4 ms·
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 immigra
by 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 agoIt's that, or 60% of Fortune 500 companies were started by native americans.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- oh_sigh 9y agoTrue, 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 agoThe 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 agoFortune 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 agoThe 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.
- bduerst 9y agoFortune 500 companies founded in the last 25 years are more likely to be founded by immigrants. Not immigrants and their children - just immigrants. Regardless of your play on semantics, you're still wrong about your grandparents.