5 ms·
And this matters because individual productivity is a log-normal distribution, like VC returns. As a country it's a good investment to invite millions of immigr
by xapata 10y ago
And this matters because individual productivity is a log-normal distribution, like VC returns. As a country it's a good investment to invite millions of immigrants trying to find the next major inventor.
I suppose this also relies on national productivity being the product of, not the sum of individuals productivity.
- rayiner 10y agoIt seems to make that cuts the other way. What is the cost of integrating and potentially supporting a million immigrants compared to the return from one billion dollar startup? (Especially when we're talking a billion dollars of Monopoly money valuation versus day a billion in revenue.)
- xapata 10y agoSo far it's worked out, I think. I'm not talking about a billion dollar startup, but trillion-dollar technology. Think Manhattan project, not WhatsApp.
- rayiner 10y ago> Think Manhattan project So established scientists from Western countries?
- surfmike 10y agoDon't comment about history you know nothing about. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/11/11/a-veterans-day-story-immigrants-and-the-atomic-bomb/#1e5051291e07 https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/11/11/a-vet... Edit: I apologize for the snark. As long as Hungary, Russia, Poland are counted as the West (and they generally are), then I agree with you.
- oh_sigh 10y agoPerhaps you should comment on what exactly you find wrong with the original post. My reading is that your article is actually supporting the person you replied to. "Why did the immigrant scientists succeed? Clearly these were some of the most highly-skilled people on earth but it was something more. Beyond their skills, Laura Fermi notes the unique characteristics and emotions that the foreign-born scientists brought to the atomic project: “The determination to defend America at all costs spurred the newcomers no less than the Americans, and the European-born may have come to this determination somewhat earlier than the native-born, driven by stronger personal emotions. The picture of their country under Nazi power in the event of a German victory was something the Americans could imagine only with difficulty.” That was not the case for those who had already seen their countries overrun."
- xapata 10y agoEven if that's the only group that's worthwhile, bringing in the rest of the world is like a loss-leader at a retail store. Being friendly is good advertising.
- surfmike 10y agoUm, not much? Immigrants as a whole pay their way in the United States, have lower crime rates. The revenue generated by Google, Chobani, and other companies is not "Mickey mouse" money. Not to mention that Microsoft and Google both picked immigrants to be their leaders.
- oh_sigh 10y agoI'll assume you're talking about Brin when including Google in your post. He was 6 years old when he came to America. Maybe that is what is important. Did anyone pull stats on the value of companies started by immigrants who came to America already fully grown?
- qaq 10y agoRight so if his parents did not move he would've entered US by himself at 6, same thing for Jobs.
- surfmike 10y agoExcellent point. If you include first generation immigrants I'm sure the impact of immigrants is even greater.
- Shubham28 10y agoI think he is referring to Sundar Pichai
- oh_sigh 10y agoSundar is just an employee who worked his way up through the ranks...he was not involved in founding Google.
- Shubham28 10y agoBut the poster never mentioned founders, he says leaders. Even when talking about Microsoft, I think he is referring to Satya Nadella since both Gates & Balmer were not immigrants.
- omarforgotpwd 10y agoIt doesn't "cost" anyone much. Immigrants pay for goods and services and provide labor, so they economy just ends up expanding. It's not like taking "too many" immigrants will make you poor because it cost too much. More likely the cost would be social and political rather than economic.
- stale2002 10y agoOK then, what would your opinion be of tripling the number if H1B, and drastically reducing all other immigration programs at the same time, so the total amount of immigrants stays the same?
- xapata 10y agoI'm not a fan of central planning. The market is usually more efficient at deciding what jobs are useful.
- stale2002 10y agoWe are already centrally planning immigration. Changing the numbers around on our existing centrally planned system doesn't make it any more or less centrally planned.
- rdl 10y agoIt would be interesting to have baseline federal standards and then let states handle some immigration decisions, actually. In Canada the provinces can do that (so e.g. Quebec can fast-track you for citizenship for speaking French). In Switzerland it is basically all at the Cantonal level.
- xapata 10y agoThat'd require some better surveillance to ensure an immigrant permitted in one state does not work in another. I'm not sure that's constitutional, though it is quite practical.
- halomru 10y ago>I suppose this also relies on national productivity being the product of, not the sum of individuals productivity. By that logic you can easily argue it's imperative to weed out those with productivity close to 0 (and below 1). Great people inspire greatness, awfully people can bring their whole environment down. That's why ghettos are such a bad idea. From your arguments alone I wouldn't be able to tell which side you are arguing for.
- xapata 10y agoIndeed it does. Criminals, polluters, etc. are a drag on the economy. However, that characteristic is not well-correlated with immigrant. It might even be anti-correlated. I'm not against harsh penalties for criminals. I am not a fan of pretending to care about rehabilitation or deterrence, which clearly are not the purpose of our prisons. Let's call it like it is -- punishment and ejection from society. I'm not arguing for immigration for ethical reasons, but purely out of self-interest.