6 ms·

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

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?

rpedela 10y ago
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?
yclept 10y ago
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.
- CarVac 10y ago
  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.
- rpeden 10y ago
  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.
- jakozaur 10y ago
  There were niche startup doing niche programming language (BASIC) with less revenue that ended up being Microsoft.
  - sidlls 10y ago
    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.
    - rpedela 10y ago
      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.
      - sidlls 10y ago
        "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.
        rpedela 10y ago
        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.
    - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
      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.
Nacraile 10y ago
> 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:_Founding_and_company_beginnings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#1972.E2.80.9384:_Fou... , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.#1976.E2.80.9384:_Founding_and_incorporation 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.
- refriedbeans3 10y ago
  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%.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- qaq 10y ago
  In reality number of people trying to game the system is to a point preventing relaxation of rules.
  - 10y ago
timewarrior 10y ago
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.
- leereeves 10y ago
  How would immigration officials recognize Facebook or Google among the millions of web sites that won't be successful?
  - timewarrior 10y ago
    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.
    - leereeves 10y ago
      Were Facebook or Google able to pay themselves and their employees a living wage before they got venture capital?
      - timewarrior 10y ago
        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.
- ricardonunez 10y ago
  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.

rpedela 10y ago

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?

yclept 10y ago

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.

CarVac 10y ago
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.
rpeden 10y ago
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.
jakozaur 10y ago
There were niche startup doing niche programming language (BASIC) with less revenue that ended up being Microsoft.
- sidlls 10y ago
  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.
  - rpedela 10y ago
    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.
    - sidlls 10y ago
      "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.
      - rpedela 10y ago
        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.
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    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.

Nacraile 10y ago

> 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:_Founding_and_company_beginnings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#1972.E2.80.9384:_Fou... , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.#1976.E2.80.9384:_Founding_and_incorporation 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.

refriedbeans3 10y ago
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%.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
qaq 10y ago
In reality number of people trying to game the system is to a point preventing relaxation of rules.
- 10y ago

timewarrior 10y ago

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.

leereeves 10y ago
How would immigration officials recognize Facebook or Google among the millions of web sites that won't be successful?
- timewarrior 10y ago
  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.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    Were Facebook or Google able to pay themselves and their employees a living wage before they got venture capital?
    - timewarrior 10y ago
      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.
ricardonunez 10y ago
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.