you're just trying to use specific questionable punctuation to indict a broad group of people w/o any real analysis of why their motives or ethics are in question.

job creation is likely to be a good thing. if you have specific solutions / suggestions on better ways to measure job creation effectiveness, please state them.

again, happy to argue about these topics rather than you simply ripping on the general proposal. at least we can get to constructive criticism, rather than whether you or anyone else aren't wearing pants.

I think you misinterpreted my "pants" comment. My point is, if you can create 5 jobs in the US, you shouldn't need anything, except perhaps a clean criminal record, to get a visa. You certainly shouldn't need the "sponsorship" of a "super angel investor".

Please stop taking this so personally. I'm not. How could I? I have no idea who you are.

actually, i was trying to make a joke there... wasn't taking it personally at all. (srsly, i just have a terrible bedside manner).

that said, when you cast disparaging comments on the entire class of VCs not treating entrepreneurs well, it's hard not to take it a little personal (altho i've been on both sides).

when you're stereotyping, it does hit home a little harder.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com