11 ms·

I wish I could remember where I saw the video (a guy with a bunch of gumballs representing population), but I remember he spoke about how the visa process is re

by bargl 9y ago

I wish I could remember where I saw the video (a guy with a bunch of gumballs representing population), but I remember he spoke about how the visa process is really beneficial for the USA but bad for other countries. The point being that we drain their talent pool while increasing our own. The argument being that as we skim the top people from the talent pool of other countries we reduce their capability to push innovation and ideas within their own infrastructure. Instead the USA benefits in that we don't have to have the smartest people just the most attractive place for them to come and help our country. So while I disagree with his message behind this move, I think he inadvertently helped the rest of the world...

Sir_Substance 9y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE That's only tangentially involved in this discussion though. That video is about whether opening immigration pathways to the USA can reduce world poverty. I never reviewed the rules that are being overturned here, so I can't say whether they made sense or not, but they were probably targeted at increasing US economic growth, not reducing world poverty.
bduerst 9y ago
Pretty much. 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrant families. Likewise, 7 of the top 10 brands in the world were founded by U.S. immigrants or their children. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/#156be9a14a59 https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-pe...
- wil421 9y ago
  Of course 40% of businesses were stared by immigrants. America is the land of immigrants. The articles states since 1850. Even the Trump families subsequent good fortunes were made possible by an immigrant. Most of my friends and extended families have a grand parent or two who were immigrants. If not grand parent then great grand parent.
  - bduerst 9y ago
    If you read the article, you'd see the criteria for which they describe it as being either an immigrant (18% of Fortune 500 founders) or the child of an immigrant (22% of Fortune 500 founders). Grandchildren are not included, hence Donald Trump doesn't qualify.
    - moomin 9y ago
      It's that, or 60% of Fortune 500 companies were started by native americans.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - oh_sigh 9y ago
      True, but on the other hand, if 5 people found a company, and one of them is an immigrant or the child of an immigrant, that counts as an immigrant founded company, even if the company would have been founded without that one person.
    - wil421 9y ago
      The reason I quoted grand parents is because a good amount of Fortune 500s were created in the 1900s. That would be my parents to grandparents generations not millenials.
      - bduerst 9y ago
        Fortune 500 companies founded since 1985 are more likely to be founded by immigrants (20%) than companies founded before 1985 (17%). This isn't about your grandparents.
        wil421 9y ago
        The definition of immigrant founder, as others have pointed out, is an immigrant or a child of an immigrant. I wasn't born in 1985 so it is almost as much about my grand parents (17%) as it is about me (20%). My definition of immigrant is not a child of an immigrant.
- ethbro 9y ago
  I was a big fan of a lot of US brands putting up subtle (or not-so-subtle) pro-immigrant Superbowl ads. F.ex. Budweiser: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HtBZvl7dIu4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HtBZvl7dIu4
- geebee 9y ago
  How many of those immigrants were sponsored by a corporation or investor and restricted in how and where they could work by the terms of their employment? How many came here as free and full members of the workforce, allowed to pursue their own career paths as they saw fit? There's a huge difference between supporting immigration and employer controlled visa programs.
  - bduerst 9y ago
    The newest fortune 500 companies (founded last 25 years) are more likely to have an immigrant founder. Corporate sponsorship (H1B, etc.) was part of the Immigration Act of 1965, meaning that even in lieu of more restrictive immigration, immigrants are still heavy hitters for generating jobs and revenue.
projectramo 9y ago
It is worth noting that productivity and innovation are a team sport. If you place a single bitcoin programmer in the middle of, say, Yemen, that person would be a lot less productive than they would in the US. This might be marginally improved with the internet (at least the person doesn't have to physically ask questions or purchase books), but only marginally. Consider: 1. Tough time understanding the needs of paying business customers because the business are smaller and less tech savvy. 2. Tough time hiring other workers to expand because they are fewer schools that produce programmers, managers etc. 3. Tough time with internet, electricity and so forth because the infrastructure isn't there. 4. Tough time with knowing what the legal hoops are for setting up a company and a contract because the institutions have been weakened. And so on. Of course there are smart and innovative people there who can do useful work in that context. But that is not the same as the US context.
- noobiemcfoob 9y ago
  Isn't the response that for those businesses to grow, for those schools to produce more programmers, to build out the infrastructure, the top performers who are motivated to solve or improve such problems must stay in their country to work on them? If they go elsewhere, then elsewhere gets better solutions but their home doesn't. /Until we learn to package the solution in a nice development kit and resale it back to their homeland at a nice markup.
thehardsphere 9y ago
I doubt that is accurate. Generally speaking, most places which are hostile to new business ideas aren't going to become less hostile if they retain more of "their" smart people, because the problems are not things that can be easily solved by simply having smart people around. I mean, if smart people stay in Russia instead of move to the US, is that going to change that rampant corruption and government control make it hard to run a legitimate business in Russia? If smart people stay in China instead of move to the US, does that mean that the oppression that the Chinese Communist Party engages in is going to go away through magic? If smart people stay in Greece instead of move to America, is that going to solve their sovereign debt problems? If smart people stay in Venezuela, how will they solve the problem of there not being enough food to eat? Those are all examples off of the top of my head. I'm certain less dramatic ones can be easily conjured up for any country where someone may decide to choose USA to start up.
- basseq 9y ago
  Maybe! After all, those "smart people" may turn to solving or changing the underlying limiting economic or business issues. Either as a focus of their efforts or by necessity of running a business. Or by contributing to innovation in more "traditional" channels.
  - rarec 9y ago
    On the other side of it, why would these "smart people" want to bother helping their homeland versus helping them and theirs? Maybe it's worse for those countries, but in a world of globalisation, it's not irrational to pursue the opportunities in a place where you can get the most bang for your buck. You can always return if you want to, but that's not the path of least resistance.
    - basseq 9y ago
      For the context of this comment, this is if these "smart people" couldn't come to the U.S. instead. ("The argument being that as we skim the top people from the talent pool of other countries we reduce their capability to push innovation and ideas within their own infrastructure.") Basically, if these "smart people" couldn't come to the U.S., there would be no option. They wouldn't have any where else to go, and would have to help their homeland in order to help them and theirs. No other option if they couldn't come to the U.S. instead (if the theory is correct).
bluetwo 9y ago
It's called Brain Drain.

by bargl 9y ago

Sir_Substance 9y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE That's only tangentially involved in this discussion though. That video is about whether opening immigration pathways to the USA can reduce world poverty. I never reviewed the rules that are being overturned here, so I can't say whether they made sense or not, but they were probably targeted at increasing US economic growth, not reducing world poverty.

bduerst 9y ago

Pretty much. 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrant families. Likewise, 7 of the top 10 brands in the world were founded by U.S. immigrants or their children. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/#156be9a14a59 https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-pe...

wil421 9y ago
Of course 40% of businesses were stared by immigrants. America is the land of immigrants. The articles states since 1850. Even the Trump families subsequent good fortunes were made possible by an immigrant. Most of my friends and extended families have a grand parent or two who were immigrants. If not grand parent then great grand parent.
- bduerst 9y ago
  If you read the article, you'd see the criteria for which they describe it as being either an immigrant (18% of Fortune 500 founders) or the child of an immigrant (22% of Fortune 500 founders). Grandchildren are not included, hence Donald Trump doesn't qualify.
  - moomin 9y ago
    It's that, or 60% of Fortune 500 companies were started by native americans.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    True, but on the other hand, if 5 people found a company, and one of them is an immigrant or the child of an immigrant, that counts as an immigrant founded company, even if the company would have been founded without that one person.
  - wil421 9y ago
    The reason I quoted grand parents is because a good amount of Fortune 500s were created in the 1900s. That would be my parents to grandparents generations not millenials.
    - bduerst 9y ago
      Fortune 500 companies founded since 1985 are more likely to be founded by immigrants (20%) than companies founded before 1985 (17%). This isn't about your grandparents.
      - wil421 9y ago
        The definition of immigrant founder, as others have pointed out, is an immigrant or a child of an immigrant. I wasn't born in 1985 so it is almost as much about my grand parents (17%) as it is about me (20%). My definition of immigrant is not a child of an immigrant.
ethbro 9y ago
I was a big fan of a lot of US brands putting up subtle (or not-so-subtle) pro-immigrant Superbowl ads. F.ex. Budweiser: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HtBZvl7dIu4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HtBZvl7dIu4
geebee 9y ago
How many of those immigrants were sponsored by a corporation or investor and restricted in how and where they could work by the terms of their employment? How many came here as free and full members of the workforce, allowed to pursue their own career paths as they saw fit? There's a huge difference between supporting immigration and employer controlled visa programs.
- bduerst 9y ago
  The newest fortune 500 companies (founded last 25 years) are more likely to have an immigrant founder. Corporate sponsorship (H1B, etc.) was part of the Immigration Act of 1965, meaning that even in lieu of more restrictive immigration, immigrants are still heavy hitters for generating jobs and revenue.

projectramo 9y ago

It is worth noting that productivity and innovation are a team sport. If you place a single bitcoin programmer in the middle of, say, Yemen, that person would be a lot less productive than they would in the US. This might be marginally improved with the internet (at least the person doesn't have to physically ask questions or purchase books), but only marginally. Consider: 1. Tough time understanding the needs of paying business customers because the business are smaller and less tech savvy. 2. Tough time hiring other workers to expand because they are fewer schools that produce programmers, managers etc. 3. Tough time with internet, electricity and so forth because the infrastructure isn't there. 4. Tough time with knowing what the legal hoops are for setting up a company and a contract because the institutions have been weakened. And so on. Of course there are smart and innovative people there who can do useful work in that context. But that is not the same as the US context.

noobiemcfoob 9y ago
Isn't the response that for those businesses to grow, for those schools to produce more programmers, to build out the infrastructure, the top performers who are motivated to solve or improve such problems must stay in their country to work on them? If they go elsewhere, then elsewhere gets better solutions but their home doesn't. /Until we learn to package the solution in a nice development kit and resale it back to their homeland at a nice markup.

thehardsphere 9y ago

I doubt that is accurate. Generally speaking, most places which are hostile to new business ideas aren't going to become less hostile if they retain more of "their" smart people, because the problems are not things that can be easily solved by simply having smart people around. I mean, if smart people stay in Russia instead of move to the US, is that going to change that rampant corruption and government control make it hard to run a legitimate business in Russia? If smart people stay in China instead of move to the US, does that mean that the oppression that the Chinese Communist Party engages in is going to go away through magic? If smart people stay in Greece instead of move to America, is that going to solve their sovereign debt problems? If smart people stay in Venezuela, how will they solve the problem of there not being enough food to eat? Those are all examples off of the top of my head. I'm certain less dramatic ones can be easily conjured up for any country where someone may decide to choose USA to start up.

basseq 9y ago
Maybe! After all, those "smart people" may turn to solving or changing the underlying limiting economic or business issues. Either as a focus of their efforts or by necessity of running a business. Or by contributing to innovation in more "traditional" channels.
- rarec 9y ago
  On the other side of it, why would these "smart people" want to bother helping their homeland versus helping them and theirs? Maybe it's worse for those countries, but in a world of globalisation, it's not irrational to pursue the opportunities in a place where you can get the most bang for your buck. You can always return if you want to, but that's not the path of least resistance.
  - basseq 9y ago
    For the context of this comment, this is if these "smart people" couldn't come to the U.S. instead. ("The argument being that as we skim the top people from the talent pool of other countries we reduce their capability to push innovation and ideas within their own infrastructure.") Basically, if these "smart people" couldn't come to the U.S., there would be no option. They wouldn't have any where else to go, and would have to help their homeland in order to help them and theirs. No other option if they couldn't come to the U.S. instead (if the theory is correct).

bluetwo 9y ago

It's called Brain Drain.