Trump's Next Move on Immigration to Hit Closer to Home for Tech - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-30/trump-s-next-move-on-immigration-to-hit-closer-to-home-for-tech <comment><USER2> I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that this may not be an altogether bad thing.

From the article: "The foreign work visas were originally established to help U.S. companies recruit from abroad when they couldn't find qualified local workers. But in recent years, there have been allegations the programs have been abused to bring in cheaper workers from overseas to fill jobs that otherwise may go to Americans. The top recipients of the H-1B visas are outsourcers, primarily from India, who run the technology departments of large corporations with largely imported staff."

Outsourcing has come to be pretty racist, and is exploited by Big Consultancy in order to place a lower price on immigrant labour. That's a bad thing for everybody, not least the immigrants themselves.

When companies like Tata are fulfilling government contracts, they _should_ be filling those positions with local labour at local rates.

Meanwhile companies like Google, Facebook, Apple and MicroSoft should continue to be able to hire the experts they need from all over the world regardless of what passport they hold.

<comment><USER3> _When companies like Tata are fulfilling government contracts, they _should_ be filling those positions with local labour at local rates._

Here's an alternate proposal. Suppose it would cost $70k for the wrong type of people to provide labor, and $100k for the right type of person to provide labor.

Lets continue having labor sold by the lowest cost provider. But then lets engage in direct wealth transfers; we'll have the government directly send $30k to the high income software engineers who might have been able to do the same job less efficiently.

This is a more or less equivalent scheme to transfer wealth from taxpayers to high income people. Do you have any objection to this scheme? If so, why does your objection not apply equally well to your protectionist scheme?

<comment><AUTHOR> Who pays for that $30k the government sends the displaced worker?

<comment><USER4> You answered your own question. Government of course.

<comment><AUTHOR> So general income taxes or deficit spending? Isn't that just unemployment insurance by another name?

<comment><USER4> Does it matter? Government collects taxes and then spends it as it chooses.

<comment><USER5> Yes, this is a new type of spending that hasn't existed before, and therefore taxes either have to increase or something else that is currently getting the 30k doesn't get it any more.

You can't hand-wave away where this money comes from.

<comment><USER6> Trumpists can:

"This is the United States government. First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?"

<comment><USER7> Before people dismiss this, it is an actual Trump quote.

<comment><USER8> It is also completely true.

<comment><USER9> It's not though. You don't "default" but your currency has to be well managed to a certain degree. The Dollar exists as it does because of its status as a reserve currency and because of how the Yuan is pinned relative to it.

You could break it. It's not immune to the hyperinflation that's hit other currencies.

Historically, the only other proposed option was the EU and much as been made about unsustainable financial policy there (many allege these issues are overblown to help discredit the notion of a strong Euro, but that's neither here nor there). But now we're starting to talk about creating to-order currencies with arbitrary properties, guaranteed supply limits and curiously popular ownership policies.

While governments will never give up the power to mint their own currency, it's not unimaginable that in 10 years some some countries will seriously consider participating in a digital reserve.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't live in the USA currently but I have worked there before on a visa and I think the current system does require some sort of an overhaul. The current way of doing things is great for some companies and for customers who want to save money on IT services but I believe it does undermine wages (for Americans and others) and being on a visa tied to a company just opens up foreign developers to abuse (not the horrific kind but certainly things like having to endure a lack of certain freedom and lack of stability, begging for green cards and the like). If the overhaul is even worse than what they have now then the rest of the world should stop moaning and treat this like an opportunity. Same applies to the immigration thing. If they turn into a basket case and it is hard to trade and do business with them then why not promote conventions and business elsewhere and grow other economies instead.

<comment><USER3> _The current way of doing things is great for some companies and for customers who want to save money on IT services but I believe it does undermine wages (for Americans and others)_

Why do we care about increasing inequality and increasing costs to consumers by protecting high-wage American workers from foreign competition?

 _and being on a visa tied to a company just opens up foreign developers to abuse_

I'd love to hear what kind of actual abuses an H1B shop can pull off. Make developers work 50 hours/week for the 1-2 months it'll take the developers to find a new job that'll be willing to sponsor the visa?

<comment><USER11> " increasing costs to consumers by protecting high-wage American workers from foreign competition?"

Sorry I have to disagree, I am the most vehement loather of Trump and his fan base but fundamentally this just encourages a race to the bottom, does it not?

<comment><USER3> Allowing competition between whites and negroes (by ending Jim Crow, Davis Bacon and similar laws) also encourages a race to the bottom. Do you have any principled reason for opposing those laws?

(Note: I'm not calling you "racist" \- that's a slur that has lost all meaning these days. I'm taking a policy I'm pretty sure you oppose and asking you for a principled reason why you oppose it.)

<comment><USER12> The Jim Crow laws were a government favoring some of its citizens over other citizens, whereas these laws favor citizens over foreigners. In my opinion, it is a country's duty to place its own people first, but in the end it's up to the electorate.

<comment><USER3> In my opinion, it's a race's duty to place it's own people first. (Not actually my opinion, but for the sake of argument...)

What principle makes your favored accident of birth ok to discriminate on, but not mine?

<comment><USER13> The fact that the institutions you are born under (like government) are real and race isn't ([http://www.vox.com/2014/10/10/6943461/race-social- construct-...](http://www.vox.com/2014/10/10/6943461/race-social-construct- origins-census)).

Are you suggesting India become the 51st state of America?

<comment><USER3> All your reasons why race isn't real is simply because legal/cultural definitions of it can change dependent on legal and social norms.

So can the idea of "Americanness" \- either laws around citizenship/work permission/etc, or cultural/social norms around this.

<comment><USER13> American = has citizenship. Conferred by the very real US citizenship and immigration service.

That isn't a particularly unclear definition.

<comment><USER3> The US has had clear definitions of race in the past - e.g. "1/16 or more". If we adopt such a definition, will you drop your objections to legalized racism? If not, why not?

It's ok, we've discussed this before. I don't expect anything other than evasion of the core philosophical issue.

<comment><USER13> The point I made very clearly before is the same as the one I made now.

If you are a US citizen, subject to US laws enforced by the very _real_ institution of the US government which you live under, the US government owes you a living.

If you are, say, a Mongolian citizen, the US government doesn't owe you a living.

Your opinion was apparently that the US owes Mongolian citizens the same thing it owes US citizens, because... reasons.

If you are of any particular race that is an irrelevance. An irrelevance you keep bringing up because you are _obsessed_ with race to a point that is frankly disturbing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Disclosure: my wife used to be on a work-permit scheme similar to H1B.

The problem with all of these schemes is they're tied to a particular job. You give up that job, your right to remain is toast. This makes it hard to move to competitors and artificially depresses wages. In turn, this artificially affects native workers in the same industry.

I think the solution here is more capitalism, not more government. Anyone coming to work shouldn't be limited in who they work for. You'd find this flow of cheap labour dry up awfully fast if they could get better jobs.

<comment><USER15> In comparison, the visa (technically, "residency permit") scheme in Japan (widely viewed as a xenophobic, anti-immigrant country) is tied to the person. You get sponsored in by an employer in a field, and then your residency is tied to you being employed in that field. You can instantly turn around and quit that job and find another one in the same field. Policy is you have 30 [or was it 60?90? something like that] days to find a new job or voluntarily forfeit your residency. You will only need to prove that though the next time you renew your residency permit.

They also make it very easy for skilled labour to immigrate. You just need a degree in your field and a sponsoring employer. There are no quotas, no need for the employer to prove they tried to find a local at above market rates, fees aren't onerous, etc.

The xenophobic view comes partly from how there aren't many skilled workers who _want_ or _can_ work in Japan (relatively low wages, Japanese language requirement) but mostly from their reluctance to allow unskilled labour in (which the US accepts via illegal immigration and Europe accepts via refugees)

<comment><USER16> H1B holders also have 60 days to find a new job after quitting/being fired from their old job.

[https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-publishes- fin...](https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-publishes-final-rule- certain-employment-based-immigrant-and-nonimmigrant-visa-programs)

<comment><USER17> Does the new job need to continue to sponsor under the H1B program? If so that's not comparable.

<comment><USER18> What exactly do you think is sponsoring H1B? The company just pays a one time fee for applying for your permit which is negligible compared to how much engineers are paid. They don't have ongoing expenses related to work permit.

<comment><USER14> The fact remains that many employers don't want to get involved, and don't. Last thing you want as an employer is uncertainty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Just for perspective here, I'm currently an H1-B holder at a "unicorn" tech company.

I did not have multiple H1-B applications, I was educated in the US, and I got very very lucky in getting the lottery. I'm paid the same as my coworkers on my team, I do not have to work longer hours than them, and for all intents and purposes I am treated equally by my peers or management (not skipped on promotions, raises etc).

So to speak, I work in the category of companies that do not abuse the H1-B system, and uses it to find the right candidates (We've been looking for someone to add to our team for 1 year at this point, and we can't find anyone, american or not).

That said, even though I might benefit from this, I am still worried personally as the devil will be in the details, and these things have a tendency to have unintended consequences. Furthermore, I'm in the very early stages of postulating for a green card, and what the future of that process may entail also keeps me up at night. I really hope I will not have to pack up my things and be forced to leave at any moment.

</comment><comment><USER20> Why would SV clash with Trump on this? This seems like a sensible solution to the problem and one I've seen posted multiple times here on HN.

<comment><USER21> Good for software developers. Not so much for large companies that want to drive down salaries through indentured servitude (H1B).

<comment><USER22> No it's not that good for software developers or anyone really.

Many of those hired on H1B are doing roles for which they simply can't get enough local talent. And so all that is going to happen is that companies are going to shift entire projects offshore or simply not take on as many projects.

There does need to be reform. But frankly given the chaotic manner in which the Trump administration is crafting and implementing policy I don't think their approach to reform will be nuanced enough.

<comment><USER23> > Many of those hired on H1B are doing roles for which they simply can't get > local talent

So it's not just a way to get regular software developers at a cheap price? OK let's raise the minimum salary requirement for H1B visas to $120k.

<comment><USER24> Or maybe something around the average software engineer pay scale of $80,000? What about student interns?

<comment><USER25> Student interns are not on H1B. It's J1 I believe.

<comment><USER26> Exchange interns are J1, student interns in the US use their current F1 Visa with a CPT (Curricular Practical Training) permit for summer internship, or sometimes an OPT (Optional Practical Training) permit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I think the fairly straightforward solution to the H1B issue is to tie it to a salary requirement, rather than a lottery/other subjective measures.

If I want to hire a software developer from abroad and I'm willing to pay him above-market rates relative to similar jobs, that should demonstrate that I'm hiring that person because of his skills/knowledge rather than trying to cut costs.

<comment> d--b It's already the case. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Condition_Application](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Condition_Application))

<comment><USER28> "Prevailing wage" being the loophole.

I get paid >$80k. Yet the wage that all of our "similar position" (actual wage) visa applicants get is $40k.

The "prevailing wage" for a SwE is not $40k, in the NYC area. Neither is the "actual wage". Companies abuse this constantly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The actual document was leaked to Vox, and is here: [https://cdn0.vox- cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7872567/P...](https://cdn0.vox- cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7872567/Protecting_American_Jobs_and_Workers_by_Strengthening_the_Integrity_of_Foreign_Worker_Visa_Programs.0.pdf)

<comment><USER30> Thanks for this link. Reading the draft order reveals a lot - for example, Section 4 a) ii) of the order would kill the international entrepreneur parole rule before it even comes into effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Interesting. Singapore introduced the exact same policy (hire Singaporeans first) a few years ago. I thought it was well-intentioned even though it would hurt myself as a foreigner.

Edit to add source:

[http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/firms-must-show- they-t...](http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/firms-must-show-they-tried- to-hire-sporeans-first)

<comment><USER13> Outside of the corporate expat-package bubble Singapore is a terrible place to work anyway.

Virtually all of the hiring managers I talked to were clueless about technology and were content to pay shitty wages for substandard work.

The nature of their 2 year military service also has the effect of turning the locals into servile yes-men.

<comment><USER32> I was looking at relocating to South East Asia but Singapore's wages are really low compared to the cost of living.

Median salary for software engineers are a measly SGD$48,953 (34,360 USD). Average rents being SGD$1,971 for a one bedroom.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> As a European soon leaving university, and entering the job market, this makes working in the US more attractive.

Before I'd written it off, as the competition for H1-B visas is fierce. However, with luck this change will be aimed exactly at people like me. This makes the high-wages and innovation of the US look much more appealing.

There remains the downside of US politics in general and labor protection specifically.

<comment><USER22> Honestly I don't really think anything will change for you.

You are still going to be struggling to find work without at least some experience. Unless of course you enter a graduate program which is seperate from the rest of the job market.

Many companies are simply ill-equipped or unwilling to invest in training young developers. Especially in SV where the pace and intensity is so much higher.

<comment><USER33> I'm dutch, which (for a variety of weird reasons) means I'll be finishing my masters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The idea that Visas would be awarded from highest offered salary to lowest until cap is hit does actually seem halfway reasonable -- if you really truly need somebody you'll likely be willing to pay them more. Whereas if you make your money off of underpaying large numbers of workers, you'll probably end up sitting at the end of the line.

(Not that I'll be a fan of the program exactly, just that I've heard worse ideas.)

</comment><comment><USER35> Looks like this is not just targeting H-1B, but basically _all work and business_ visas for the US:

> The draft of Trump's executive order covers an alphabet soup of visa > programs, including H-1B, L-1, E-2 and B1.

L-1 is intracompany transfer, E-2 is investor, and B-1 is the super common standard "I'm going to a meeting" business visa needed by everybody not in the visa waiver program.

<comment><USER36> Would that be including the E-3 for Australians as well?

<comment><USER30> The draft order is here: [https://cdn0.vox- cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7872567/P...](https://cdn0.vox- cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7872567/Protecting_American_Jobs_and_Workers_by_Strengthening_the_Integrity_of_Foreign_Worker_Visa_Programs.0.pdf)

It doesn't mention the E-3 specifically, but the E-3 could come under review under the broader non-immigrant visa review provisions such as section 4d)i)A). The J-1 is specifically mentioned, which would affect Australian students on working holidays. Also, this order, if signed, would stop the international entrepreneur parole rule which would close another entry pathway.

<comment><USER36> That's sort of what I figured. That the usual suspects of visas get hit right now, but that all other visas would come under review in due time.

I shall have to see how it pans out, would have liked to work my next job in the USA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Yes, the current H1B system is broken. People will find loopholes in the future replacement as well. Will the new system be better? I am not sure.

A couple of fixes would help:

(a) Remove the dependency between the visa holder and the company that sponsors H1B. Initially, every h1b holder needs a company to sponsor. But break this indenture after 12 or 18 months.

(b) Check the wages against IRS W2. Here, people complain about wage disparities between midwest and nyc/bay area. If someone says we need to have $80K min in Des Moines, IA., and $130K in Sunnyvale, CA, people will abuse this system through intermediate contracting agencies. Basically, one works in the bay area for $100K, while claiming on the paper that he is working in Iowa.

(c) lets accept that fact that humans are selfish and that we can't get a perfect system (a system that doesn't get abused). Just work with ways to reduce loopholes. For instance, UK is stricter in terms of immigration enforcement; they send the border patrol to train stations, bus stops, apartments, to check on the status of people. I don't see it happening in the states that much.

(d) STEM is abused now with silly universities in America, minting 1000's of MS degrees in STEM.

</comment><comment><USER38> This is going to be a fantastic test of HN's objectivity. In any discussion on immigration there is always a huge thread on the abuse of the H1-B program. I see words like "indentured servitude" and "undercutting tech salaries".

If Trump reforms the H1-B program to eliminate these issues, will people say "I agree with what Trump did"? I won't hold my breath.

<comment><USER39> I think HN passed your objectivity test with flying colors. The top comment is sticking its neck out and the top reply is a pretty succinct summary of how many people feel (myself included).

> Maybe.

> Here's the thing. Think about this as an MVP slapped together in a weekend, > about to hit the biggest batch of software testers around. They're going to > find show stopping bugs. And every one of those bugs is going to be > someone's life, uprooted.

> Visa allocation changes _going_forward_ are certainly a reasonable thing. > Fully within the realm of policy. But I'm going to bet that these changes > are going to be of a far wider scope than expected and include people on > current visas, and I wouldn't bet against visas getting revoked and workers > having to go home the next day or get deported.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> A company I work for remotely would love to bring me over and pay me at the market rate.

However, that's practically impossible due to current immigration process and H1-B scheming, caps, paperwork, expense and what-not.

It's much easier to get a similar job in EU country, if you have required (IT) skills. Ironically, EU is the forefront of the current migration and refugee scare.

So this could be a good thing at the end.

</comment><comment><USER3> I love HN.

Trump hating on Iranians and Mexicans.

HN: "I hate Trump, he's so mean to immigrants. And avocado prices will go up! ::angry face::

Trump hating on Indians _who took our jobs!_

HN: "Protectionism for me too? ::swoons::"

<comment><USER41> Well that's not even remotely the same thing.

Trump hating on Iranians _for no good reason_. Trump hating on Mexicans _who are here legally or aren 't even in the country_ (the whole "Mexicans are rapists, but I'm sure there's some good ones" comment). Versus Trump changing immigration policy to balance foreign and domestic workers, where it's heavily tipped to foreign workers right now.

He's not building a wall to keep out Indians, he's not arresting them at airports when they have a green card, his plan is to just not issue as many visas, and put tighter restrictions on the people he gives visas to.

That's not "hating on" anyone. There are lots of reasons to oppose Trump, but this isn't one of them. The H1B visa system could use some work, and it's getting that work.

<comment><USER3> It's heavily tipped to foreign workers?

For a US worker to find a job, they need to find a willing employer.

For a foreign worker, they need to:

0) Find a willing employer.

1) Get lucky. For 2017, there were 236,000 applications for 65,000 H1Bs (about a 25% success rate).

2) Prove that an American worker isn't available to do the job.

3) Wait > 8 months to start the job (applications happen in April 2016 for 2017 employment).

Yeah, things are totally tipped in favor of foreign workers. I'm constantly wondering if I should give up my US citizenship to gain these advantages.

<comment><USER41> If it wasn't tipped toward foreign workers, you'd hear stories of H1B workers who sadly lost their job to an American. You'd hear stories about companies who hired all American employees, then apologized when they realize it didn't work out and they went back to H1B workers. You'd hear politicians calling for more foreign workers because there are too many jobs for Americans.

The 25% success rate? That's the system working as intended.

But your story of American workers just needing to find a willing employer, your story of proving that an American worker isn't available to do the job, it's just not true. Or at least it's not as true as you want to make it seem.

The minimum for an H1B employee is $60,000 right now. I made more than that at my first tech job right out of college, living in a small city in the Midwest. To get an H1B employee, all you have to do is put up a job posting for $60,000 and wait. The people who will fill that position will be expecting $80,000 and will turn it down. To get an H1B employee, all you need to do is pay far less than market rate (but at or above H1B minimum). Boom, you have highly skilled Americans out of a job and companies getting employees for less than market rate. I've seen it happen at every place I've ever worked.

Part of Trump's idea is to raise the minimum for H1B workers to $100k. The idea of an H1B is that it allows you to hire employees who have such a specialized skillset that you can't find someone in America to do the work. What it's become is finding an entry-level Java coder for less than what an American college-educated entry-level employee would make. If the work you need done is so advanced or so specialized that there is no one in America who can do it, you should be willing to pay whatever it costs to get it done.

It should be _extremely_ difficult to hire a foreign worker. Not impossible, but really, really hard. Yes, it may be a privilege to be an American, but there are a lot of unemployed, skilled, college-educated Americans. The problem isn't not finding enough Americans to fill the positions, it's not wanting to pay what they need to get paid. And that's the wrong sort of behavior to encourage.

H1B visas should drive pay _up_ , not down.

<comment><USER42> > If it wasn't tipped toward foreign workers, you'd hear stories of H1B > workers who sadly lost their job to an American.

You don't, because when an H-1B worker loses her job, she has to leave the country or find another job real quick. Either way, she most likely do not have time to get her story across to you.

<comment><USER41> That's another problem I have with the current H1B visa system: the workers are almost literally slaves. It is so close to indentured servitude that I'm not sure if it isn't the same thing as indentured servitude. I've worked at multinational tech companies and I've worked at regional enterprises and everywhere in between and unfailingly, the H1B employees have four people in a two bedroom apartment all sharing a 1987 Toyota Camry. They work 17 hour days for less money than their coworkers, and if they complain, they're deported and banned from the country.

That's not fair. If your skillset is so important that American companies will bring you across the ocean from your home country to work for them, you should be a _god_ to them. You should be the most valuable employee they have. They hired Joe because he was the best candidate that applied to their local ad. They hand-picked Prakesh and brought him all the way to California from his home in India because _no one is better than Prakesh_.

The best way to make that happen? Pay them more.

<comment><USER42> > That's not fair.

What you are asking for is a point-based skilled immigration system like in Canada, Australia etc. Nobody has proposed that in US yet. But there is a bill - H.R.392: Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2017 [1] - currently up for consideration of the Congress which removes the multi-decade green card backlogs for skilled immigrants. From [2]:

       H.R. 392, Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act replaces the current per-country caps
       on immigration with a first-come first-served visa system without increasing the total number
       of available visas. The current system of awarding no more than 7% of available employment-based
       visas to one country is discriminatory. It ultimately imposes decades-long wait times for people
       from some countries, creating a backlog of qualified workers. The bill makes no changes to the
       current law limiting US employers to hire foreign workers except when there are no qualified,
       willing, able, and available American citizens.

Please consider supporting H.R.392 as that is closest we have now to what you are asking for.

[1]: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house- bill/392/...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house- bill/392/text?r=3)

[2]: [http://chaffetz.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentI...](http://chaffetz.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=785)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I have a question to tech companies CEOs, who make so much noise about Trump latest executive order.

If you really care that much about Muslim countries then explain to me: why the PhD brain drain is so good for these countries?

</comment><comment><USER44> Trump is playing "divide and conquer". Make every action benefit some segment of people, and sow discord among your opponents.

That said, as a highly skilled, highly paid H1B person at one of those top companies who probably needs to wait 5 more years to get a green card by virtue of being born in the "wrong" country, I completely agree that there are a lot of things broken in the current system. I just don't know if Trump is actually interested in fixing them, or if this is just another populist move to appease his voter base.

<comment><USER45> H1B reform has been talked about for going on a decade now.

The fact that Trump wants to tackle this in no way represents a "divide and conquer" tactic.

</comment></comment><comment> d--b This is another media stunt. H1B visas are already american-first. Immigration rules make the applicant go through many hoops to prove that the job has been advertised and American people have been interviewing for the position before offering it to the H1B visa applicant. Of course, this is already silly, because companies can just fake it, and usually they hire the person they want for the skills they have. Everybody who's been through the visa process can attest how hard it already is.

But that's not the point. Of course a 90-day ban on immigration from 7 countries is not going to significantly improve the security of the US. Of course overhauling the worker visa process is not going to create more jobs for the American worker in the Michigan area. Being very unpopular, Trump's goal right now is to stay in place. And to do that, he needs to keep his voters voting for him at the next election. Trump's strategy is to keep the people who elected him happy with his moves, and to keep them offended by the backlashes he provokes. He needs them to be suspicious of the news, and of the elites, because then he can tell them whatever he wants. The message he wants to push is "look I've done what I've been elected to do, and nobody will let me." The more he can say that the media/elites won't let him, the more his voters will look away when he wants to shut them down.

<comment><USER46> I don't think Trump really has "a strategy".

Not least because he's burning up his most combustible powder. It's well-known in politics that you do the antipopulist heavy lifting at the start of your term, then sugar the turd with various splurges towards the end of your term. Electoral feeling for any action, no matter how popular or unpopular, is always returning to a baseline of "meh".

If Trump had such a strategy, he'd have held this stuff over until before the mid-terms or the 2020 campaign.

</comment></comment><comment> village-idiot On one hand I do believe that work-visa programs need to be reformed, on the other I can't imagine Trump using this as anything but a way attack foreigners.

</comment><comment><USER47> I think this is a great move and will increase the chances of Europeans being hired by truly tech-driven firms in the US.

</comment><comment><USER48> We will simply see the truth of the affair in the reality of the supply contraction and the volatility in wages post-execution of the H!-B programme, then we will know for sure if the people paying us or the people are are either grossly misinformed or were outright lying to us depending on the events that take place, depending on the degree of volatility on the price of software we will get an idea for what the supply of workers was and how much they were suppressing wages or weren't and that will give us some insight into the meta-game as it is taking place to-day.

This is akin to Isaac Levi's "Mild Contractions" in formal epistemology where you contract beliefs/situations to see what happens to the phenomena to get accurate information, I think that is a correct statement regarding Mr. Levi.

<comment><USER48> Say, this is also the situation with the quality of our knowledge relative to situations like that of self-driving cars and how they will effect the economy, superficially, but also pervasively, say.... (let the following be a few elements of the set of statements relevant to the affair of {economic effects of self driving cars}

* What will happen to traffic

* The amount of automobile deaths

* The degree of the impact

* The decrease in cost of shipping materials

* Commodity prices relative to the materials here

* Allegedly the primary value of self driving cars does not occur initially, but when we can organize cities around self-driving cars, like we did with electricity, and then reap the benefits. So place your bets boys.

We will say, compare current expectations of the affair relative to what happens and we will have a very modern gauge for the quality of our knowledge in post-industrial civilization/complex-systems. This'll be a real good gauge because a lot of money is riding on this, commodity prices, you know, the entire thing. And then we will know if we should trust our experts relative to the next situation that happens, the reason why this is a big deal is that such a massive change will not occur like this(likely) for awhile, this is like another industrial revolution.

I think it'll be an interesting affair. The reason this type of reasoning is really important is because we really need an accurate gauge of the quality of our economic knowledge and just the field of economics && the current experts we have in general, because we are using that very same subject to reason about this affair, say the effects of changes in the current Visa programme, if the effects are literally nothing like the standard theory, then non- mainline economic reasoning is just fine/dandy to use the next time and we cannot suppress those people next time. etc. (and all other sets of statements that apply to the current affair, i would never only mean what i _only_ said.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> > Hira, who has done extensive research on the subject, points out workers at > outsourcers are typically not treated as well as others. The median wage at > outsourcing firms for H-1B workers was less than $70,000, while Apple, > Google and Microsoft paid their employees in the program more than $100,000, > according to data he collected. That suggests the American companies are > going after true, highly skilled employees, while the outsourcers are > recruiting less expensive talent, he said.

Not necessarily. You could also say that the big tech companies are overpaying them or there's premium in their compensation while they're fairly compensated in those Indian outsourcing companies with no premium in their pay package.

<comment><USER50> OK so we need to agree on the definition of a market here. I'm gonna take the US tech market as the collection of all citizens and legal immigrants with the relevant skills.

Now, if you can't get a majority of workers in the market to work for you for a lower wage, that is not fair market value, by definition. If you need to bring in legal immigrants and pay them less than the above mentioned fair market value, they are being underpaid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> The overall idea makes sense. However, HOW remains a crucial detail. The work visa is to find people outside US if you do not mind local labor. We all know some companies abuse this system currently while some companies do not. One way would be to check the distribution of market salaries for the respected position and apply the doctorine of disparate impact 80% rule [0]. That will still be an issue if people are creative with their job titles but it is incredibly hard to find the right kind of incentives.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact#The_80.25_rul...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact#The_80.25_rule)

</comment><comment><USER52> Good.

This should be unanimously supported by the developed tech world.

</comment><comment><USER53> Any guess on how much will salaries for developers will rise after this move?

<comment><USER54> If a company can't recruit an immigrant worker on a visa they'll try recruit one of the currently unemployed local developers on the exact same package the immigrant would have been on. That has no impact on wages.

If the job required a unique talent that would only have been possible to fill with an exceptionally talented immigrant worker then the job won't be filled, and the company will be consequently less competitive. That will likely drive the wages of their workers _down_ if a different company (in India perhaps) is able to utilize that worker's skills.

For example, imagine the next Jony Ive can't get a visa so he stays in the UK and works for a British company instead.. How would that impact American wages?

<comment><USER52> Why would it drive wages down?! It'd be the exact opposite, and is the reason that wages have been stagnant in STEM, and is the reason for the wage collusion scandal. Companies would have to increase their offers to attract talent from other companies. Or they would have to - as used to be the case everywhere - accept that talent is nurtured from within.

<comment><USER22> Not sure what on earth you're expecting with STEM wages.

Across the economy and in most countries wages have been stagnant and STEM is no exception. And don't forget that most IT projects are not mandatory. If wages rise significantly companies will just cut back on projects which means more unemployed talent and hence the wages will drop back.

And there is no evidence that talent is better nurtured from within. It is just as beneficial for companies to have outsiders with unique experiences and viewpoints join.

<comment><USER52> You'd expect wages to rise when it's in industries with supposed skills shortages, which necessitates major corporations lobbying government for more visas.

If wages rose, companies couldn't just uniformly cut back on projects to keep their net profit the same in a hypercompetitive industry. Hence the wage collusion scandal, mentioned above.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> H1B needs reform no doubt. But I remain vigilant to see exactly how Trump administration is enforcing their agenda.

Worst case, I would go to another country or go back home, which will be hard in the beginning but will be fine over long term. As a decent and confident developer, it is not hard to find jobs around the world. There will be more opportunities for other countries if US fails to attract and retain the smart people from all over the world.

Stay strong and curious, people!

</comment><comment><USER56> H1B has needed reform for a very long time. Let's see if what comes from this executive order. Good intention but I don't trust Trump.

</comment><comment><USER57> Don't think people/general public will be as outraged about this as the ban on refugees this past weekend.

</comment><comment><USER58> Inevitable since [https://qz.com/889524/the-us-says-oracle-is-encouraging- indi...](https://qz.com/889524/the-us-says-oracle-is-encouraging-indians-to- hire-others-indians-and-its-killing-diversity/)

</comment><comment><USER59> > if they recruit foreign workers, priority would be given to the most highly > paid.

That is the simplest solution.

</comment><comment><USER60> Maybe one day no one would like to live in USA, and the citizens will start migrating, investors will choose other countries, and then only "Americans" will live there. Then people will realise , we fucked it up , probably they will never get it.

<comment><USER61> Hopefully at that point they can migrate from the US to the Republic of California [http://www.yescalifornia.org/](http://www.yescalifornia.org/)

<comment><USER62> I live in SF and hate how glibly techies talk about secession.

It may be because I grew up in the south and it's part of our history but techies seem to forget that the bloodiest US conflict in history was to prevent this very thing. To even entertain the idea that secession would not result in a mass amounts of destruction death exemplifies the Bay area bubble mentality.

<comment><USER41> Eh, it's a fun thing to think about, especially knowing it will never happen. Texas fantasizes about it all the time. Every few months there's some kind of map being posted here about how to split the US into different countries or re-draw the state borders or some other fantasy map. It's just a fun daydream.

I live in Michigan and several times we've had people from the Upper Peninsula try to get support for them to create a new state, ignoring the fact that they would be creating one of the poorest, most uneducated, and most unpopulated states, and it'd never be allowed.

It's a symbolic gesture to say "I don't agree with X policy". the UP of Michigan does it to protest Lansing tax policies, Texas does it to protest liberal federal policies, California does it to protest right-wing federal policies. And everyone knows full well it won't go any farther than a protest.

<comment><USER63> Its symbolic of not playing well with others and being bigoted against their view of the rest of the country. See: Texas

Seriously, it may be all in fun, but it paints a sad message about the perceptions of people who participate.

<comment><USER50> I think its just one way to vent frustration in the face of powerlessness. Like a protest against State's powerlessness. So Texas secessionists may talk and hold rallies but they don't (IMO, living in Austin, Texas) seriously consider leaving.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Kind of tangentially related, any clue what is going to happen to the Diversity Visa lottery?

<comment><USER32> Considering the only requirement is high school education, I think it's likely that DV is on the chopping block.

There a few fake articles that say it's cancelled already.

I've also read that DV visa holders from the 7 countries that are mentioned in last week's executive order will not be able to enter the United States.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> _the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau shall include questions to determine U.S. citizenship and immigration status on the long-form questionnaire in the decennial census_

</comment><comment><USER66> This is the sole point of agreement I have with Trump. He might lose because of the other odeous things he is doing.

</comment><comment><USER67> I'm all for reform but an executive order? Something on this scale needs to go through Congress first.

<comment><USER68> Maybe he is trying to beat the current executive order record holder? Trump did just kick him out of the Whitehouse.

<comment><USER67> Really?

Obama way way down on the list.

Try again.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> About time

</comment><comment><USER70> let's see how this plays out -- with Indian PM Modi scheduled to visit US soon and with the current bonhomie between US and India, IT may as well be classfied as an 'exception'.

</comment><comment><USER71> This is an article about 250 Disney of FL jobs that were displaced by H1-B Visa abuse. Trump was clearly against the abuse and spoke out against it. Rubio on the other hand was for tripling the number of Visas to 250,000 and had Disney as one of his major donors.

Much of Silicon Valley wants to keep wages depressed and have more American unemployed by hiring more immigrant workers over using Americans. Many people say they dislike Trump, but of all the candidate except for Sanders he was the only ones who wasn't bought by Silicon Valley and Wall Street. I believe Joe Biden also was not bought by SV and Wall Street and was concerned about American workers.

"While Donald Trump has called on Disney to hire back all of these workers and has pledged to end H-1B job theft as President, Sen. Marco Rubio has pushed to expand the controversial H-1B program—he has introduced two bills that would dramatically boost the issuances of H-1Bs. As recently as last year, Rubio introduced a bill—endorsed by Disney's CEO Bob Iger via his immigration lobbying firm—that would triple the issuances of H-1Bs. Disney is one of Sen. Rubio's top financial backers—having donated more that $2 million according to Open Secrets."

[http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2016/02/28/displaced- di...](http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2016/02/28/displaced-disney- workers-shame-on-you-marco-rubio-we-stand-with-trump/)

<comment><USER71> Why was this downvoted? It would be helpful if someone stated the reason why. What is clear is that Trump represents American workers over the elites that want to depress wages. What is also clear is that Rubio was "bought" by Disney precisely because they wanted to depress American wages.

Are these facts incorrect?

<comment><USER72> I don't know if you can claim as facts that Trump represents American workers over the elites or that Rubio was bought by Disney. Those are hypotheses and opinions that can only be strongly or poorly argued to the rest of us.

I would declaim your first contention of Trump favoring workers over wealthy elites, merely by the long sordid history of wage theft perpetrated by Trump[0].

The claim about Rubio needs more evidence to be considered a fact. I would agree, given the circumstantial evidence, but it wouldn't yet be a fact unless direct evidence could be presented.

[0][https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/digger/wp/2017/01/06/thi...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/digger/wp/2017/01/06/third- lien-on-trump-hotel-brings-alleged-unpaid-bills-to- over-5-million/?utm_term=.e272faae6d9f)

<comment><USER71> > "I don't know if you can claim as facts that Trump represents American > workers over the elites or that Rubio was bought by Disney."

I didn't say that Rubio was bought by Disney, but that 'Rubio was "bought" by Disney', the quotes are operative to suggest a strong implication without in fact true evidence which might be illegal. The point is that Rubio accepted $2 million from Disney to increase from 85,000 to 250,000 the number of H1-B visas that only serves to replace American STEM workers with immigrants who are cheaper and who don't have job mobility. Rubio ignored his own constituents, 250 of whom had their jobs replaced by Disney using immigrants. Increasing the number of H1-B visas by 165,000 fewer American STEM workers get jobs _each year_ or 1.65 million over a decade.

What is clear about Trump is that he has spoken out against Disney's use of H1-B visas to replace American STEM jobs. He has spoken out and intervened with Carrier which wanted to send 2000 Indiana factory jobs to Mexico. About 1000 of those jobs will be saved.

Sanders agreed with Trump about Carrier, Disney, etc., but Hilary was silent as were all of the other Republican candidates. I can only speak of Rubio's actions (accepting $2 million from Disney which wanted to put more American STEM workers on unemployment and sponsoring a bill to increase H1-B Visas) compared with Trump who spoke out against these actions and who did not receive one cent from Disney or probably most SV and Wall Street firms.

Most of the SV and Wall Street firms hate Trump precisely because he won't allow them to import cheap STEM labor so now the firms will have to pay market rates to retain STEM employees.

HP chief Meg Whitman, a Republican, said she was voting for Hilary because

'"Trump's reckless and uninformed positions" on immigration...' [1]. Trump's reckless and uninformed position on immigration is stopping illegal immigration and ensuring H1-B visas are issued according to law -- only for those STEM jobs for which no Americans are qualified. HP like Disney and other firms that hire STEM workers want to depress STEM job income using immigrants (e.g., H1-B Visas). Trump will have nothing of it and that makes them very, very angry.

[1] [http://fortune.com/2016/08/02/hewlett-packard-enterprise- meg...](http://fortune.com/2016/08/02/hewlett-packard-enterprise-meg-whitman- donald-trump-hillary-clinton/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> If you read the entire article, you can see that President Trump is on the side of the American IT worker and President Obama was working against Americans by allowing more immigrants to work here outside the legal H1-B Visa system through an executive order.

People seem to think that Trump is the bad guy and Obama the good guy, but then how do you justify Obamas actions? Trump is right. Obama is wrong.

It was Trump who spoke out against Disney of Florida's abuse of H1-B Visas displacing 250 American IT workers. Except for Sanders and Trump all of the other candidates were for replacing American IT workers with immigrants and depressing American IT worker wages.

"This is an argument which Trump has weighed in on in the past and a point of contention between the President Elect and Barack Obama. It was almost one year ago when Obama raised eyebrows by issuing an executive order which would allow these H-1B visa holders to receive green cards and stay in the country even if their employment was terminated. This led observers to note that he was essentially corrupting the entire purpose of the H-1B program and overload existing immigration quotas. (Numbers USA)"

[http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/19/disney-lawsuit-may- dra...](http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/19/disney-lawsuit-may-drag-trump- back-into-h-1b-visa-debate/)

<comment><USER42> From the article you linked:

        "What is going on is he is effectively giving Green Cards to people on H-1B visas who are
        unable to get Green Cards due to the [annual] quotas… it could be over 100,000."

        The INA states that no country may receive more than 7 percent of the total number of green
        cards available in a given year. The executive action would bypass the INA per-country caps
        for H-1B workers, essentially providing them with a fast track to U.S. citizenship.

This is a misunderstanding. There are no extra green cards handed out. All this provision does is that it removes the 7-percent-per-country quota restriction. This restriction is unfair to applicants from populous countries, and the administration was planning to remove those. Please don't spread misinformation here on HN.

<comment><USER71> From the quote you gave, "What is going on is he is _effectively_ giving Green Cards to people on H-1B visas who are unable to get Green Cards due to the [annual] quotas… it could be over 100,000." [emphasis added]

The article states _effectively_ which means that while they aren't given out in reality, they are accomplishing much the same thing in practice and that 100,000 more people are working here than should be according to the intent of the law. For every one of those workers working here, there is one less American working here.

When Congress passed the law, they knew what they were doing. 7% is about 1 in 14 for a world with over 180 countries. Instead of an executive order, they should probably change the law through Congress.

If you want to talk about fairness, then talk about how unfair it is that American workers have wages further depressed and have a more difficult time finding jobs because of this change in executive order (and not the law). The President is supposed to represent American citizens who vote him in office, instead represents the elites (e.g. Silicon Valley firms and Wall Street firms) who want depressed wages for American STEM workers.

<comment><USER42> H-1B, the input stream for these skilled immigrants, do not have any such per- country limits. But the green card process does. This brings into existence a large number of skilled immigrants who have their stay in the country tied to their job. This weakens their negotiation power, and contributes significantly to the wage depression you talk about.

Even NumbersUSA do not oppose removing this [1] restriction. Yet, you are _for_ keeping the per-country quotas. Why?

[1]:[https://www.numbersusa.org/content/news/november-30-2011/sen...](https://www.numbersusa.org/content/news/november-30-2011/sen- chuck-grassley-place-hold-employment-based-visa-bill.html)

<comment><USER73> I'm (selfishly) for keeping them because I don't want to get stuck in line with the huge backlog of people from India and China. That's a lousy reason though.

I'm not going to spend a decade living a shitty life waiting though. So if the per country caps go I might just give up.

<comment><USER42> > I'm not going to spend a decade living a shitty life waiting though.

Obama administration estimated that with the per country quotas removed, the backlogs for _everyone_ will be gone in under 5 years. Sure, that is worser than getting your GC in a year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> While I don't agree with the travel ban, this is actually a sensible course of action. The H1B system needs a huge overhaul. The problem is that Trump is told by a so-called advisor that issue x is bad, and there isn't much thought given to the implementation of the solution to that problem.

</comment><comment><USER75> >Companies would have to try to hire American first and if they recruit foreign workers, priority would be given to the most highly paid.

Wow, that's horrible. I mean, a country giving preference to their own kind. When is this nightmare going to end?

<comment><USER76> Yeah, it is horrible. Why limit your professional life, team, workplace and day to day exchanges to a tiny pool of people when there are billions of people who inhabit planet earth.

<comment><USER77> Reciprocity. People you have fewer bonds/relationships with are less likely to reciprocate, and _more_ likely to compete.

> a tiny pool of people

Are you talking about the US (dev) population?

<comment><USER78> This assumes that shared nationality is going to make for stronger bonds. The way things are going, the opposite might be true.

<comment><USER77> > The way things are going, the opposite might be true

like all those celebs that threatened to leave the US?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google to court: Galaxy Nexus code is closed just like that of the iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/google-to-court-galaxy-nexus-code-is.html <comment><USER2> For someone with "FOSS" in the title of his blog, he seems strangely surprised that you can release proprietary products based on open source code (e.g. Netscape 6 and Mozilla).

<comment><USER3> Florian Mueller at it again. From his Wikipedia page (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_M%C3%BCller>) he has multiple relationships with Microsoft and Oracle: he's largely just a gadfly on Google's behind. Most of what he has to say should be taken with a bag of salt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wait...why does Google say that how Android runs on Samsung's phone is Google's trade secret? I'd expect it to be Samsung's trade secret.

<comment><USER5> It's Florian Mueller who's behind the site. His credibility it... well.. just google around, you know soon.</comment></comment>


Start-Up Spirit Emerges in Japan  - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/business/international/japanese-entrepreneurs-receive-tentative-embrace.html

<comment><USER2> A few of the big things that are dampening the startup scene in Japan are as follows:

* Weak ecosystem - Very few angels available to fund and support early stage startups, although accelerators are popping up that are starting to fill this gap.

* Less exits - Japanese companies tend to be less acquisitive than their western counterparts. IPO seems to be a far more common liquidity event. Even 2-3 years into MakeLeaps, we started getting offers to help us IPO(wtf).

* Less entrepreneurs - A typical "FUCK! THIS SUCKS AND MUST CHANGE!" attitude found in many entrepreneurs is a pretty rare commodity in Japan. The educational system has been designed to generate workers who are effective at carrying out orders rather than taking independent initiative.

* Still not accepted in society - Japanese who set out to do their own companies are still generally looked down upon, and struggle in general. If someone from a western culture starts a company, the typical attitude is "Great! Good luck!" but in Japan it's more "What's wrong? You couldn't get a job at a proper company?" This is however starting to slowly change.

* Less community - There is a much smaller community in Japan, which means less support. We're doing our best to help by organising the Tokyo Hacker News community meetups. Again, this is changing, and there is a marked increase in events now compared to say, 1-2 years ago. (shameless plug - come along if you're in Tokyo - [http://hntokyo.doorkeeper.jp](http://hntokyo.doorkeeper.jp) \- next event is 16th of January)

* Less early adopters/more risk adverse - Until we being reasonably well known, getting initial signups and customers was intensely painful. On the flip side, once a customer signs up with you, they tend to be very loyal and stay with you for a long time.

Having said all that, Japan is working through these issues and we are definitely in a mini startup boom in Japan. Exciting times to be doing a startup here.

<comment><USER3> Big thing helping the start-up scene

*A lot of people don't have work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm a bit skeptical of this new trend, since I get the vibe that most of these young founders are in the game "because it's cool" to do so. I wonder what fraction of them will survive the first downturn [1].

That being said, smart new grads having options other than BigCo / Western Consulting&Finance / Shosha / Govt would be a very positive thing. [2]

[1] Though the same thing could be said of many of the teams/endeavors on this side of the pond.

[2] Interestingly, the best technical minds in web programming seem to be employed by LINE/Gree/DeNA/Cookpad still rather than venturing out on their own.

<comment><USER2> I feel like doing a startup in Japan is not yet cool, from a general society perspective.

I think that almost every one of these new founders are having regular arguments with their parents, who would be trying to convince the founders to get a "real" job at a "safe" company.

Having said all that, I agree that inexperienced people often give up at the first speed bump. As Steve Jobs said:

"The problem with the Internet startup craze isn't that too many people are starting companies; it's that too many people aren't sticking with it."

<comment><USER4> That's a good point about the older generation. I have a few friends who feuded with their parents when they quit a very very good engineering job at a big company to do their own thing instead.

That being said I do think that doing a startup is perceived as being cool by their peers. I've met at least a handful of people who I'd cautiously call "fangirls".

(Perhaps an overflow from their perceived coolness of working in SV/SF -- which honestly doesn't make much sense to me since their motivations to cross the pond is often profoundly lacking in substance)

<comment><USER5> Working in SV/SF and doing own startup is surely sounds different things to me, as an Japanese grad student

<comment><USER4> Sorry, to clarify: many young people seem to see the whole SV/SF thing to be cool and seem to almost idolize the prospect of working in the promised land. By association startups as a whole (regardless of location) are cool to them. As a result startup founders in Japan get additional social support from their peers for their endeavors (which as you know is a huge psychological benefit in Japanese society).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm a Swedish Javascript dev moving to Tokyo tomorrow (!!!). If anyone around is interested in coding together, let me know :).

</comment><comment><USER7> Just don't expect any "disruptive innovations" is all I'm saying.

<comment><USER8> Spot on. The creative/disruptive spirit is next to non-existent in this country. Conformism and herd behavior seem to be the national past time.

<comment><USER9> Still Japan is the country where companies such as Sony and Nintendo originate from and the people over there certainly can be creative/disruptive.

One such company that can truly change the world as opposed to creating another chat app is euglena: [http://www.euglena.jp/en/](http://www.euglena.jp/en/)

<comment><USER10> Sony and Nintendo is now stagnating. So I'm not sure what innovation is anymore in Japan.

The conformism, herd and inflexibility of generations helped the downward spiral of Japan. Which is really such a shame from such a beautiful country.

<comment><USER9> Maybe now but they have innovated in the past, and Nintendo still does to a certain degree.

It's not like their society became more conformist all of a sudden. In fact it was probably even more so a couple of years/decades earlier.

Look at the manga industry: there are mangas that touch on virtually any genre. That is a testament to the creativity of some of the people in this land.

I am not saying they will become as creative as the people in SV but I believe they definitely have the potential to bring innovative concepts to life.

<comment><USER10> I lived in Japan for 6 years and found that there is no more innovation there. It's because of the way they are a self preserving economy. Things that are available in Japan can't be used overseas. Which is the main reason why they are falling behind.

TVs, mobile phones (before the iPhone came out in Japan), voltage aren't available to be used overseas.

View my comments here from a previous thread [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6717211](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6717211)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I really hope that this is true, but I'll believe it when I see some more IPOs. I'm a very big cultural fan of Japan, but they seem to struggle with technology entrepreneurship. There is a tradition of small business owners and apprenticeships, but relative to their size, they have very few breakout enterprise software firms. Perhaps it's because the large firms prefer to deal in their own networks?

<comment><USER12> A lot of factors. An education system designed to produce worker-bees rather than independent thinkers. A stagnate economy (although this is improving) leading to high unemployment for young workers and people taking whatever job they can get. Social pressure to get into a prestigious university and eventually a well-established, large company. And for females, the pressure to get married before age 30.

Mind you--people in Japan are very smart. Science/math education is way better than in the US. But in the end, emphasis is on conformity and "not standing out too much" or "being different". This kills the spirit of innovation. I grew up in Japan but went to college in the US and work in NYC. Every time I go home, I feel like an outsider even though I spent 18 years of my life there.

<comment><USER11> _And for females, the pressure to get married before age 30._

My understanding is the issue here isn't that women are supposed to get married, rather that they're supposed to drop out of the workforce immediately thereafter. With a country short of young workers, this is problematic.

Again I love the culture of Japan, but much of the inter-dependence that makes it fascinating also promotes working for large companies rather doing ones own thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Mirror: [http://pastebin.com/DXCSZxMs](http://pastebin.com/DXCSZxMs)

</comment><comment><USER14> I feel like one of these articles comes around every few months or so. I guess the storyline of "daring entrepreneurs fight against rigid societal norms" is just too appealing…

But in my opinion it remains to be seen if it's actually a trend, or just a few isolated examples.

</comment><comment><USER12> As a Japanese native who went to college in America and moved to NYC to escape the societal pressure back home, I'm glad to see this. Maybe I'll move back someday.</comment>