3 ms·

This isn't the first time I've read a sweeping generalization from yourself based on "personal experience". I have no doubt you have a lot of personal experienc

by mbesto 13y ago

This isn't the first time I've read a sweeping generalization from yourself based on "personal experience". I have no doubt you have a lot of personal experiences and don't disagree with your viewpoint (in fact my personal experience dictates the same) however, it is still a generalization. You're talking about a cohort that you (and I for that matter) have no formal analysis to back up. I'm American and I've immigrated to the UK. I know hundreds of Americans who have done the same. I don't know a single one of them who "has nothing to lose". So I could also conclude the exact opposite conjecture. The reason I mention all of this is not because I think you or I are right or wrong, but because I think is disingenuous to provide arguments (from either side) without any formal analysis. Anyway, let's get back on topic. So if it 33% of immigrants are co-founding big businesses in the US that are helping the US economy, then surely we should be letting in more right? X * Z% = Y, increase Z% and we get more Y, right? There's a couple things at work here: - The fact that 33% are actually making it into the US and creating businesses perhaps speaks the nature of the people who "stop at nothing" to live their dreams. The US immigration system is painful, but perhaps it's this painful barrier that filters out all of the immigrants who don't create jobs for the US and does identify the people that do. - What is the ideal % for founders? Is it 90%? Is it 50%? If it becomes 90% then why shouldn't it become 100%? Perhaps we could create an analogy to a silly american football argument and say "85% of all NFL Pro-bowl players are African-Americans. Let's get more African-Americans playing football!" - I have yet to see a reasonable argument for a system that correctly attributes the probability of creating a successful business by an immigrant to the US. For one, it is not a specific country. The article clearly dictates this. - I believe the massive proponents for immigration reform stems mainly from high-net worth individuals that are complaining because they want to bring highly talented people from abroad to the US so that they can personally benefit from it. Equally, potential immigrants are complaining because they don't have an opportunity to move to the US. If this is such a big problem, why not find a country that supports both? Surely there is an island in the Caribbean that could cater to this? - I think you are right in that the mentality of the successful business creator is someone with "nothing to lose". This is how America became so prosperous and heck it was built by immigrants 200 odd years ago. But surely there are people in the US with "nothing to lose"? I think it would be beneficial to understand more about the character traits of these massively successful business founders, rather than simply the country they come from. Otherwise, we're using the same exact basis the the opposition is using - that this cohort's characteristic is simply that it was born in a country outside of the US.

jacquesm 13y ago
- I've emigrated myself (to Canada, founded a company there) - I know quite a few people who have done the same thing - I'm generalizing across my personal experience because I am me. Feel free to do the same thing, this is a comment on a forum, not a peer-reviewed study on the subject matter. Funny enough, your experience seems to be the same, which strengthens my 'not being surprised' by this. - People in the US with 'nothing to lose' don't typically decide to have nothing to lose. An immigrant is deciding to go onto a risky path in life fairly consciously which would explain the difference in outcome.
- mbesto 13y ago
  I, nor the person before you, weren't questioning your ability to empathize with the original story. I'm not sure why you chose to highlight facts that back that up. Feel free to do the same thing I don't want to. You have influence on this site and it's very likely someone will read your original comment and take your conclusion to be true because "someone influential said it on the internet". Your generalization is consistent with mine, but the conclusion is unfounded. An immigrant is deciding to go onto a risky path in life fairly consciously which would explain the difference in outcome. But immigration in of itself, does not constitute a risky path. Hence my example of Americans in the UK.
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    I agree with you that an American moving to the UK is not taking a risky path. But that is not the general case for immigration, it is rather an outlier.
davidw 13y ago
> perhaps it's this painful barrier that filters out all of the immigrants who don't create jobs for the US and does identify the people that do. I don't buy it. If 'painful barriers' were a good thing, you'd see the world's best capitalists in North Korea and Cuba, no? The US has fewer painful barriers to creating companies, and a lot of good infrastructure, and so a lot of the world's largest, biggest, most important companies are there. Not all of them, of course, but I don't think that barriers really do much good. > correctly attributes the probability of creating a successful business by an immigrant to the US. Predicting the future is often difficult. Don't have time for the other points, I have some barbecue to attend to:-)

by mbesto 13y ago

jacquesm 13y ago

- I've emigrated myself (to Canada, founded a company there) - I know quite a few people who have done the same thing - I'm generalizing across my personal experience because I am me. Feel free to do the same thing, this is a comment on a forum, not a peer-reviewed study on the subject matter. Funny enough, your experience seems to be the same, which strengthens my 'not being surprised' by this. - People in the US with 'nothing to lose' don't typically decide to have nothing to lose. An immigrant is deciding to go onto a risky path in life fairly consciously which would explain the difference in outcome.

mbesto 13y ago
I, nor the person before you, weren't questioning your ability to empathize with the original story. I'm not sure why you chose to highlight facts that back that up. Feel free to do the same thing I don't want to. You have influence on this site and it's very likely someone will read your original comment and take your conclusion to be true because "someone influential said it on the internet". Your generalization is consistent with mine, but the conclusion is unfounded. An immigrant is deciding to go onto a risky path in life fairly consciously which would explain the difference in outcome. But immigration in of itself, does not constitute a risky path. Hence my example of Americans in the UK.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  I agree with you that an American moving to the UK is not taking a risky path. But that is not the general case for immigration, it is rather an outlier.

davidw 13y ago

> perhaps it's this painful barrier that filters out all of the immigrants who don't create jobs for the US and does identify the people that do. I don't buy it. If 'painful barriers' were a good thing, you'd see the world's best capitalists in North Korea and Cuba, no? The US has fewer painful barriers to creating companies, and a lot of good infrastructure, and so a lot of the world's largest, biggest, most important companies are there. Not all of them, of course, but I don't think that barriers really do much good. > correctly attributes the probability of creating a successful business by an immigrant to the US. Predicting the future is often difficult. Don't have time for the other points, I have some barbecue to attend to:-)