3 ms·

Seems fair enough. However, this would also mean that startups would likely find it impossible to earn H1-B's in competitive fields, as a fair amount of the co

by ethbro 12y ago

Seems fair enough. However, this would also mean that startups would likely find it impossible to earn H1-B's in competitive fields, as a fair amount of the compensation is future-loaded. Or, to put it another way: who's going to win a bidding war for Employee X, Microsoft or {Startup Working to Become Microsoft}?

blfr 12y ago
Smaller companies benefit later, after the initial five years, when an employee brought in by Microsoft is free to join a startup. And also indirectly due to generally increased supply.
- ethbro 12y ago
  Personally, if I were Microsoft, I'd kill for the opportunity to limit foreign startup talent hires to a five year perked timetable. Over time, yes, engineers are engineers, and those perking will be a continuous opportunity for startups to hire. However, it doesn't help at all if you want to hire the world's top talent in {insert new technology that didn't exist 2 years ago}. And isn't that ideally what this is about?
trurl 12y ago
Maybe there is something I'm missing due to having little knowledge about all the legal subtitles. It seems like startups could come out ahead by realizing that in the modern world, there is no reason for a talented developer to be on-site 365 days of the year. They could save money by not getting on getting an H1B by having the developer work remotely and only need to obtain more limited visas for occasional on-site visits?
- pm90 12y ago
  Im afraid that is a different debate on remote v/s local. There are both advantages and disadvantages to either. In this specific case, it is quite clear they really wanted their team to be together (i.e. on site) and went to extraordinary length to do that. BTW there are few visa's (if any) for "limited" or occasional visits to the US.
  - trurl 12y ago
    I'm pretty sure such visas exist, as my team has employees in four countries and we try to meet in person every quarter.
    - pm90 12y ago
      "Meeting" is different from "working". You can, of course, get a tourist Visa and meet and talk about stuff, and maybe even work out of a US office for a couple of weeks. But I think that working for a couple of months would not be permitted... Actually, I'm not sure of the law here. As long as you're not employed by the US division, are not paid by them and are just using the US as a place to work for their overseas subsidiary....I'm not sure how that pans out, legality wise.
      - klipt 12y ago
        I'm sure it's not allowed, otherwise American companies could hire unlimited immigrants through an overseas subsidiary.
krschultz 12y ago
Startups already lose a lot of bidding wars to bigger companies for domestic employees. This wouldn't be any different. Big companies pay more money in salary & bonus, generally have better benefits, more stability, and these days many of the side perks that startups have. Almost all of the money 'startups' are raising is destined for employee compensation. This would just be another form of it.

by ethbro 12y ago

blfr 12y ago

Smaller companies benefit later, after the initial five years, when an employee brought in by Microsoft is free to join a startup. And also indirectly due to generally increased supply.

ethbro 12y ago
Personally, if I were Microsoft, I'd kill for the opportunity to limit foreign startup talent hires to a five year perked timetable. Over time, yes, engineers are engineers, and those perking will be a continuous opportunity for startups to hire. However, it doesn't help at all if you want to hire the world's top talent in {insert new technology that didn't exist 2 years ago}. And isn't that ideally what this is about?

trurl 12y ago

Maybe there is something I'm missing due to having little knowledge about all the legal subtitles. It seems like startups could come out ahead by realizing that in the modern world, there is no reason for a talented developer to be on-site 365 days of the year. They could save money by not getting on getting an H1B by having the developer work remotely and only need to obtain more limited visas for occasional on-site visits?

pm90 12y ago
Im afraid that is a different debate on remote v/s local. There are both advantages and disadvantages to either. In this specific case, it is quite clear they really wanted their team to be together (i.e. on site) and went to extraordinary length to do that. BTW there are few visa's (if any) for "limited" or occasional visits to the US.
- trurl 12y ago
  I'm pretty sure such visas exist, as my team has employees in four countries and we try to meet in person every quarter.
  - pm90 12y ago
    "Meeting" is different from "working". You can, of course, get a tourist Visa and meet and talk about stuff, and maybe even work out of a US office for a couple of weeks. But I think that working for a couple of months would not be permitted... Actually, I'm not sure of the law here. As long as you're not employed by the US division, are not paid by them and are just using the US as a place to work for their overseas subsidiary....I'm not sure how that pans out, legality wise.
    - klipt 12y ago
      I'm sure it's not allowed, otherwise American companies could hire unlimited immigrants through an overseas subsidiary.

krschultz 12y ago

Startups already lose a lot of bidding wars to bigger companies for domestic employees. This wouldn't be any different. Big companies pay more money in salary & bonus, generally have better benefits, more stability, and these days many of the side perks that startups have. Almost all of the money 'startups' are raising is destined for employee compensation. This would just be another form of it.