5 ms·

The way they handle companies with > 1 founder is a bit weird. If there is at least one immigrant / 1st gen American it's counted in the "founded by" category.

by harryh 7y ago

The way they handle companies with > 1 founder is a bit weird. If there is at least one immigrant / 1st gen American it's counted in the "founded by" category. And then the 45% is taken by looking at things just at the company level. I think it would tell a clearer picture to count the total number of founders and count the percentage of people who were immigrants / 1st gen americans. Then, to give context, you would want to compare this number to the % of people living in the US who are immigrants / 1st gen Americans.

haasteagle 7y ago
Agreed. Makes it seem as if a 1st/2nd gen immigrant was the sole founder of every company listed.
sudosteph 7y ago
Agreed. It makes me think they might have used that selection criteria specifically in order to provide an out-sized visualization about the impact of immigration on the founding of US companies. Seeing the actual numbers on the the founder-level would be more informative and probably also let me shed my doubts about whether or not those who created the study were doing it a biased manner. I also think it's weird that Amazon was counted as "child of an immigrant". He was adopted as a child by his immigrant step-father after his mother's marriage - but he definitely would have been in America regardless of immigration policy...
- panpanna 7y ago
  Amazon? You mean Apple?
Kalium 7y ago
> The way they handle companies with > 1 founder is a bit weird. If there is at least one immigrant / 1st gen American it's counted in the "founded by" category. And then the 45% is taken by looking at things just at the company level. Ah! I saw the 45% number and immediately wondered if this particular statistical slight of hand was being used. Thank you.
rayiner 7y ago
The article also appears to count companies as “founded by immigrants” if they’re the result of a merger where one of the original companies was founded by immigrants. United Technologies, for example, is a huge conglomerate. I have no idea who the immigrant founder is supposed to be. Moreover, a quarter of America’s population fits into the category of “immigrants or children of immigrants.” At the time many of these companies were founded, it was closer to 40%. If you count # of immigrant founders / # of non-immigrant founders, as you suggest, it could very well be that immigrants are underrepresented.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
SkyBelow 7y ago
Compare the level of critique a study with a very disagreeable conclusion has (specifically a study whose conclusion is disagreeable to the majority of people regardless of political affiliation) compared to one which has an agreeable conclusion. As someone else called it, these statistical slights of hand are selectively tolerated and are one reason that science, especially social sciences, have a lower level of trust than one would have initially assumed.

by harryh 7y ago

haasteagle 7y ago

Agreed. Makes it seem as if a 1st/2nd gen immigrant was the sole founder of every company listed.

sudosteph 7y ago

Agreed. It makes me think they might have used that selection criteria specifically in order to provide an out-sized visualization about the impact of immigration on the founding of US companies. Seeing the actual numbers on the the founder-level would be more informative and probably also let me shed my doubts about whether or not those who created the study were doing it a biased manner. I also think it's weird that Amazon was counted as "child of an immigrant". He was adopted as a child by his immigrant step-father after his mother's marriage - but he definitely would have been in America regardless of immigration policy...

panpanna 7y ago
Amazon? You mean Apple?

Kalium 7y ago

> The way they handle companies with > 1 founder is a bit weird. If there is at least one immigrant / 1st gen American it's counted in the "founded by" category. And then the 45% is taken by looking at things just at the company level. Ah! I saw the 45% number and immediately wondered if this particular statistical slight of hand was being used. Thank you.

rayiner 7y ago

The article also appears to count companies as “founded by immigrants” if they’re the result of a merger where one of the original companies was founded by immigrants. United Technologies, for example, is a huge conglomerate. I have no idea who the immigrant founder is supposed to be. Moreover, a quarter of America’s population fits into the category of “immigrants or children of immigrants.” At the time many of these companies were founded, it was closer to 40%. If you count # of immigrant founders / # of non-immigrant founders, as you suggest, it could very well be that immigrants are underrepresented.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

SkyBelow 7y ago

Compare the level of critique a study with a very disagreeable conclusion has (specifically a study whose conclusion is disagreeable to the majority of people regardless of political affiliation) compared to one which has an agreeable conclusion. As someone else called it, these statistical slights of hand are selectively tolerated and are one reason that science, especially social sciences, have a lower level of trust than one would have initially assumed.