Hacker News Reader

Comment by frgtpsswrdlame | Hacker News Reader

Reading these comments it seems like where you land depends on whether you believe there are lots of Americans who have the drive/willingness to found their own company. If so then constraining the visa makes sense because VCs already have a large supply of business. Similar to the H1B debate where we recognize that companies don't really care about immigration, they just want better employees for cheaper, this debate's core is that VCs just want to be able to fund better companies for cheaper. I'd say I'm fine with Trump tossing this Visa in the trash. Silicon Valley is an American creation so I don't mind if its benefits go to Americans.

View on HN

About 50% of the biggest Silicon Valley companies were created by immigrants, so I’d be careful before claiming that Silicon Valley is an “American” invention and that the value should accrue to “Americans,” unless your definition of “American” includes immigrants.

If an immigrant comes here and starts a company or helps make a company successful even the native-born Americans are better off. IMO that’s the most American thing that can possibly happen, and if we should be terrified at the thought of it happening somewhere else instead.

What percentage were created by H1Bs? I think you're conflating "immigrant" with "H1B visa holder". The two are not the same. Many of us who are critical of H1B and similar visa programs are very much in support of immigration in general.

> What percentage were created by H1Bs?

Well H-1Bs are generally prohibited from doing any paid work outside their current employer. So it would be a miracle if that number was non-zero. But it's still not. Zenefits co-founder Laks Srini had to be hired as a database administrator on an H-1B so that he could leave his previous employer [1].

It seems unfair to say people on visa programs don't become entrepreneurs when, in most cases, they legally aren't allowed to.

1. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2852250/it-outsourcing...

People complaining about H1B visa aren't (generally) complaining about the people on the visas themselves, they are complaining about the system of H1B visas itself.

I don't love the way H1Bs are structured either, but the notion that "Americans created it we should keep it" is silly.

Of course, H1Bs can't start companies, so that's not a very good way to look at things - if you don't legally allow category x to do y how many xs are going to do y? A better question is how many could.

But let's just talk about employees. I know I've worked at companies in the past in which the backbone of the work (not all of it, but an important part) was done by H1Bs, and we wouldn't have been able to complete that work and be solvent without the (brilliant) folks that had come over on H1Bs doing it. Those, say, 25 H1B jobs created jobs for hundreds of other folks.

So I'm just wary of thinking that everything is a zero sum game or that immigration is "taking jobs" of "Americans."

And you wonder why companies can't be assed to re-train the workforce.

Because training is expensive and hard and not what companies have traditionally done.

I run a school, and we have had employers pay for training of dozens of employees. It happens quite frequently.

US companies used to always train their employees. It was the cost of doing business.

The reason they do not do so now is because employees, for obvious reasons, have no loyalty to companies, and tend to jump ship after being trained. But again, this is because US companies changed from a lifetime model of employment to layoffs and offshoring for quarterly stock bumps.

Force companies to use domestic labor, create a culture where employees aren't constantly worried they'll be canned the next time sales are low, and I bet you'll get good employees who would be willing to learn and stay for the long-term.

Worth it? I doubt it.

It's a supply chain issue. Software engineer demand might spike unexpectedly, and for startups, that might mean growing from a handful of employees to a hundred in a short period of time.

Can that startup afford to relocate or remotely train a couple hundred out of work Americans for say, a year, pick the top half of those, and offer them packages?

Maybe? Would a year's training be enough? I don't know, but I doubt it's cost effective for spiky demand in labor.

This sort of supply issue should best be solved by the government, which has a vested interest in the employment of its taxpayers, or an NGO or some other organization. Not the companies in question.

There might be a reason for many of those not being H1B holders. If you are H1B holder your ability to stay in country is tightly bond to your employer. You are completely dependent on your employment to stay legally in US and hardly have any wiggle room where you can quit your job and try entrepreneurship for a while if nothing works out go back to applying for another job. The visa policies should be in place for both of the cases where deserving people from other countries get funding and deserving americans get jobs at fair compensations.

Elon Musk was on a H1B when he started his first company.

>>What percentage were created by H1Bs?

Start ups are largely built on sweat equity. The kind of monthly salary most H1Bs generally work on. That comes with a risk. Most immigrants take it anyway because they start from 0 and you can only grow from there. If enough people do this enough number of times, eventually the system will always product a Google or Microsoft.

So ultimately its about who is ready to work for cheap.

I don't think it's straightforward to create a company with a H1B, because of a chicken and egg problem.

Typically you create it with an E2, which let you issue E2 visas for 3-4 other people. Then either you die, sell, or start issuing J1, later converted in H1B. H1B is generally too risky, being bound to a lottery, and that's the last thing you want at an early stage startup.

You can start a company on H1B as a minority shareholder, it's technically feasible.

And how many are immigrants because of a program like this? When we call that 51% number we're including people like Musk and Thiel.

I really, really want to stress this: this program and VCs support of it has nothing to do with helping immigrants. There are tons of people already here who are immigrants and who want to start companies. This program exists purely to allow VCs to buy more equity with less. It's about driving American investment down because american equity is expensive relative to the rest of the world.

I don't understand your point about Elon Musk and why he shouldn't be included in the the 51%?

he can be considered second generation immigrant - thiel was very young when he moved. For musk, it's different, he seem to have come to states at a later age.

Because he didn't need a program like this to come here and found a company. My problem is that we're conflating the immigrants who will be brought here by the rule in the article with all immigrants who found companies. We've got 51% immigrant founding of Billion-Dollar+ companies already, VCs invest in immigrant founded companies already, America is already a great place for immigrant founders. The goal of this rule is not to help immigrants, it's to create them and its goal in creating them is to make it so VCs can buy equity cheaper. That is going to make it harder for everybody, immigrants included, who is already here and wants to acquire funding for their company.

Musk literally came here (and stayed in school) in hopes of getting an H1-B. He was on that path because it was the only way.

And yet he never got one, right? Regardless he certainly didn't need this International Entrepreneuer Rule. It sounds like Musk was perfectly able to found American companies and gain American citizenship without these special rules.

He did, reportedly. H1B -> EB2-Green Card -> U.S Citizen

He noted that he used several "grey areas" in order to get citizenship, effectively bending laws in ways they weren't meant to be used.

I know this is going to be incredibly unpopular but I'm against "grey areas" if that's an illusion to illegal immigration behavior. If that means Musk wouldn't have started his companies here, that's fine with me (tbh I don't think he could have founded them anywhere else.) There are plenty of americans who may have had a PayPal or Tesla level idea but just never got funding. I'd rather that VCs go hunt for those guys.

You really think that Tesla and SpaceX would have been started by someone else if Elon Musk weren't around?

I don't think that's true at all. The notion that if Elon Musk weren't around VCs would have given the cash to the next person in line who would have started those companies seems to just be patently false.

How about instead of forcing Musk to not start his company because our immigration laws are a little bit backwards we open them up and invite in all the other would-be Elon Musks?

>You really think that Tesla and SpaceX would have been started by someone else if Elon Musk weren't around?

I think similar companies would have been founded yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_private_s...

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40887273/ns/business-autos/t/new-c...

>I don't think that's true at all. The notion that if Elon Musk weren't around VCs would have given the cash to the next person in line who would have started those companies seems to just be patently false.

I don't see how you can declare that patently false. VCs like electric cars and space companies and there are others in the space so I'm sure they would be funded. Besides it's not just VC money Musk is sucking up, it's also billions in government subsidies. If Musk wasn't sucking up all this cheap money others would be.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-2015...

>How about instead of forcing Musk to not start his company because our immigration laws are a little bit backwards we open them up and invite in all the other would-be Elon Musks?

How about instead of inviting in a bunch of cheap Elon Musks from other countries we put a little bit of work into finding the Elon Musks that already exist here? Also, our immigration laws aren't backwards.

If there's another Elon Musk out there, I promise you VCs are throwing money at him.

This is our real difference, I have no such optimism. I believe there are probably hundreds of completely unknown Elon Musks in america right now, we've just done a horrible job at cultivating and finding human capital in our own country.

And I believe that for every Elon Musk in the United States there are 10 that are ready to come to the United States.

I also don't believe that capital is the sole limiting factor in finding these folks.

I guess I don't care that much what the limiting factor is. Finding the ones that exist in our own country is more important than importing cheap ones. I'll admit to having nationalistic tendencies though, we oughtta take care of our own Elons before we start worrying about the ones in other countries.

Sure, but let's cut back all our other immigration first.

I think this really depends on the kind of businesses that VCs are pursuing. Many of the current wave of startups are directed at turning the poor into an app-directed servant class, or otherwise making their lives more difficult by intensifying problems like housing instability (e.g. AirBNB).

It becomes a zero sum game when the object is maximize the exploitation and vulnerability of the labor force. You’re right to say that it’s not an issue of immigrants vs natives. But rich vs. the poor in the US is becoming very “us against them.”

creating jobs is not exploitation, it's opportunity.

And that kind of thinking about work is dogma, not reasoned consideration.

It depends on the job, and it depends on the pay.

a permanent resident immigrant is definitely an American. it's important to distinguish between temporary guest workers and Americans who were born somewhere else.

It's worth calling out that a lot of "temporary guest workers" in SV are Indian and Chinese nationals who are "in line" to get permanent residence. It just happens that the line for India and China is really long: on the order of 9 years for Indian or Chinese masters degree holders (degrees from American unis), compared to less than 2 years for someone from another country.

A permanent resident is a green card holder not an American. It is difficult to obtain that status without a visa to begin with.

Really? That's for one a weak argument. But even if we consider that at face value, there are plenty of immigrants who "created" silicon valley. It was not entirely an American creation - if by American, you make it to mean some version of how many generations someone has been here.

>Really? That's for one a weak argument.

Then lay it out.

>But even if we consider that at face value, there are plenty of immigrants who "created" silicon valley.

After we hash this out we can debate how many grains of sand compose a pile too. It's plainly American.

>It was not entirely an American creation - if by American, you make it to mean some version of how many generations someone has been here.

How about we define American like this: someone who has no other country but America. I have absolutely no problem saying that VCs which have survived and thrived in large part because they exist in America should consider Americans first and should help American kids, not purely use our country as a homebase to go out and snipe the cheapest equity opportunities possible from around the world. Pay it back guys.

> How about we define American like this: someone who has no other country but America.

As someone with a dual citizen parent (well, next year anyway), you just excluded my parents from the definition of "American", despite my family being here since the early 1800s. I'm certain that's not what you meant.

A third theory is that zero sum thinking is wrong.

Like it is possible that issuing H-1Bs can be better for Americans in general than issuing no H-1Bs. It depends on the total costs and benefits, not just the costs to the Americans that end up competing with H-1B holders for jobs.

This assumes the greater wealth generated by that superior & cheaper H1B visa holder reaches the majority of Americans, which doesn't seem to be occurring.

I dunno, technology goods continue to drop in price and awful lot of America benefits when the S&P 500 ticks up. A decent treatment of the effects would have to address those points (among many others).

But I don't assume anything in my above comment, I point out a possibility. Note the "it is possible" and "It depends".

> I dunno, technology goods continue to drop in price

Well that's just not true for most large enterprise offerings which is where the majority of h1bs wind up.

In context I was talking about the impact of the H-1B program on typical Americans.

Do you think the everyman is getting hammered by enterprise software shops?

I think the average American could do just as good of a job as the H1b developers working for large enterprise shops (I.e. most h1b visa holders).

As such it is directly taking jobs from Americans without benefiting them.

It is even worse because most of these jobs are entry level and could help drastically increase the number of highly skilled American tech workers.

And because of the way the h1b visa is abused a lot of niche companies who actually face a talent shortage can't get the talent they need.

Not if they stubbornly refuse to move from their rural communities.

If people continue to ignore the wellbeing of rural midwest states, those states will continue to vote for antiglobalist candidates. If globalization is as important as most here makes it sound, we need to implement it in a manner that doesn't hurt nearly half of the population.

On a social justice level, I agree with you, but I want to point out that for the folks who are actually globalists, the "population" is 7 billion humans, and the 150 million rural & small town Americans are a rounding error (just over 2%, or roughly half the population of Internet Explorer users). That's why it's important to secure the rights of minorities in any system of government.

The issue here is that we don't live in a global government, but a national one. The government is elected by American citizens, and if a huge chunk of American citizens are experiencing a declining quality of life, they will vote for a change candidate.

Sure. I'm just saying that the current situation - where ~5% of the world's population has gotten used to a standard of living far in excess of their productive capacity because they were the only developed country left standing after WW2 - is a very unstable equilibrium. Either we're eclipsed as a nation by China (pop 1.379B) or India (pop 1.324B), each 20% of the world; or the whole concept of nationhood falls apart, and we get city-states in a global trade confederation; or we end up lobbing nukes at every major population center and suddenly the world population is 100M instead of 7B. All of these I'd consider to be bad outcomes, but if I had to choose between them, I'd prefer the second.

The idea that America's going to continue to be on top of the world for the next 20-30 years is unrealistic, though, barring some major technological development that makes each American 5 times as effective as the corresponding foreigner. That's part of the point of this visa program, I guess, to ensure that that technological breakthrough happens here rather than elsewhere.

> where ~5% of the world's population has gotten used to a standard of living far in excess of their productive capacity

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

We have an incredible excess of production capability.

Housing is cheaper and faster to build than ever. So is most infrastructure.

American factories are so labor efficient these days that if there was demand they could easily double or triple output over the next 5-10 years.

The real loss would be long term as there would be fewer great minds and innovators.

I don't see why Silicon Valley has any obligation to subsidize rural America. Those farm subsidies are only going to go so far but beyond that there has to be some self-sufficiency.

It's not just the H1Bs that are the problem. The bigger issue is the insane wait for Green cards for Indians and Chinese.

How can they compete effectively in the labour market with that damocles sword hanging over their heads?

I have no hope regarding a real reform in that direction. Too many moneyed interests want to keep the mess going.

Silicon valley might have been an American creation, but it has thrived due to immigrant founders. Please don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

permanent resident immigrants are Americans.

Legally, they are not; naturalized citizens are Americans, permanent resident aliens remain aliens.

There's certainly an argument to be made that they concept of a “permanent resident alien” is a an elaborate circumlocution for “disenfranchized citizen”, and that permanent residence and citizenship ought to be intrinsically linked (not saying I necessarily agree, but I've certainly seen a reasonable argument made), but there is a difference between ought to be and is.

Isn't a permanent resident immigrant somebody who has a green card? Surely to be considered American you need to be a citizen, which is separate from a green card.

I'm not american so very open to being wrong on this.

The title at the top of every "green card" is "Resident Alien".

This hasn’t been true for a very long time (1997). I-551 Permanent Resident Cards issued since 2010 are labelled as “United States of America / Permanent Resident”, the word “alien” is not present on the document at all.

Sorry. I haven't seen one in years. It had been the case for decades.

> permanent resident immigrants are Americans

They're also immigrants. We're debating curbs on immigration. If those curbs continue to be implemented, people like those immigrants will not be future Americans.

That's just a green card.

It's far from citizenship.

In the American immigration system, permantent resident status is the final step before citizenship and permanent residents enjoy almost entirely the same rights as citizens, with a few notable exceptions. They’re absolutely not the same thing but permanent residence is not far from citizenship at all, permanent residents are effectively candidates for citizenship.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com