4 ms·

It's a bit sad that such big players are fighting for such a small, incremental step. The number of successful founders facing immigration problems sounds like

It's a bit sad that such big players are fighting for such a small, incremental step. The number of successful founders facing immigration problems sounds like it would be orders of magnitude smaller than the number of potential foreign employees. Is my intuition wrong there? I also fear that a "win" here will allow legislators to push off further reform (e.g. "we just did something") instead of serve as a meaningful stepping stone.

SeoxyS 12y ago
That may be true, but remember; founders are much important to YC's bottom line than the employees that those founders who become successful may or may not hire later.
- colinsidoti 12y ago
  Ehhh, that's pretty cynical. I don't want to blindly support YC, but this seems fairly debatable. YC wants to give founders resources to succeed. One necessary resource to succeed is employees. Given the current tech hiring climate, I wouldn't be shocked if more foreign employees leads to a measurable and significant improvement in their bottom line. I think you will need to make a few too many assumptions to argue that one is definitively better for their bottom line. Perhaps one appeal of this approach, though, is that this effort aligns better with legislator's "bottom line" - if you look at their bottom line as job creation.
  - x0x0 12y ago
    So for a rather refreshing change, tech employers should be honest. There is zero engineering shortage; instead, they want to use h1bs to drive down the prevailing wages. There are also plenty of very skilled mid-career engineers who have left the valley for the midwest because of the better net financial situation when a starter home doesn't cost $1.1m. If valley employers paid better, or got their shit together and pushed the governments here to allow affordable housing, they'd have plenty of engineers available.
    - HistoryInAction 12y ago
      ^ This is the exact debate that should be avoided for startups to be successful in driving through ANY change through DC. I don't know enough to say what the correct position is on H-1Bs, but I know that many people believe strongly in both sides. We're too small a community to solve the problem here, so all we can do is be caught up in it and have our proposals die like flies on a spider's web.
      - x0x0 12y ago
        and that's exactly why we need the debate: so businesses can't buy themselves a self-serving change
        HistoryInAction 12y ago
        The debate is going on already. Businesses either will or won't be able to buy themselves a self-serving change. But that debate is at a level much higher than that which the startup community can influence. When I say we in this case, I mean the HN crowd and similar. We as in Americans can debate this issue all you like. But if I want a startup visa, then I want to avoid getting caught up in the H-1B debate.
        x0x0 12y ago
        As an employee, I don't particularly want a startup visa: I'm neutral to slightly negative on the idea. But certainly we -- as employees -- should get something in exchange for support. That's how the legislative process works. Bluntly: you're attempting to use support from the startup community to actively buy the change you want while, as employees, we get nothing in return. A bargain! For you.
    - keerthiko 12y ago
      I do believe talking about H1Bs for employees (non-founders) and its effect of driving down prevailing wages is somewhat off-topic. I myself am an Indian citizen. I studied in Boston, moved to California with an upperclassman and started a company during my OPT. The company is fairly well-rooted while bootstrapped, but doesn't have massive funding in place yet. Towards the end of my OPT, I tried to apply for the H1B just because I wanted to continue working on the company I started, and because I'd come to call California home. Are you suggesting my team find an American engineer of equal skill take my place in the tiny company I started for the no-salary I was earning, as cofounder? I'm confused. As it stands I didn't get through the H1B lottery two years in a row, and am now pursuing this O1A visa, although this being my first startup (and job) out of college my track record is a bit sparse.
HistoryInAction 12y ago
Okay, lesson one here. There is a huge difference between legislation and executive action. As a community, we will still need immigration reform legislation should the White House agree to push this change through at the regulatory level. Legislation is the only way we get a viable, sustainable solution. And the proposal in the comprehensive immigration bill was the best policy proposal yet, with their non-immigrant X visa and immigrant (green card) EB-6. But to get this small, incremental step done through executive action doesn't involve legislators (except in the negative, aka the effort saw YC going around the Hill asking folks to not link any hypothetical change in this space to the much more politically controversial changes coming about deportations). So while there is a large change Congress continues to do nothing on startup visa or larger immigration reform for the next several years, it won't be because a potential win here will give legislators an out. Finally, yes, the whole point of startup visa is to avoid the increasingly contentious debate over H-1Bs and foreign employees. Founders are small in number but very clearly hire Americans and directly drive economic growth. Politically, it's a no-lose proposition. So it was a feature, not a bug, that this push focused on founders rather than employees, was small and incremental, and was executive focused rather than legislative.

SeoxyS 12y ago

That may be true, but remember; founders are much important to YC's bottom line than the employees that those founders who become successful may or may not hire later.

colinsidoti 12y ago
Ehhh, that's pretty cynical. I don't want to blindly support YC, but this seems fairly debatable. YC wants to give founders resources to succeed. One necessary resource to succeed is employees. Given the current tech hiring climate, I wouldn't be shocked if more foreign employees leads to a measurable and significant improvement in their bottom line. I think you will need to make a few too many assumptions to argue that one is definitively better for their bottom line. Perhaps one appeal of this approach, though, is that this effort aligns better with legislator's "bottom line" - if you look at their bottom line as job creation.
- x0x0 12y ago
  So for a rather refreshing change, tech employers should be honest. There is zero engineering shortage; instead, they want to use h1bs to drive down the prevailing wages. There are also plenty of very skilled mid-career engineers who have left the valley for the midwest because of the better net financial situation when a starter home doesn't cost $1.1m. If valley employers paid better, or got their shit together and pushed the governments here to allow affordable housing, they'd have plenty of engineers available.
  - HistoryInAction 12y ago
    ^ This is the exact debate that should be avoided for startups to be successful in driving through ANY change through DC. I don't know enough to say what the correct position is on H-1Bs, but I know that many people believe strongly in both sides. We're too small a community to solve the problem here, so all we can do is be caught up in it and have our proposals die like flies on a spider's web.
    - x0x0 12y ago
      and that's exactly why we need the debate: so businesses can't buy themselves a self-serving change
      - HistoryInAction 12y ago
        The debate is going on already. Businesses either will or won't be able to buy themselves a self-serving change. But that debate is at a level much higher than that which the startup community can influence. When I say we in this case, I mean the HN crowd and similar. We as in Americans can debate this issue all you like. But if I want a startup visa, then I want to avoid getting caught up in the H-1B debate.
        x0x0 12y ago
        As an employee, I don't particularly want a startup visa: I'm neutral to slightly negative on the idea. But certainly we -- as employees -- should get something in exchange for support. That's how the legislative process works. Bluntly: you're attempting to use support from the startup community to actively buy the change you want while, as employees, we get nothing in return. A bargain! For you.
  - keerthiko 12y ago
    I do believe talking about H1Bs for employees (non-founders) and its effect of driving down prevailing wages is somewhat off-topic. I myself am an Indian citizen. I studied in Boston, moved to California with an upperclassman and started a company during my OPT. The company is fairly well-rooted while bootstrapped, but doesn't have massive funding in place yet. Towards the end of my OPT, I tried to apply for the H1B just because I wanted to continue working on the company I started, and because I'd come to call California home. Are you suggesting my team find an American engineer of equal skill take my place in the tiny company I started for the no-salary I was earning, as cofounder? I'm confused. As it stands I didn't get through the H1B lottery two years in a row, and am now pursuing this O1A visa, although this being my first startup (and job) out of college my track record is a bit sparse.

HistoryInAction 12y ago

Okay, lesson one here. There is a huge difference between legislation and executive action. As a community, we will still need immigration reform legislation should the White House agree to push this change through at the regulatory level. Legislation is the only way we get a viable, sustainable solution. And the proposal in the comprehensive immigration bill was the best policy proposal yet, with their non-immigrant X visa and immigrant (green card) EB-6. But to get this small, incremental step done through executive action doesn't involve legislators (except in the negative, aka the effort saw YC going around the Hill asking folks to not link any hypothetical change in this space to the much more politically controversial changes coming about deportations). So while there is a large change Congress continues to do nothing on startup visa or larger immigration reform for the next several years, it won't be because a potential win here will give legislators an out. Finally, yes, the whole point of startup visa is to avoid the increasingly contentious debate over H-1Bs and foreign employees. Founders are small in number but very clearly hire Americans and directly drive economic growth. Politically, it's a no-lose proposition. So it was a feature, not a bug, that this push focused on founders rather than employees, was small and incremental, and was executive focused rather than legislative.