4 ms·

That's a fair criticism of the study, but you're misunderstanding the point Vivek is making. Policy change has ALWAYS been necessary. In fact, it is now a littl

That's a fair criticism of the study, but you're misunderstanding the point Vivek is making. Policy change has ALWAYS been necessary. In fact, it is now a little bit easier than a few years ago to be an immigrant entrepreneur [1]. The point is that soon these entrepreneurs will just stay in their home country or move to a more entrepreneur-friendly country instead of going through all this trouble. I'm an entrepreneur from Germany and I can't help but feel slightly offended by your comment. You seem to think either a) I should go back to Germany for some reason or b) it's cool for me to stay here, but only if I jump through a series of ridiculous hoops. If you don't feel that way, you should support a change in legislation. [1] For example, you can get an EB2 NIW visa as an entrepreneur and I've heard of many cases where O3 was granted even though the person wasn't really "notable"

funkaster 14y ago
I agree with you. And I also feel a bit offended with the parent comment. If you're not an immigrant trying to overcome all the hoops and doing ridiculously steps to try to stay "legal" in order to pursue your goals then you probably don't get it... And your goals will (although probably not directly) translate to improve the economy. I just don't get it. We as immigrants pay as much taxes as anyone else, however we have far less benefits and probably much more obligations. This freaking country was founded by immigrants, unless you tell me that all the senate is constituted by native americans, don't bring the crap that immigrants will somehow fuck the economy. I would actually like to see evidence that having more flexible immigrant laws will harm the economy. Also, having your health system tied to corporate America, and not something universal is just stupid: how is it reasonable to tie something as important as health to your employer? Anyway, I don't see anything changing anytime soon. So we should just stick to complain every now and then and keep doing what we know best (everyone knows what that is for them).
- sopooneo 14y ago
  I pretty much agree with all your points, but you are conflating several issues.
dpritchett 14y ago
I have seen several pieces by Wadhwa in Techcrunch [1]. The point usually seems to be "Microsoft and Google can't hire all the developers they want at the price they're willing to pay; we should increase H1-B quotas". This isn't to say that immigration is bad or that MS and Google aren't having trouble hiring, it's to say that MS and Google might very well be able to find more people within the US if they paid more. Look at it in the context of six top tech companies being caught colluding to keep domestic employee wages down through no-poach agreements [2]. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/30/free-the-h-1bs-free-the-economy/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/30/free-the-h-1bs-free-the-eco... [2] http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html
- rayiner 14y ago
  Seriously. Microsoft, Google, etc, are in no position to lobby for more H1B until they address the rampant anti-competitive employment practices in the industry.
  - dpritchett 14y ago
    Google in particular is a fun case study: $1,167,000 revenue per employee [1] $299,000 net income per employee [1] $106,000 mean salary [2] [1] http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=financials&symbol=N%5EGOOG http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=financials&symbol=N%5EGOO... [2] http://www.salarylist.com/company/Google-Salary.htm http://www.salarylist.com/company/Google-Salary.htm
    - rayiner 14y ago
      I like to point out that Google has higher revenues per employee than Goldman Sachs, but a mid-level banker at GS makes several times as much money as a mid-level engineer at Google.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
geebee 14y ago
I think the offense you've taken results from the way two almost unrelated issues are completely merged in the debates around specialized visas for STEM workers. An extremely simplified version of the discussion goes like this: A: "There is a shortage of stem workers, therefore, we should facilitate immigration for stem workers" B: "No, there is no evidence of a shortage of stem workers, therefore, we should not facilitate immigration specifically for stem workers" A: "I'm amazed that you wouldn't support legislation that would make it easier for highly skilled and productive people to stay in the US." The problem for me in this debate (which I'm still hoping can be a discussion) is that I think that the "shortage" of STEM workers is generally a rational response to market conditions when you consider the other opportunities available to highly educated workers. I also think that targeting specific professions through immigration programs (while restricting mobility in others) can end up distorting the market badly and deterring US Citizens from entering these fields, something that could badly harm the US economy in the long term. To me, this is almost completely unrelated to the question of whether we should make it easier for high skilled immigrants to come to the US in a more generalized way (like Canada or Australia's points system). To that question, I'd answer "yes". In general, I think this is an honest misunderstanding, but I do think that some of the PR machinery behind the lobbying for specialized visas does take deliberate advantage of the ambiguity.

funkaster 14y ago

I agree with you. And I also feel a bit offended with the parent comment. If you're not an immigrant trying to overcome all the hoops and doing ridiculously steps to try to stay "legal" in order to pursue your goals then you probably don't get it... And your goals will (although probably not directly) translate to improve the economy. I just don't get it. We as immigrants pay as much taxes as anyone else, however we have far less benefits and probably much more obligations. This freaking country was founded by immigrants, unless you tell me that all the senate is constituted by native americans, don't bring the crap that immigrants will somehow fuck the economy. I would actually like to see evidence that having more flexible immigrant laws will harm the economy. Also, having your health system tied to corporate America, and not something universal is just stupid: how is it reasonable to tie something as important as health to your employer? Anyway, I don't see anything changing anytime soon. So we should just stick to complain every now and then and keep doing what we know best (everyone knows what that is for them).

sopooneo 14y ago
I pretty much agree with all your points, but you are conflating several issues.

dpritchett 14y ago

I have seen several pieces by Wadhwa in Techcrunch [1]. The point usually seems to be "Microsoft and Google can't hire all the developers they want at the price they're willing to pay; we should increase H1-B quotas". This isn't to say that immigration is bad or that MS and Google aren't having trouble hiring, it's to say that MS and Google might very well be able to find more people within the US if they paid more. Look at it in the context of six top tech companies being caught colluding to keep domestic employee wages down through no-poach agreements [2]. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/30/free-the-h-1bs-free-the-economy/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/30/free-the-h-1bs-free-the-eco... [2] http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html

rayiner 14y ago
Seriously. Microsoft, Google, etc, are in no position to lobby for more H1B until they address the rampant anti-competitive employment practices in the industry.
- dpritchett 14y ago
  Google in particular is a fun case study: $1,167,000 revenue per employee [1] $299,000 net income per employee [1] $106,000 mean salary [2] [1] http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=financials&symbol=N%5EGOOG http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=financials&symbol=N%5EGOO... [2] http://www.salarylist.com/company/Google-Salary.htm http://www.salarylist.com/company/Google-Salary.htm
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I like to point out that Google has higher revenues per employee than Goldman Sachs, but a mid-level banker at GS makes several times as much money as a mid-level engineer at Google.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]

geebee 14y ago

I think the offense you've taken results from the way two almost unrelated issues are completely merged in the debates around specialized visas for STEM workers. An extremely simplified version of the discussion goes like this: A: "There is a shortage of stem workers, therefore, we should facilitate immigration for stem workers" B: "No, there is no evidence of a shortage of stem workers, therefore, we should not facilitate immigration specifically for stem workers" A: "I'm amazed that you wouldn't support legislation that would make it easier for highly skilled and productive people to stay in the US." The problem for me in this debate (which I'm still hoping can be a discussion) is that I think that the "shortage" of STEM workers is generally a rational response to market conditions when you consider the other opportunities available to highly educated workers. I also think that targeting specific professions through immigration programs (while restricting mobility in others) can end up distorting the market badly and deterring US Citizens from entering these fields, something that could badly harm the US economy in the long term. To me, this is almost completely unrelated to the question of whether we should make it easier for high skilled immigrants to come to the US in a more generalized way (like Canada or Australia's points system). To that question, I'd answer "yes". In general, I think this is an honest misunderstanding, but I do think that some of the PR machinery behind the lobbying for specialized visas does take deliberate advantage of the ambiguity.