Why Silicon Valley Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Returning Home
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
And, by the way, what countries offer better opportunities for immigration to found start-up businesses for young people from India and China than the United States offers? What are those countries' rules about immigration? Do young people from African countries also find it easy to emigrate to those other countries? Can anyone from anywhere in the world settle in any European Union country to found a start-up high-tech business? Is it possible for foreigners to settle in China or in India to found start-up businesses? What visa rules apply to cases like that?
Funny, I was just coming to the comments page to say exactly this. The linked post is conspicuous for its lack of words like "study" or "statistics." Talking to a couple of random people does not qualify a trend that stretches to millions of people.
It's pretty obvious that the U.S. immigration system is fucked up and should be much improved. But you can't jump from that to the conclusion that so many immigrants are going home as to affect Silicon Valley.
I don't know anything about Asian immigration, but I know a very little bit about EU policies, and I don't think they're a competitive threat to us here.
The UK and Germany, the two strongest EU startup countries, both already have founders visas and there's nothing special about a foreigner owning shares in a Ltd or GmbH, the respective equivalents of a US incorporation.
Also, in my experience, founding a UK Ltd is even easier than doing a US Inc if for no other reason than that you don't have to deal with both federal and state institutions as in the US. The stuff that the Companies House sends you is super straight-forward (impressively so, other countries should take note), and can be done mostly online. Germany is (surprise!) more bureaucratic and things take a bit longer, but it's still not rocket surgery.
On the whole immigration and getting permanent residence is much easier in both countries. The UK has a point system for highly skilled immigrants, and you can get permanent residence in both in 5 years without having had to stick around at a single employer.
I'm not sure what you mean by state / fed institutions, unless you mean that you have to pay both state and federal income tax (... but so does everyone, whether or not they own a company). When we set up Matasano, the only thing I remember us having to do with fedgov was getting an EIN.
Please tell us more. That's one of the reasons I asked the question I did up above, to find out more about what other countries are doing as a guide to what policy would be beneficial for the United States.
I did some Google searching, and one person who was responding to HN discussion of this issue on a blog mentioned the United Kingdom highly skilled worker visa,
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/workingintheuk/tier1/gener...
and from that page I found out about the United Kingdom entrepreneur visa
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/workingintheuk/tier1/entre...
and the United Kingdom investor visa.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/workingintheuk/tier1/inves...
But, what, exactly, is a United Kingdom founder visa?
I found a German government website about visas and browsed around, but what exactly is a German founder visa?
Please tell us more. I'd be delighted to hear from HNers who have actually made use of something just like the proposed founder visa for the United States to immigrate to some other country, if we have such people here.
The German setup is similar, requiring the creation of at least 5 jobs and €250k in capital (though exceptions can be made, and I know some who have gotten them):
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.gtai.com/...
I personally came over on the equivalent of an H1B, which was, compared to the US, incredibly easy to obtain. Basically I had a job offer, which I'd found while in Germany on a tourist visa in Germany, and took the letter from my employer along with a couple other filled out forms up to the Foreigner's Office (Ausländeramt), and was issued a two-year visa on the spot. I'll just emphasize that again: I was granted an H1B equivalent on the same day that I applied for it. There's a bit of a song and dance of them saying that they couldn't find an EU person for the job, but that's mostly a formality that's just a matter of the person writing the employment letter knowing how to write it. After 5 years I was eligible for permanent residence, and didn't start a company until after that. Though I had two different jobs in that time, which would have reset the counter for me in the US.
This isn't to say that people don't ever get kicked out or fail to get visas – I don't think there's a country in the world where it's a joy to deal with immigration officials, but certainly comparing my own experience to folks that I've known that have done equivalent things in the US makes what I've gone through seem like a walk in the park.
No one's competing at this point to make it easier for "young people from African countries... to emigrate to those other countries". The low-hanging fruit is people of Indian/Chinese/whatever origin returning to their homeland and starting up the next big thing there, instead of the US.
In general, I agree with the article in that the US immigration policy is rather arrogant. It may have made sense at some point in the past, but with the distribution of opportunities changing, the US needs to make a better sales pitch.
There's a market to be tapped, and they seem to be doing just that. One wonders why this is even possible, and if Groupon's dropped the ball in India. Regardless, they're running a business. What's not to like?
Many Silicon Valley start-ups are incredibly derivative, but a flip is still a flip.
By opening the door and improving on what they had, even if it was a clone of something, they understood what had to be improved and finally dominated the market.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_28/b41860483...
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2240081
Basically, the program offers a $40k grant, which goes a long way in a lower cost country like Chile. Also, they model after the usual incubator stuff for helping entrepreneurs out.
Note that I said "best example I've ever seen of what a nation can do to try to attract entrepreneurs". That doesn't mean I think it's the best it could be, nor that I think it will work. I only think that it's the best I've ever seen.
If the US offered something on a similar scale (i.e. anyone accepted into ycombinator automatically gets a work visa, basically), I imagine that the US would have a huge edge in comparison. But the US isn't doing that right now, or definitely isn't advertising it worldwide like Startup Chile is trying to do.
edit: And maybe the US isn't doing that because it doesn't need to because the world still sees Silicon Valley as the peak. Time will tell. I'm only saying that if you compared policies apples to apples, and only policies, Chile's policies win out.
I can speak for my own. Because it has taken me 7 years since my initial Green Card filing, I have had to put on hold several times the idea for a startup even though I see the tremendous talent around me who I can lasso together an idea, even if there are no earth shattering ideas at the moment. The right minds do not come together that often, ideas are actually quite cheap. And as I struggle myself with whether to create a startup on an EAD (the Temp Work permit before a GC), and potentially jeopardizing my GC, I see others around me going through the same pattern. And its frustrating to say the least.
Startup Visa should have been a reality long before Immigration became all mired down in the Illegal Immigration debate.
I have been lurking, reading on these forums till now, and I thought I should speak my mind on this topic.
you don't have to look at stats to realize how frustrating this is for startup founders. anyone who has done a startup with an international cofounder (i've done one where both my cofounders were international), you know how much of a pointless hassle this is. you can look for stats on this and it may or may not show the severity of the emigration problem, but this is a real and frustrating thing to deal with. it's just the wrong thing founders should be worrying about.
personally, i don't think this will cause a major increase in emigration (although it's hard to define "major"), but you're forcing students who would prefer to do a startup to go work for a large company (one that will sponsor their visa) out of school.
Seems like the Ministry of Economy is really serious about attracting founders from outside Chile. Each founder gets a $40,000 dollar grant for a six month stay which includes some great mentoring along with basic office space. I believe there is no requirement to stay in Chile after the six months is up. I guess the Chilean government is just hoping you'll like it there so much you'll want to stay and continue to base your business there. I was a chatting with a friend just last night who lives in Santiago in Chile. He told me they are expanding the scheme this year to an intake of over 100. I have to say he made the lifestyle out there sound very tempting. He said you can live comfortably on $20,000 per year - perfect for a lean startup.
Made me seriously consider the possibility of applying and taking my new startup there:
Well that's if they'd have me of course.
The DEA has been cracking down on druggies since forever, and it's been beating the same drum ever since. Such a boring agency, find a new pet theme already. People already know drugs are bad, right? If it's not for people like Vivek, who else is going to get the attention of someone who has the political power to change the laws? All you naysayers?
The old adage holds: It doesn't matter what you good do on this planet, there will always be small % of people who attack you no matter what.
Disclosure: I went through the painful F-1, then H-1B route, and now that I have my (conditional) green card, now life begins: I'm burning my savings building a startup in Silicon Valley (hello Hacker Dojo!)
p.s. apologies for the slightly inflammatory comment, I generally don't get myself into frickin' drama on the internets, but this is a topic that hits a very very very sore spot for me, and I couldn't just not say anything.
You're accusing me of siding with him because I agree with his point. When was the last time you sided with someone you didn't agree with?
That aside, you've dragged me down into debating a point smaller than the big picture I've just pointed. But I'll entertain you.
Again. We have a big problem. Only people with power to fix it can fix it. These people aren't doing anything. We need to get their attention. To get their attention, we need both "quantity" (more people saying it) and "quality" (sell the case better). You're arguing that I'm soft on the latter.
Sure, everything in life could be better. Just 1 more penny to my stock option price. Just one CSS tweak before I won't be embarrassed to show the public my prototype. The perfection argument means people don't ship.
Right now, we need more quantity. All these attacks on Vivek is hardly encouraging to the masses that reads it to also voice up and help with quantity. I'm not saying quality is not necessary. I'm pointing out that people are so focused on nitpicking on the finer details, but I don't see them getting of their lazy asses and doing anything about it that's actually moves the needle.
It's so easy being an arm-chair analyst. Let's see the naysayers do better than Vivek. Don't just say it - prove it. All this bickering don't do shit. Show me the money. Like in startups, everything's an assumption/hypothesis until you prove it.
I don't mean to sound hostile or bicker. I'm just saying, this is how influencing people works. If you want people to believe something, you need to convince them, not count on them to convince themselves. If your argument is unconvincing, it's in your interest to fix that, not berate people for noticing its weaknesses. Think of it like selling investors on your startup.
If you want to change things, making a strong case that convinces people they need to invest in your cause is probably a more efficient route than fumbling in front of a greater number of VCs. With a few exceptions, people who stand on street corners shouting things that they can't prove tend to destroy their credibility.
How many times can you beat a dead horse ?
We get it. America is "losing it's edge" to emerging markets.
His articles have always been disappointing to me, as someone who has been through the immigration process and hoped that maybe he had more detailed figures to backup his assertions - which would help my case.
But he often doesn't.
[] unless you have the power to change the law or do something to actually substantially help, rather than just complaining because there's one entry on HN today that didn't meet your liking.
Folks who don't get h1b or green cards often apply for Australia, U.K or Canada. Recent additions to the list are Germany, Scandinavian countries(petroleum), Dubai, Singapore, brazil. Many of these countries offer a comparable standard of living, and government incentives for immigration and establishment of businesses. Also some cities in india and china are fast becoming vc magnets. There may be a day soon when venture capital too gets Bangalored.
I came to this country (US) more than 20 years ago. The I.N.S. (Immigration and Naturalization Service) were as big dicks then as they are now. Nothing has changed. It's just plain old government bureaucracy; but in this instance, their clients can't vote either, so there's no fear of a backlash.
And yet, despite the INS's dickitude, the country churns out startups like crazy.
Why did the founder of Chatroulette move here, instead of China or India? I'll give you why: pound for pound, it is way easier to come to America, register your startup and get rolling than in any other country, bar none. (Aside: do read DeSoto's "The Mystery of Capital" if you get a chance).
Heck, why is Vivek Wadhwa in this country? Why isn't he in India, if things are so great there? I'll tell you why: because when all is said and done, there is NO country on earth as welcoming and safe for immigrants as the USA, bar none.
I have friends who've gone back to India. Most of them went for a variety of reasons; chiefly among them being family.
And I also know some who went back because their H1B visas expired; but you know what? It is good to see that. Just like seeds from a flower spread far and wide with the wind, I hope the seeds of entrepreneurship spread far and wide; the world needs more entrepreneurs. Silicon Valley has more than enough.
Okay... so...? Did you wait 10 years for a Green Card while in immigration limbo? Do you even know the difference between then and now?
>And yet, despite the INS's dickitude, the country churns out startups like crazy.
So enough is enough? Will more hurt, esp with 10% unemployment? Maybe we should shutdown some VCs as well, since there are enough startups.
AFAIK the Chatroulette founder was on a temp visa and was exploring options for a longer term visa. Can you reference how he 'moved' here?
>And I also know some who went back because their H1B visas expired; but you know what? It is good to see that. Just like seeds from a flower spread far and wide with the wind, I hope the seeds of entrepreneurship spread far and wide; the worlds needs more entrepreneurs. Silicon Valley has more than enough.
Your argument doesn't make sense. According to you the US/Silicon Valley is the best place to breed startups.. but you want the potential founders to go elsewhere where they might not have the best chances. Does not compute.
First, that it's hard to take seriously the idea that inept immigration policies are creating a real threat to the US, because it's still so far ahead of the curve on entrepreneurship.
Secondly, that it's not a human tragedy that people are being forced by circumstances to leave the US, because those people are likely to start companies in their home countries. It would be a good thing for the world if there was more entrepeneurship everywhere, not just where there is the least friction to practicing it.
Restrictions on a work visa holder:
1) Your spouse cannot work at all unless she qualifies and obtains a specialized H1 herself/himself 2) If you get fired on a Friday, you're technically out of status from a legal point from Saturday and must leave immediately regardless of spouse,rent leases, homes, cars, pets, kids, kids' schools, personal property etc. 3) You and your spouse and kids cannot have any supplemental active income. This rules out selling photographs on stock photo sites, phone apps, etc. You can basically do nothing productive that earns money outside your job. 4) If you move to a different job or even change roles, you have to reapply for the Green Card process from the scratch. Expect multiyear delays just to get back to where you were. 5) If you or your spouse wants to visit your home country or travel outside the country, expect to get stuck there for months for no good reasons. It has become so bad that immigration lawyers are advising not to travel internationally except for emergencies. You're basically stuck in the country.
See one example:
Consulate Location - MUMBAI Interview Date - 26 AUGUST 2010 Docs asked? - None Docs submitted? None Docs submitted Date - N/A Email Receipt Date - NOV 23, 2010 Passport Submission Date - same day as that of interview Passport Stamped/Received Date - RECEIVED WITHOUT STAMPING AFTER 15 DAYS
RECEIVED 2ND EMAIL ON DEC 15, 2010 TO SUBMIT PASSPORT
AGAIN RECEIVED MY PASSPORT WITHOUT STAMPING
Waiting Since (in calendar days) - 170 DAYS
Petition Details:
Employer Type - AMERICAN , NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION Employer Size - more than 5,000 Assignment Type - DIRECT I-797 Approval Date - 01-JULY 2010
6) Processing of applications takes forever. You can be stuck without a driving license(no renewal) in some states while your extension is pending. Imagine having to go to work with no driving license. Paying an extra $1225 in no-delay fees can speed up the process in a few cases.
Edit:
7) Taxes: You get to pay all the taxes including Social Security and Medicare(employers also have to match this) and state unemployment taxes(one won't see a cent of this because one is supposed to leave as soon as they're unemployed).
There was a recent bill that increased the fee of some type of work visa applications by $2000 to fund... wait for it... the Mexican border security!
I waited 11 years, if it makes you feel better. And yes, I do know the difference between then and now. And you know why it's worse now? Because the demand is much higher! So, despite the INS's dickitude and the so-called "broken" immigration policies, MORE people are wanting to come here.
> So enough is enough? Will more hurt, esp with 10% unemployment? Maybe we should shutdown some VCs as well, since there are enough startups.
You need to comprehend before responding. The immigration system was as broken 20 years ago as it is today. During boom times it's broken; during bust times it is broken. During the dot-com boom, it was broken, and yet the dot-com boom still happened. It is a constant; you just route around it.
> Your argument doesn't make sense. According to you the US/Silicon Valley is the best place to breed startups.. but you want the potential founders to go elsewhere where they might not have the best chances. Does not compute.
It "does not compute" because you're not reading, just responding. I'm not saying that the founders should "go somewhere else". I'm saying that if they do choose to "go somewhere else", then that is not a bad thing; in fact, it has a lot of positive aspects to it. SV will be just fine.
>You need to comprehend before responding. The immigration system was as broken 20 years ago as it is today. During boom times it's broken; during bust times it is broken. During the dot-com boom, it was broken, and yet the dot-com boom still happened. It is a constant; you just route around it.
Were startups so easy to found 20 years ago? Were there mobile apps that one can develop in part time?
Vivek is trying to lobby for a better future. Just because people used to walk uphill both ways in snow to school in the past then doesn't mean you shouldn't try to fix it atleast now.
Are you saying that just because people faced hardship earlier, it shouldn't be made easier now? If anything, the numbers show that MORE people are getting affected by the policies and MORE potential startups are getting nipped in the bud.
>You need to comprehend before responding. The immigration system was as broken 20 years ago as it is today. During boom times it's broken; during bust times it is broken. During the dot-com boom, it was broken, and yet the dot-com boom still happened. It is a constant; you just route around it.
I don't see any reason given for not fixing the system except handwaving here. Let me quote the article here:
>Unlike a lot of problems facing our country, this one is easy to fix. We just need to increase the numbers of permanent-resident visas available for those trapped in “immigration limbo”. And we should create a Startup Visa that is more inclusive than the VC/Super Angel bill that is being proposed. This may give the economy a significant boost at no cost to taxpayers.
What are your arguments against that paragraph?
It is like someone in the 1920s arguing against women's suffrage. 'Hey, we never had the right to vote, but we always still influenced politics by working around it. There are some positive aspects to not having the right to vote. Lets not support it.'
On the one hand, you're saying that America's future will suffer dire consequences if the immigration system is not fixed.
On the other hand, you're saying it is such a hardship that people have to go back when their visas expire, things are tough for immigrants, etc.
Just step back a little and think rationally a little. If things are so bad, then why _are_ people trying so hard to get in? Do you see long lines outside the Chinese embassy? The Indian embassy?
Once again: in the 20 years I've observed the system, it is as broken as ever. And during these 20 years, we've been through the Biotech boom, Internet boom, and are on the verge of another boom.
Not exactly, but it will definitely help if it is fixed.
>On the other hand, you're saying it is such a hardship that people have to go back when their visas expire, things are tough for immigrants, etc.
>Just step back a little and think rationally a little. If things are so bad, then why _are_ people trying so hard to get in? Do you see long lines outside the Chinese embassy? The Indian embassy?
>Once again: in the 20 years I've observed the system, it is as broken as ever. And during these 20 years, we've been through the Biotech boom, Internet boom, and are on the verge of another boom.
All those immigrants can be easily turned into potential startup founders by increasing the permanent visa numbers. Many of them are highly educated and experienced. More startups = More potential good for the economy. What is your argument against this?
The problem argued is that the system prevents people from starting a business in the U.S. - something a "rational" person who is able to "comprehend" wouldn't conflate with everyone being prevented from starting a business.
The system could be better. That's hardly a controversial statement.
One of the biggest problem in this environment is the survivorship bias.
As a non-American without Green Card, I still think the startup visa is dubious. People who really want to do software startups in the US have been doing it for a while (typical example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Kahn ). I strongly doubt the US government (or board of VCs etc) will be able to predict success when deciding who should get the startup visas and the employment argument isn't convincing. Reddit, YC's most successful company, employs about 4 people I think?
Are you missing the possibility that there might have been more/better booms and outcomes if immigration laws were not as fucked up?
IMHO, you come across to me as someone who's bitter. You're bitter that it took you 11 years to get your green card, therefore all these other younger kids shouldn't have an easier time than you, because you paid your "dues" (from your perspective).
I disagree that immigration is worse now because of demand, I think it's largely to do with 9/11.
I think you're inherently misguided that a broken process should remain broken - just beause. I'm really disappointed with your sentiment, given that you yourself are an immigrant and you know how painful this process is. Wake up, and think of others - not just of yourself.
Good day.
I really, really hate this line of argument. "Oh the US is so great that everyone wants to be here! Do you see these kind of lines to get into North Korea?", well obviously not. I think you'll find similar lines to get into western Europe though. Why do you feel compelled to compare the US to 3rd world countries?
The INS doesn't exist any more, and that's the least of the changes. It is not a simple issue of supply and demand, and while I don't want to minimize the headaches you went through 20 years ago, the legal landscape has changed considerably since then.
I should point out that the system specifically disadvantages Indians and Chinese relative to say Mexicans, Canadians and everyone else. This coincides with an increasing level of opportunity in these countries relative to 1991 in India. To compare the two is making a fact-free argument, since even in a rational scenario, the relative attractiveness of the US has diminished over time.
I think asking that Vivek return to India is an unnecessary ad-hominem attack. There are many reasons that people choose to stay here including personal ones (wife, kids, etc. don't want to go back) not all of which are driven by relative opportunity.
The argument is not (yet) about whether the U.S. is a better place to start a startup than India or China. It clearly is. The argument is about whether it is worth America's while to make it easier for immigrants to start startups. It's hard to argue that for the right definition of a startup (legal, with a real chance of making money, scalable) it wouldn't be in America's interests to make it easier. In the worst case there's an immigrant who is not competing for "scarce jobs", in the best case he/she is creating jobs.*
*O.K. I cheated - in the worst case fears of those against this idea, you have a non-productive individual immigrating here on the pretext of a startup and doing nothing/leeching off of society etc, but if you find a good enough 'qualifier' (e.g. Grad degree from the U.S. and/or V.C. investment a la startup visa) this kind of thing can be minimized to where it approaches zero.
India did NOT have the same appreciation for tech 20 years ago. Today it does.
Friends who are 20-25 are coming back here and setting up clones of workable ideas. They are learning what needs to be done and what the opportunity is over here. They KNOW what good code is, they know what high quality means, and they ARE building it here again. They will build it from scratch if they have to.
America did NOT compete for talent like it has to now. Yes the seeds of entrepreneurship will spread far and wide. The topic at hand is to make them bloom in America.
<cynical>It appears that the US citizens and their government just do not give a damn about any of this.</cynical> It is only in the last 12-18 months that some murmurs are being heard in the MSM in this regard.
I have to wonder: the US taxpayers financed this advanced education, almost entirely in case of Bio/Pharma PhD programs, and then to throw out (literally) all that investment out the door makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!
My time is coming soon... I am very apprehensive as to what the future and this country has in store for me. :-/ :-)
May I ask some follow-up questions to make sure I understand your point of view on this issue? Are you referring to people who are originally from Singapore or India, or to people from third countries who settle in Singapore or India rather than settling in the United States? How does the number of those persons compare to the number of persons who stay in the United States after completing higher education? Aren't there official statistics about this?
It appears from your post that you too come from another country and have studied in the United States. Why did you think originally that it was a good idea to study in the United States rather than in your country of citizenship?
After edit: I have lived abroad myself, for two three-year stays in different decades in a country across an ocean from the United States. So I am always curious, as an American who left his country of birth, why people leave their country of birth and take on the challenge of living with new laws, perhaps a new language, noncitizen status at least at first, and perhaps new climate, food, and social customs too. What countries these days are best succeeding in attracting immigrants from all over the world? What example can those countries provide to countries that are less attractive to immigrants?
The people I know personally, who moved, are mostly from India, including one very close relative.
How does the number of those persons compare to the number of persons who stay in the United States after completing higher education?
Not a very large number, yet. But I have seen the upswing over the last 10 years that I have been in the US. I am not aware of any official statistics off the top of my head, but I would be very surprised if no one is tracking this quantitatively.
Why did you think originally that it was a good idea to study in the United States rather than in your country of citizenship?
When I first came to the US a decade ago, it was for a MS program in a field (bioinformatics) that was almost non-existent at the time in my home country (India). I worked with a drug-discovery start-up for a year after graduation but soon realized that career prospects in biotech/pharma research are way better with the letters PhD after your name and some serious publications on your resume. I hope to wrap-up and graduate this year.
Indeed, why would anyone leave their home for new laws, different language, different foods, different social customs.
The very same reason both my great grandfathers left Ireland to come to America, opportunity, and a better way of life!
Our family are all US born citizens. I am a registered republican, highly educated, and have founded 2 successful companies in Silicon Valley, and now a third in Vienna, Austria. Our family left the United States 9 years ago. We will not return until the US is once again a land of opportunity.
I am a proud American. I am proud of my country,and it's citizens. I am not proud of the kleptocracy that the State and Federal governments have become. I saw the financial industry collapse and "great recession" as inevitable back in 2002 when we left.
Yes the immigration system in Austria is highly dysfunctional and just as self defeating to entrepreneurs as in America.
Attractions:
Austria has a highly effective social welfare system, social health insurance system, career training, apprenticeships, and no cost higher educational system. As a direct result, Viennese society is one of the safest on the face of the earth. Kindergarten children take the subway and streetcars to school by themselves.
The European Union actively funds "open source development", and requires much of its research to be made open source. Software patents in Europe, which exist, are unenforceable. The US government sells its research to the highest bidder, depriving its citizens of its use. Europe believes in returning its research to its citizens use.
Austria, Germany Switzerland, and France are growing rapidly, and have record low unemployment rates. Austria is currently at 4.6 percent.
Vienna has been the top Mercer world city for 2 years in a row. A very trusting society, papers are placed in plastic satchels, with a coin box attached. The subway and train systems have no entry / exit barriers or gates. A simple ticket stamping machine sits on a post. In a highly trusting society, there is no need for steel newspaper boxes or oppressive barriers.
Austrian's are protected by law from overwork, and as a result, are very healthy, utilizing far less heathcare services than the typical American.
Austria, Germany, and France are the best countries for an American to emigrate to.
Vivek Wadhwa fails to realize that immigrant founders actually deprive Americans of key jobs. Founders jobs. Immigrants are the only people desperate enough to accept the immoral yet legal terms offered by many Vulture Capitalists. A legal form of slavery. Nothing else explains the high percentage of immigrant founders adequately. I was witness to several immigrants having lost control of their own companies just as they became profitable.
The US must actively recruit each and every foreign born entrepreneur, engineer and scientist they can find, in order to grow the economy to at least 7 percent a year, or it will be bankrupt before 2025.
By throwing wide the doors to foreign immigration, the Vulture Capitalists would be unable to exploit foreign immigrants. The playing field for both immigrant and US citizen would be equal. The US would, within a few years, drastically reverse its trade deficit to a significant surplus. Just as Austria, Germany, and France currently enjoy.
I don't see that happening, and so the US government will be deprived of vital tax revenue from the next great technological advance. US corporations have parked 2 trillion dollars of profits overseas, to avoid paying US taxes.
I highly recommend US citizens act with haste to emigrate to a new home in either Europe or Asia before the Hobsian society arrives in force, resulting in an exodus tidal wave of Americans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03... http://www.icsb.org/documents/FranceYouthUnemployment.pdf
I doubt Germany, Austria and France are churning out more scientists & engineers than the US. They most definitely are not churning out more entrepreneurs. In fact they're barely producing a next generation - these are aging demographics, and their advanced social benefits (which in general I support) will be especially hard to sustain when there aren't enough working age tax payers around.
Pretty much every criticism of American government & big business easily applies to these nations, and in addition they are also now tethered to corrupt governments like Greece and malfunctioning economies like Spain and Ireland.
Visit NYC and Silicon Valley, and you'll find EU expats who come there to fulfill their entrepreneurial ambitions. TThat's part of the reason a "startup visa" is even an issue in the US.* You don't hear much talk of startup visas in Europe - not because it's easier to migrate there, simply because there aren't thousands of people who want to move there and start companies.
There isn't a single place in Europe that's even close to Silicon Valley or even Boston in terms of startup environment. America has a lot of problems, but the EU is at least in as bad a shape.
Regulations and oversight in Europe is far greater, and intrusive, than in the US, which can be frustrating to me as an American, however I understand the reasons, and clearly can see the benefits of this in the stability of the financial and business industries. With kurzarbeit, there was minor economic damage to either Germany or Austria.
The key economic drivers of European growth, Germany, France, Austria, Norway, Finland, Switzerland tend not to have boom / bust cycles like the US.
The Euro definitely has issues in the absence of an "economic union", however if any country goes into default, it does not bring the entire union down.
Europeans tend to focus on R&D of "long term sustainable" "tangable technology" rather than the modern silicon valley focus on "short term fluff" of facebook, zynga, iPhones, iPads etc.
Airbus kicks Boeing's ass in Aerospace (not to mention business efficiency (787 outsourcing debacle) European research is superior in almost every category, and is at par with the best that the US has to offer. Europeans do not turn over their core R&D in order to do business in China, or India.
NASA manned spaceflight (the 11 billion dollar boondoggle of the canceled ARES / CONSTELLATION)(and the new heavy launcher designed by politicians) is a huge embarrassment for US expats like myself. For Europeans, this is clear undeniable evidence of the US having lost its technical superiority, and Europe's rise to supremacy.
Europeans tend not to do business arrangements with dictators as often as the US. And I think that it is immoral to exploit citizens in another country which tolerates slums (Brazil favelas), and does not work actively to lift its people out of poverty (China/India). Check out the favela tourism (predominantly patronized by US citizens) next time you're in Rio.
Yes, Europe in general is not as astute in funding of high tech startups, and culturally are more risk averse to funding the silicon valley fluff.
Greece Spain Ireland: Unlike in America, if California or Illinois, or Ohio declares bankruptcy, its fatal to the entire country. In Europe, it would cut Greece loose from both the Political and Monetary unions in a snap.
Not so easy to kick states out of the United States union.
As far as EU expats, I've personally met many Germans and Austrians who have returned from the US, and vow never to live there again (violent crime / fascism / kleptocracy). Most would like to visit again, because of the friendly people and the beautiful landscapes. These folks in particular "get why I am here", and the advantages of Europe over the US. There is a weekly television show in Germany and Austria called "Goodbye Deutschland", which chronicles such expat adventures primarily to the US. The vast majority return home with a newfound respect for their home country, and wiser about the world in general.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodbye_Deutschland!_Die_Auswan...
Really, everybody with the opportunity should leave their "country of birth" for a few years as an adult. It helps to truly put your country in perspective with the rest of the world.
The US is a beautiful country with a majority of wonderful caring and friendly decent people. It however pretends to be a democracy and operates as a kleptocracy / fascist republic. Yes there is corruption in Europe as well, however here, people go into the streets and demand justice, whenever the politicians fail to act in the best interests of its citizens!
Wisconsin is the "first shot heard around the world" for the next US revolution. With people equally divided on critical issues, and politicians unwilling to negotiate and compromise (kleptocracy), the next 15 years are going to be witness to the next US civil war.
Europeans has survived fascism, and will never allow its return. America is in the throes of fascism, and it will be Europe and the rest of the world paying to rebuild the USA.
As far as immigration policies in the US? I do think things are pretty f'd up. However, I don't think "throwing open the doors" is the actual option. We do need to encourage and readily "recruit" people that want to come here and start and build companies. The US can benefit (like it did in the past) by bringing the best and the brightest (as well as retaining those that come to our universities).
Where I differ, is I think we don't need every warm body coming here to fill tech jobs. There should be a focus on hiring (and if necessary training/continuing education) for those that are in need of jobs where there are openings (like in tech).
Just another view...
If an Immigrant, and an American have to be paid equally, work the same hours, have the same benefits and rights, then the immigrant is no longer at a disadvantage, as he currently is a legal slave, with no rights, under H1-B.
Also, H1B workers contribute to Social security and medicare , taxes etc. with most of them not expecting or making use of it.
How would you fix it? The leaders in those countries should fix it.
On the other hand, with such a majority of the world's service providers concentrated in just a few west coast cities I think there are some risks for the global Internet. What if someday we all found out that facebook, twitter and google were all collaborating with the government in a massive warrantless wiretap program ala AT&T et al. Wouldn't you be happier knowing there were some viable competitors out there based in .au .tw .ch .in etc? Is it possible that would have prevented it from happening to begin with? I'm not saying that's likely, but clearly there could be some benefits to a more politically and physically distributed infrastructure. What happens to the world if the US triggers their Internet kill switch? A lot more than when .ly did presumably. What if the world misses out on the next big thing because of the tight knit group think that exists in the bay area capital scene? Mother of all earthquakes? State government collapses? Dirty bomb?
I'm not saying I'd bet on any of those happening, or that SV isn't a good place to start a tech firm, or that anyone should pack up and leave. Just that I wouldn't shed many tears if I saw more of http://thenextsocialhotness.eu/
Monocultures can be pretty fragile when exposed to a brand new threat.
IBM, Microsoft, and Apple's contributions to creating the first personal computers when they started up created an entirely new segment of the IT industry that hadn't even been conceptualized before. As time passed, there were millions of people getting jobs as technicians, programmers, system administrators, and service providers.
Cisco, Sun Microsystems, and Netscape enabled the Internet to be a viable platform and communication medium. You had even more jobs created: more programmers, web developers, web designers, and service providers.
Google did their thing and revolutionized how people could monetize things on the Internet, and how people could get their websites, products, and services discovered. It`s pretty much because of them that many websites became viable businesses, to say nothing of how SEO also became an industry in its own right.
Now see Facebook, Twitter, Android (acquired by Google in 2005; if you want, you can throw Apple's iPhone group in there too, though by this time, they can no longer be counted as a startup). They've created social media ad agencies, app developer economic microcosms, and so on.
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. The benefit that tech companies create is not from direct employment. It`s from overall worldwide productivity gains and creation of new industries. And if it happens in your home nation first, you get a head start to ride the wave before the wave really takes hold in other nations.
Yes, startups create jobs, but just like all other small businesses, they lose a lot of jobs as well because of a high failure rate. You certainly want to give people the opportunity to start companies, but it isn't at all clear that you're actually boosting the economy significantly by making it easier to start a new business.
Additionally, making visas available for foreign entrepreneurs opens up the market for more trade, which would certainly mean downwards pressure for salaries, which would decrease demand. To cancel that out, you'd need to make an argument that you'll make that money up through increased market efficiency - certainly tech products will cost less if the people making them have lower salaries. However, I'm not sure that most households or businesses spend that much on tech. There are certainly less efficient economic sectors (health care topping that list). In fact, most price anomalies in the technology sector are due to copyright and patent laws, so if you really wanted to increase efficiency you'd tackle that instead.
Finally, there's the talent-drain on countries like India and China if such laws were passed. Training an engineer is expensive and you don't want large parts of that investment to just vanish into other markets. I don't claim to have this figured out, but my bet is India, China, and the other growing economies rely heavily on their engineers to sustain their growth. If they begin to stagnate the whole world will suffer economically, and the States in particular given their exposure to these economies.
So, yes, personally I would love the visa laws to change. Would I take advantage? Absolutely. Would it drive the American economy? Probably not.
Still, I will do my best to keep up a US presence because it is quite worth it.
"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."
from here:
http://www.cio.co.uk/article/527/the-next-wave-of-globalisat...
One thing I want to share is that, if you wanted to start a company on H1 / L1, it is fine and there are very few restrictions. You might have to do it part time and declare it to your employer and INS, and you cannot sponsor your own GC etc.
And how many H1 / L1 holders really want to start a company on their own? I doubt if the numbers are sizeable.
Even if you are raving to start a company tomorrow on a H1 / L1, what is the problem with tying up with a local GC or Citizen and register a company?
I am not being cheeky, just trying to understand where the pain points are.
This is relevant only if you assume that no native would have started a competing startup.
- imigration
US pros:
- open a company with one phone call to IRS
- get funding is feasible
- most companies will deal with you (e.g. app store)
non-US pros:
- easy to get visa
- health care :)
non-US cons:
- a full month of bureaucracy to open a company.
- some three months to close it. more if you ever had any employee
- funding? hahahaha