Mental Wealth - <AUTHOR> https://jjbeshara.com/2020/06/04/mental-wealth/ <comment><USER3> For myself. This is what I've been doing and working for me.

From the outside, generally, stay away or just observe from far away:

\- People who post political/religious/racial comments every 5 mins or so on social media, whether their view aligns with yours or not

\- People who are too passionate about one thing

\- People who don't keep their identity small in public, be it digital or real life

\- People who have black and white thinking

\- Social media

From the inside:

\- Exercise (I do Karate)

\- Have other creativity outlet (I do Aquascape, play electric guitar, bass, and sing, aside from programming)

\- Read a lot various subjects, anything that spike your curiosity (I read programming books, theological books, finance, aquascaping, music, philosophy, economy)

\- Have some other non thinking hobbies occasionally (I play games, go out with my spouse, watch movies)

\- Help your communities (I am quite active to my church)

I still need to work on these:

\- Eat healthier food

\- Have more consistent sleep cycle

Generally if I have to sum it. Keep your public identity small, but keep your private identity large. You can definitely tell I grew up in Asia.

<comment> pow_pp_-1_v > \- People who are too passionate about one thing

People who are passionate about something are generally interesting people. They know the obscure ins and outs of the thing they are passionate about. You can learn a lot from such people. At least, that's what I always felt.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure if you add a point or misunderstood but OP said: "people who are -Too- passionate about one thing".

OP is only talking about people who are too involved in what they are doing, and not people with a lot of passion, and so this having bad effects on their life with neglecting the other important part of their life.

If it's to be work by being workalcolic, video games, music... and being so involved that kids, family, and friends are neglected. To education when they are in high school or college and playing video games which I did myself, and their future is neglected.

I also saw first hand parents loving so much their job and their career that they were neglecting their children to the point where their kids were starting to show warnings and sometimes alarming behaviors.

Also as a side note we can be strongly passionate because of something outside being really negative in our lives so our hobby or anything is our way to escape that and do something for ourselves. Now that can be good. But. We should remind ourselves in this case that the long term solution will be to address the problem first hand and not to escape it even more, if it's to hobbies, work, or anything.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for clarifying. Indeed this is what I meant. I probably should use the word "overly" instead of "too" here to make it clearer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In this article the author covers a few areas to consider in managing mental health:

Sleep, Diet, Exercise, Stress Management, Exogenous Compounds (from coffee to melatonin to Prozac, and anything in between)

These are certainly important factors, and I think we need to look much more broadly at underlying factors than just these (or just drugs).

I've been reading about mental health issues for years with my own ups and downs, and the best book I've read on this topic so far is Lost Connections by Johann Hari.

In the book he describes the ways modern life has disconnected us from a lot of what humans find meaningful, and given that it's not surprising that rates of depression and anxiety have skyrocketed. For me, learning what those underlying causes are has meant I could start making a conscious effort to address them in my own life. It's a lot of work, but it's been far more effective than just trying to make myself feel better by improving my mood with exercise, sleep etc.

I think as a society we've become so good at dealing with symptoms, but we're afraid to spend the time to look deeply and investigate causes. Politicians think that riots are the problem and if they stop the riots with force the problem goes away. But riots are just a symptom of a sick system.

<comment><USER6> > Politicians think that riots are the problem and if they stop the riots with > force the problem goes away. But riots are just a symptom of a sick system.

No the system and other systemic or social problems are just a excuse.

Riots, at least those in recent events are an example of contagious social behavior. That is evidenced by the fact that the blamed issues have been known problems for longer than two weeks with people actively working for years to raise awareness of them. If other people are so passionate about these social problems that they are drawn to riot then where was this passion more than two weeks ago? Why suddenly congregate into emotional hysteria, especially since other people have been actively addressing these concerns for years, when the problems of complaint are preexisting and were clearly previously known to these congregants?

<comment><USER7> It's quite clear that recent events, specifically the death of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor are the exact reason why people have decided to "suddenly congregate into emotional hysteria". Yes, these issues have been present, but, undoubtedly, those deaths sparked something across the country. Are riots and violence the solution? That's debatable, but they do send a message in a society where money is a significant source of power.

As someone who is black and impacted by these recent events - think of them as a giant pouring of gasoline on an already present fire. People are grieving pain that has been present for years. People grieve in different ways. I don't agree with using violence, looting, rioting as a means of grieving, yet I can fully understand why others have taken that route. The riots are in fact a symptom...not an excuse. It's a fact. Slavery was a "well known problem", but it took the Civil War to see the Emancipation Proclamation come into fruition.

Getting rid of racism in America's systems and in individuals is going to take a lot of effort along with moments like this where everyone is reminded of exactly how much progress is left.

<comment><USER8> > People are grieving pain that has been present for years. People grieve in > different ways. I don't agree with using violence, looting, rioting

I stumbled on an interesting phrase for the looting: "looters are not protestors, and protestors are not looters." Some may even distinguish protesters from rioters. Indeed, there are black people still peacefully protesting, even against the use of uncontrolled destruction. It doesn't make sense for people (of different races) to destroy and at the same time rake the reputation of black people through the mud for a moment of... satisfaction (?) without care for the people - even black people - who will be suffer for it.

But I am certain that whoever, regardless of race, is stealing from some designer store does not give a flying fuck about the movement - at least when compared to their greed. BLM is not about the use of slave labor predominant in the clothing industry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I find articles like this one where 100% of the onus for coping with mental health problems is put on the individual quite annoying. There's nothing in the article about getting help from other people, or how to cope with problems that you _can 't_ fix easily. It's kind of a toxic attitude because it makes others believe people with mental health issues _just aren 't trying hard enough_ and completely ignores individual circumstances or our ability to help ourselves. It's all very well to tell people with mental health problems that they should sleep better, eat better and get some exercise, but that ignores the fact that mental health problems can _physically_ stop people doing that.

If fixing your mental health was simple then it wouldn't be such a prevalent problem.

<comment><USER6> Actually the article right at the beginning asks the reader not to equivocate mental health with mental illness and heath, or rather wholistic well-being, is actually almost entirely the proactive responsibility of the individual. The basic starting point is fitness which applies to mental health conditioning just as it does to physical exercise.

To be fair to your point though the article does say we should shift our thinking on mental health to the same perceptions granted towards physical health. That should mean the mental health evaluation equivalent of a physical every four years. That is absolutely beneficial to everybody because even perfectly healthy people get regular physicals even when they are perfectly healthy.

<comment><USER10> I'm always wary of anyone leveraging concepts such as "investing in mental wealth" or "focussing on self improvement" in order to pander 5 bullet methodologies. Even more so when the author interjects a plug, both shameless as well as irrelevant, for their own book - Beyond Coffee - in their argument.

The fallacy hidden in the article is that each of us is completely in control over our physical and mental well-being. That your well being isn't an inevitability but a choice. If it's a choice, then this implies that making the right choices is 100% your own responsibility.

Sure, the author does raise a number of fair points about mental healthcare and how some good daily habits affect your own well being.

But then the author completely misses the mark in the conclusion.

No two human lives are the same. Everyone's experience is uniquely different and shaped by an infinite number of events and circumstances past, present and future. Most of which humans don't even get to control directly. The idea of controlling your life and the optimistic view that one is able to mould it towards an ideal stems in Modernistic tradition.

Human minds are doing poorly at self diagnosing, while it's very hard for others to spot the signs of mental health issues. Mental health is also deeply woven into the identity and the personality of individuals. Personal struggles are very much part of being an individual.

Rather then pandering "we should invest in our mental wealth" or even "we should go for a yearly mental health check up", start by sitting down and listening compassionately to those around you first, without offering any practical solutions. If someone lost a loved one, they don't want to hear "maybe you should see a therapist" right off the bat, they are addressing you directly, and they hope you're just willing to listen and acknowledging their pain and not much more.

If someone states they suffer depression, anxiety or PTSD, rather then arguing semantics, the more important questions to ask would be: Am I listening to this person, what are they trying to say and do I understand what they are saying?

Finally, statements that start with "we should..." without backing up their claim, tend to rustle my Jimmies. Who's this "we" anyway? And why am I being dragged into the argument from the outset?

<comment><USER11> > The fallacy hidden in the article is that each of us is completely in > control over our physical and mental well-being. That your well being isn't > an inevitability but a choice. If it's a choice, then this implies that > making the right choices is 100% your own responsibility.

This is nonsense. The author makes no such argument, you're just projecting it onto him.

"Here are some things you can do to proactively manage your mental health, rather than ignoring it until you have a crisis" is in no way putting 100% of the responsibility on the individual.

<comment><USER11> I was in an accident many years ago that split my chin and chipped or cracked about a dozen of my teeth, resulting in over $10k of dental work since. But when my dentist advises me to proactively manage my dental health by brushing and flossing daily I don't accuse her of fallaciously implying that I am in complete control of my dental wellbeing.

<comment><USER10> > I don't accuse her of fallaciously implying that I am in complete control of > my dental wellbeing.

Of course not. Your dentist does understand the difference between what you can do and can't do. But context matters. And I'd venture your insurance may hold a different idea about personal responsibility.

The same applies to a self-described silicon valley angel investor, founder, podcaster, author and general start-up helper who writes about "investing in mental wealth".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Recently I had an epiphany and I felt as if I had cracked the code to living a good life - 1. Exercise everyday 2. Eat and drink clean.

As cliche as it sounds it felt like if I took care of these two things, everything else will take care of itself. Since last 15 days, I feel reinvigorated once again as I focus on these two things. There is a long way to go to fully undo all the damage, but I feel I am on track.

<comment><USER13> Although exercising and eating well are very important for our well being, they're not enough. The most fundamental thing is having the right mindset:

Some beliefs are so destructive that no amount of exercise will alleviate their effect. For instance, some people are what I call blamers. They believe that their misery is because of life, others, society... They refuse to accept what life has given them (whether their look, family...). They honestly believe that their misery is result of external consequences. No amount of exercise will fix that. Contrast that to those who are always grateful. Always glad with what they got. Happiness for these is simple.

<comment><USER14> You say that, but I've actually seen people with that exact mindset start to make progress when I've helped them keep a consistent workout schedule and designed an appropriate training regimen for them. All of a sudden, they're 3 months in and they feel good, their body doesn't hurt anymore, they're stronger, they look better, their cardiovascular fitness has noticeably improved, and they realized that THEY did that. They put in the work, consistently, and changed things they had previously been blaming on their genetics and parents.

So, for some, it can help.

<comment><USER15> > ...when I've helped them keep a consistent workout schedule and designed an > appropriate training regimen for them.

This is a significant, non-scalable investment of time and effort in the well- being of another. It wouldn't surprise me if such experiences were in extremely short supply in those people's lives. From my experience, there's a significant chunk of the population for which this sort of investment is a required component for their on-going sense of self-worth.

I'm not sure why, but my experience is that tech culture is particularly prone to an almost axiomatic rejection of this aspect of human interaction and well- being, and often exhibits significant prejudice towards those for whom this external requirement for well-being manifests.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> >When it comes to mental health, our society approaches it like we did with physical health 50 years ago. We only think about it when something is wrong.

I'm not sure about the broader society, but I think this mentality is still prevalent in _both_ physical and mental health these day.

My mother was a very health conscious person (to the level of insanity) but one attitude she showed that I think lead to long term mental/physical health improvement is what your attitude towards medicine is. She saw medicine never as a solution but a temporary band-aid and if you use one medication more than once, it is a indication that something in your life is terribly wrong. I don't share that absolutist attitude, some situations are only solvable with medical interference. But where you draw this line seems to have an profound effect.

I've observed that people that consider medicine (both for physical & mental health) as a part of the solution to a problem they have in life never achieve to get out of their trouble. If you're living a unhealthy lifestyle, any health complications are amplified and taking medicine might suppress it for now, but unless you change the underlying life-style, it will slowly make things worse. Same goes for mental health; If your mental life style is unhealthy (bad social interaction, information consumption that most lead to negative emotions etc), any amount of anti-depressant won't get you out of trouble. You're only delaying it.

<comment> Yanu-3452 Sorry but this is nonsense.

You're suggesting that I shouldn't get the same chemotherapy for relapsed cancer or that my relapse is because of "something in my life is terribly wrong".

Because the treatment worked to get it in remission, fuck me for wanting to take the same medicine again?

Lots of people suffer from poor health through no fault of their own. Arguing that their ills must be because of poor life choices is victim blaming.

Just because you're lucky enough to not have suffered chronic ill health doesn't mean others have been so lucky.

Take pleasure in your fortune, but don't try to take all credit for it.

<comment><USER17> > I don't share that absolutist attitude, some situations are only solvable > with medical interference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Improving access to nature would go a long way to improve city dwellers sense of mental health and well being. Especially making it easier for owning a cottage.

1) I live in Canada, a giant country. But camping is super expensive, $50/night camping. Its unaffordable for any length of time. And many provincial parks sell out.

2) Buying a small piece of land and hand building a tiny cottage is basically outlawed in Ontario. You need building permits and build at least 800 sqft. 100K is probably the base price for the land alone.

3)Despite all the land, there is no program for providing allotment gardens to citizens. Having a small patch of land you can grow vegetables on is rare. But its a thing in many European countries.

4) Where I live all the forests have been cut down, and turned to giant farms long ago. Almost all land is private. You can't just go and wonder.

TV, Video games and Computers are cool and all, but its obviously not something you should be spending most of your day on. But it seems like thats the only affordable entertainment option left for many people.

People are bored, cooped up in tiny apartments because of Covid. I can see why people are rioting in cities. And since so many people seem to be stacking up at zero or negative wealth. Capitalism seems to be under direct attack now, and some serious cracks are forming. The politicians need to revaluate the situation.

Lots of land in North America, why not have a program where poor citizens can get a small lot somewhere, and let them build a small cottage there. Without it costing 100s of thousand and thousands a year in taxes. A place they can take their kids to.

<comment><USER19> People aren't rioting because they're bored and cooped up. They're protesting extrajudicial killings.

<comment><USER20> You think being cooped up isn't part of the motivation?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Could shorten this by starting with what wealth is. You can measure relative wealth roughly by how long you can reasonably plan into the future. This is what separates it from money.

The author's notion of Mental wealth, using that definition, would be how long can you can reasonably plan to be self assured and make decisions using that frame of mind. An hour? A day? Still looking forward to a positive time period? Even if you are depressed or grieving, you can have mental wealth by accepting those circumstances and recognizing you are making decisions with that as a factor.

Extending that model, mental poverty could be when you are essentially paralyzed or a slave to intrusive thoughts, where you cannot go a few minutes without being interrupted by fears, memories, or imagined conflicts. It's hard to separate the notion of "you," from your thoughts, and there is a part of our mind that needs to convince us they're the same thing, but recognizing that the mind that produces these thoughts can be just like a finger or an appendage that is injured without taking all of you with it is a big leap toward mental "wealth."

Viewed this way, you are not your stubbed toe, or even your broken leg, and the part of your mind that is in pain and cutting you off from the present is not all of you either. You may need to compensate for it until it heals, or even adapt to the injury, but it doesn't mean you should stop making decisions and plans. Recognizing when you aren't making decisions and plans, and exercising the ability to actively decide to do so could be the foundation for building this mental wealth. I like the author's model, it could be useful.

</comment><comment><USER22> I only skim read the article, but I think it's missing a key section which is "strong relationships". Having the right people around you and having a sense of connection with those people can have a dramatically positive effect on your well-being. Aside from that I agree that it's good to invest in your mental health like you would physical. Definately take the time out to learn how to look after your own mental well-being and you will probably see benefits translate to all areas of your life.

</comment><comment><USER23> It always surprises me how little value is given to positive human relationships and community when considering mental well-being. It's in my opinion the second most important thing after sleep.

<comment><USER24> It's harder advice to give. Trying to wake up at the same time every day and not drink coffee before bed is, at least in theory, something anybody could do without too much difficulty. Going out and making more friends, getting more involved in the community, is a scarier idea to propose, especially if somebody already has some kind of social anxiety.

<comment><USER23> I agree it's not as easy as drinking a cup of coffee, but does it have to be easy or does it have to be effective ? Mental health is too important to leave it up to quick fixes.

While social anxiety seems to be definitely more prevalent these days, I am wondering if this might be something that actually increases due to the precise lack of sufficient positive community experiences.

Meeting new people has always been uncomfortable and a bit scary for most people, but being part of something low key like a community garden or a group of people playing sports for fun will in my opinion do more for one's mental health than drinking coffee or taking melatonin.

That said, of course not every experience counts as positive nor will every activity suit everyone, it might take some time to find what you enjoy - <USER2> it's worth it.

But let's also turn it around and follow the advice, you sleep well, eat healthy, do your round in the gym, meditate and drink your coffee every day. Well, you're still going to feel pretty sad and lonely if the rest of the time you're locked up in your room reading Reddit. The advice given is not bad per se, it's just not complete.

<comment><USER25> > But let's also turn it around and follow the advice, you sleep well, eat > healthy, do your round in the gym, meditate and drink your coffee every day. > Well, you're still going to feel pretty sad and lonely if the rest of the > time you're locked up in your room reading Reddit.

By doing these things you legitimately improve your physical and mental faculties. Of course it's a cycle that feeds back to itself: socializing and having friends will give you motivation to keep up your habits and so on.

Sometimes the first step is fixing the basics so that you have the energy and mood to go out and explore the world and to make people want to befriend you. You have to break the cycle somewhere and it has to be where you are in control, not where other people are in control.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This article spills a lot of ink to say that you should focus on your Sleep, Diet, Exercise, Stress, and Drugs in that order. It provides a few tips for each topic:

1) Sleep

Tip: "my biggest pro-tip [...] wake up every morning at the same time"

2) Diet

Tip: "Get your food allergens checked and make sure you're not consuming foods that your allergic to on a regular basis (I used Everlywell.com for their at home food allergy test recently, and it was great)."

Tip: "Consuming multiple alcoholic drinks before bed can absolutely wreck your sleep, which is the first foundation to mental wealth."

3) Exercise

"I'm going to zero in on the anti-inflammatory effects of high intensity aerobic exercise 3 times a week (which incorporates improvement to mood, detoxification, and anti-inflammation). [...] this is all about using a stair- master or elliptical, cycling, or high intensity running for anywhere from 15-30 minutes, etc. 3x per week. Cycling has been shown to be superior to running for the aerobic effects, so I use our family's Peloton for 20 min HIIT rides at least 3x a week, preferably more. [...] Try this for 4 weeks and see what it does for your mental health (and your sleep)."

4) Stress Management

Tip: "[find] time to sit quietly for 15 minutes in the morning, with your cup of coffee or tea in-hand, to do three primary things has been extremely helpful for me:

(i) Gratitude journaling of 5 things that I'm grateful for (nothing is too small here, from the sunrise to the laugh of my daughter will make the list),

(ii) 2-3 minutes of breathing exercises (google 4-7-8

breathing for a really simple breath work exercise),

(iii) Lastly, 5 minutes outline my to do list for the day."

5) Exogenous Compounds

Tip: "any of these, from the innocuous to the Schedule II prescription, should be last on the list of your personal "mental wealth" audit."

</comment><comment><USER27> I wouldn't put much stock in Ayurveda or even worse, Traditional Chinese Medicine, except some of the treatments which have been proven to work. There's a reason why western medicine is superior - it follows evidence-based modern scientific and research principles, not hogwash.

<comment><USER28> Instead of "western" medicine, I prefer to call it "evidence based, tested with randomized controlled experiments, mechanism of action deduced" medicine. No data, no medicine.

Even then, medicine is super hard since there is so much complexity in the human body and variations across populations, and experiments are extremely costly.

<comment><USER29> >Instead of "western" medicine, I prefer to call it "evidence based, tested with randomized controlled experiments, _mechanism of action deduced_ " medicine

If that's the definition, then there are _zero_ psychiatric drugs that can be classified as western "medicine", as we have yet to understand how drugs like anti-depressants intercourse with the mind ("the mechanism of action deduced").

"psychiatric diagnosis still relies exclusively on fallible subjective judgments rather than objective biological tests" -Allen Frances

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

<comment><USER28> Yes, mechanism of action is an ideal, but not attainable yet with current technology. Of course, we have to make do with what we have, and there is higher probabilities of errors with medicines which we don't understand the mechanism of action.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I think the author is mistaking cause with effect.

When the things mentioned (Sleep, Diet, Exercise, Stress Management, Exogenous Compounds) go out of balance, that "unbalancing" may well be a symptom (consequence) of the mental issue and not the cause as is implied in the article.

You can invest all you want decades in advance in creating balanced habits in those areas and still be disrupted down the line with negative mental health events.

<comment><USER24> It may not be clear that those things can completely prevent mental issues, but I think it's fairly clear that poor diet, sleep, stress management and exercise can contribute to an increase in the frequency of mental health issues.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> By the title, I thought this would be about the idea of defining wealth by your mental state, mood, or knowledge, and not yet another "let's apply overly-rational financial analysis to _everything_ but not actually question the bigger systems at play" article.

 _If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him. An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest._ \- Benjamin Franklin

</comment><comment><USER32> > my experience has taught me that there are five foundations towards a > concept I will call 'mental wealth' — sleep, diet, exercise, stress > management, and exogenous compounds (anything from coffee to alcohol to > prescription medication).

I think these are accurate but a glaring omission is the overarching element of "how good is your life". You can take care of your physiology (and you should) but that won't get you too far if, for example, you're also stuck at a dead end job or if you're completely isolated and have no friends and no intimate partner.

<comment><USER20> It's easier to get friends/a partner, or negotiate for promotion/a raise, or do what you have to to get a better job when you're not fat, sleep-deprived, and spending all you free time on reddit/tumblr/4chan whining about trump/men/women.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Genuine question: how would someone define "mental health" or be able to determine if someone is mentally healthy? Even for myself, I really have no clue whether I'm mentally healthy or not.

<comment><USER20> How do you define physical health? In a sense, nobody is _really_ healthy. We're all afflicted with a long-term progressive wasting disease that has 100% mortality (so far).

You can say 'healthy' is just a good-enough arbitrary cut-off. For mental health, no glaring neuroses, you usually feel good or neutral about yourself, no suicidal ideation, basically just if none of the markers people've said are unhealthy show up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think there are some more

\- fresh air and sunlight (high CO2 indoors is detrimental to cognition and sun is needed for the circadian rythm and vitamin D and other stuff)

\- social contact (appropriate to personality), so friends, family and romantic relationships to the extent and intensity that one's personality needs them

\- career success and stable finances: makes one feel useful and takes away a lot of stress and frees up mental energy to think about all the other things mentioned in the article

\- winding down sometimes, unplugging from phones, TV etc. One way is meditation, but can also be just sitting with a cup of tea thinking about nothing particular

\- learning and trying new things, new foods, new languages, new books or genres

\- challenging oneself and overcoming discomfort, physically such as cold showers, or mentally such as public speaking or whatever seems scary/hard

I think the overall idea is a scaffolding of routine and stable structure in life punctuated with deliberate, planned and conscious reaches out of the comfort zone. Like yeah waking up every day is great and much better than a whacky schedule. What's probably even better is having exceptions and whacking up your sleep for one or two weeks per year for a festival or a hike or a few days of intense creative work.

The point is to return to the default every time, but religiously sticking to a rigid routine where you cancel and refuse anything that may conflict with it is only to be recommended to people with really low change tolerance like certain autists. Even they should play with their own limits even if those limits are at a different place.

</comment><comment><USER34> [1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink)

&

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park)

</comment><comment><USER35> It's a good list. Another contributor to mental health is "doing things that you enjoy". That can trade off against some of the other items. So, eating a delicious (but unhealthy) meal gives you points in the happiness column but takes some away from the diet column.

</comment><comment><USER36> I agree with the premise: be proactive about mental health.

However, this should be read with some skepticism. The author relies on their own authority as someone who "has been thinking about mental health for 19 years." I was intentional about not googling whoever this is, perhaps they're a medical professional or something. But if that were the case, I would hope they would cite better sources than describing themself as "someone that has paid close attention to this cross-lattice work of interweaving disciplines for a while now". Skimming over buzzwords like "detoxification, and anti- inflammation" is a red flag. The article's first side bar goes on to talk about how "the first medical professionals were surgeons saving a soldier's life". This is line is particularly disconcerting, but the entire "sidebar" sounds like conjecture. The whole article sounds like conjecture, which should NOT be sold as a source of authority on a topic like health. That is how we get essential-oil anti-vaxxers.

</comment><comment><USER37> This.Post.Is.Gold.

It's now been a few years after my burnout/depression episode and finally someone put my thoughts into words.

I came into the same conclusion after learning about depression, doing therapy, and among other things/research/trying things.

So I refused to take pills, but instead make a lifestyle change. I also started developing Habinator app (see: habinator.com), which is a tool to help to make a change.

I'm glad that there are professional smart people who see the bigger picture in (mental) health and not the short term fix. It would be great if the decision makers and people with money would also see this.

</comment><comment><USER38> I've been working on an app that allows me to send messages to my past and future selves, as well as posting today's thoughts (for reading by my future self). I had initially created it over a weekend as a fun side project, but it turned out to be a great tool for self reflection. An ios beta is coming out next week, fill out this form if you'd like to try it out:

[https://forms.gle/C9KebsV2u64Wqvc56](https://forms.gle/C9KebsV2u64Wqvc56)

<comment><USER39> How do you manage to send messages to your past selves?

<comment><USER38> Every day of your life gets its own page so you can post a comment there.

Usually people write to their past selves regarding some regrets in order to ease the pain. Simply putting your thoughts out of the mind and onto the screen helps. And treating your past self as another person helps, too.

Also people write to their future selves to encourage/overcome the fear of the unknown.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Quite a nice article.

However, I'd absolutely change the order of things to pay attention to. The first one of the mentioned ones should be 'Stress Management'.

If you get this one right, you'll have better sleep, more time (and willingness) for exercise, as well as less of a need for any substances to get you through the day.

Also, he doesn't mention metacognition at all. Paying attention to one own's thought processes is a big part of staying sane in the long term.

</comment><comment><USER41> If the author has an rss I'd love to add it to my reader. Liked the article and has given me things to think about. Allergy testing sort of stuck out for me most.

<comment><USER42> [https://jjbeshara.com/feed/](https://jjbeshara.com/feed/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> What I rarely see, if ever, is writing and guides on what to do with yourself when life throws a wrench at you. I find it's not difficult to eat well, sleep well, exercise well when times are alright. But then if something bad happens to me, all of that goes out the window and it can be quite difficult to go back. I think most of us have difficulty with these things on smaller or larger scales.

</comment><comment><USER44> That was quite a long article. It could've been made much shorter and still conveyed the points. I was surprised that the author is ok with alcohol in moderation but seems to be against coffee (that's the sense I got).

The mention of older medicinal systems being focused on prevention and listing Dr. Andrew Weil put me off. IMO, these should be last on your list when you're looking for help or solutions.

</comment><comment><USER45> The article contradicts itself.

The first half talks about how to treat mental health like we treat physical health, and we treat physical health in a transactional "businesslike" way.

The second half of the article proposes doing exactly the same: extreme measurement of pathologies and solutions instead of going for what feels right to your body.

</comment><comment><USER46> The idea of health wealth is good IMO. In ye olde times in China I read that you paid your doctor while you were well. If you went sick the doctor went into action to protect his recurring revenue treating you to the best of their ability.

</comment><comment><USER47> Extrapolating personal health observations to a general population is one of the most annoying types of misinformation the internet tends to amplify. Use site:.gov on Google as a better source of medical advice, folks

</comment><comment><USER48> I was curious and did some research about the "Everlywell" food allergy test this article recommends, and the evidence behind it seems INCREDIBLY weak. From what I'm reading the product seems to be some Shark Tunk funded non-FDA reviewed no-oversight pseudoscience. Apparently many "at home testing kits" are not FDA regulated at all.

Worse, it seems that many doctors and organizations think they can actually do harm given the misinformation they provide:

......

"Patients who ask Dr. Robert Wood, an allergist at Johns Hopkins Children's Center, whether they have a food sensitivity would never undergo an immunoglobulin G test. Immunoglobulin G tests "are completely useless and do dramatic harm" because they may compel patients to unnecessarily avoid broad swaths of a healthy diet, Wood said.

"In all my years of practice, I have never sent an immunoglobulin G test because they have no ability to predict food sensitivity," he said.

That's because immunoglobulin G stems from the body's normal immune response to exposure to many substances, including food. High levels don't indicate a problem; they simply point to foods a person recently has eaten.

For these reasons, a 2008 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology task force recommended against testing for a type of immunoglobulin G to evaluate for food intolerance. In the report, the group wrote that the test was "irrelevant for the laboratory work-up of food allergy or intolerance and should not be performed in case of food-related complaints."" [0]

......

"Dr. Neha Shah, a rheumatologist and immunologist at Stanford University, is one doctor who is skeptical.

"What we don't have is proof that having a high IgG level against a particular food item means that that food is causing your symptoms," says Shah.

"A lot of this kind of huxterist testing is keying off of the placebo effect," says Dr. Norman Paradis, a clinical lab expert who teaches at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, referring to the industry in general and not to a particular product. "[1]

......

"The presence of IgG is likely a normal response of the immune system to exposure to food. In fact, higher levels of IgG4 to foods may simply be associated with tolerance to those foods.

Due to the lack of evidence to support its use, many organizations, including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology have recommended against using IgG testing to diagnose food allergies or food intolerances / sensitivities" [2]

......

The author should seriously consider removing this from their article.

[0]: [https://www.statnews.com/2018/01/23/everlywell-food- sensitiv...](https://www.statnews.com/2018/01/23/everlywell-food-sensitivity- test/)

[1]: [https://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2018/05/28/6141252...](https://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2018/05/28/614125270/do-diy-medical-tests-promise-more-than-they-can- deliver)

[2]: [https://www.aaaai.org/conditions-and- treatments/library/alle...](https://www.aaaai.org/conditions-and- treatments/library/allergy-library/IgG-food-test)

</comment><comment><USER49> felt like a generic article when I started reading, but turned out to be incredible. thanks so much for writing.

</comment><comment><USER50> > the Western medical system evolved from medical treatments during warfare

What's the historical basis for this claim?

</comment><comment><USER51> Detox is a pseudoscientific concept.

<comment><USER52> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detoxification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detoxification)

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> So just to make sure I'm clear: the author of this post is (according to the "about" page on the linked site) is "an angel investor, founder, podcaster, author, and general startup-helper" who is wildly speculating about the causes of and solutions for one of the most complex and nuanced areas of medicine out there.

Then he indulges in exactly the kind of casual, "if you just do this you'll be _fine_" sort of reasoning from armchair diagnosticians that leads people _actually_ suffering from mental illness to think, "oh man, I guess I'm just undisciplined and all of this is _my fault_."

I'm sorry, but no. Just stop. Your "helpful tips" equate the _symptoms_ of mental health issues (lack of sleep, inability to focus and plan, over- consumption of alcohol, etc.) with the fixes that are available to you if you "just try harder'.

Telling someone deep in debt that smarter decisions made long ago would have avoided their current problems may be _accurate_ but is neither helpful nor compassionate. Likewise, telling anyone who'll listen that acute mental health crises can be prevented proactively by "simply following these few tips" does less than nothing for those suffering right now: in fact, it worsens the perception that their illness is their own fault, it's too late to make any improvement or progress, doctors will just try to sell them snake oil so why bother, etc., etc.

Perhaps if the author had said something like, "I too have struggled with mental health and found the following things made a difference for me. YMMV, and of course you should only attempt self-fixes in combination with treatment by a qualified professional, etc. etc." He did none of that, nor is he a trained psychiatrist or counselor, which makes his "hard-earned wisdom" suspect to me.

"Be more like me and you too can be successful/happy/rich/etc." is not a terribly useful kind of advice. Likewise "the trained experts in the field don't want you to know this, but the solution to $really-hairy-problem is just to $follow-my-convenient-five-point-plan."

In case my umbrage at the tone and content of this article wasn't clue enough: I have been diagnosed as bipolar, with concurrent major depression, anxiety, and substance use disorder. Many of the symptoms and aggravating factors were buried or even encourage by the "startup life" and I'm deeply skeptical about VCs and founders who purport to care about the mental health of their peers and employees while making a constant push to "hustle", "put in the hours", "not settle for a lifestyle business", etc.

Throughout my career my manic periods have consistently been the most productive weeks and months of my working life, but the corresponding depressive episodes usually resulted in me being fired or walking away from an otherwise-decent job because no one understood or bothered to ask why a "high performer" had suddenly become flaky and uncommunicative. Advice on how to "prevent" mental illness from those who have neither suffered from it or been trained to treat it is _not_ going to make things better for me or folks with similar experiences.

<comment><USER54> Must we always prefix advice with "may not apply to everyone"? I'm personally tired of reading it so often; anyone receiving advice should use some critical thinking and realize that not all (or even any) will apply to them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Really nice article

</comment><comment><USER56> I really don't think the best way of building up mental health reserves is to approach this thinking like an entrepreneur or an investor. To be honest that sounds like the broken record that is the Silicon Valley or general capitalism BS machine.

Instead, I would advocate participating in communities, working for social and environmental justice, volunteering and acting in a spirit of generosity that is directed away from the self. You can do this in many ways and one of them is to participate in non-toxic open source communities that build together and give away the product freely.

<comment><USER24> >working for social and environmental justice

In my experience focusing on political causes of any kind is not a great path to happiness, as it almost inevitably results in anger, frustration or sadness at the state of the world.

<comment><USER56> The goal is not happiness; the goal is liberation.

<comment><USER24> The goal the article is referring to is improving mental health. Is a consistently unhappy person considered mentally healthy?

<comment><USER56> If I worked for my own happiness, how would I look at myself in the mirror knowing that my happiness is based on an unsustainable lifestyle? How can I be happy knowing that that my sisters can't get three square meals a day and my brothers can't breathe?

<comment><USER24> >If I worked for my own happiness, how would I look at myself in the mirror knowing that my happiness is based on an unsustainable lifestyle?

Clearly you have goals/values other than just "maximising own happiness". If your goal was purely that (not suggesting it should be), then those other values would just stand in the way of happiness.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Computer Science expands, still lacks resources - <AUTHOR> https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2018/11/06/computer-science-expands-still-lacks-resources/ <comment><USER2> I find it interesting that while the computer science bachelors has been steadily increasing, masters and PhD students have remained somewhat static.</comment>


Not Everyone in Tech Cheers the H-1B Visa Program - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/business/h-1b-visa-tech-cheers-for-foreign-workers.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> It's unfortunate that most of the people writing about the problems with H-1B visas can't distinguish between companies that hire the best they can get (and paying competitive salaries), and outsourcing companies that file a ton of applications (and pay their employees much less).

This approach seems deliberately lazy, as though it's some kind of head- scratcher that the displaced IT support guy hates his outsourced replacement; while the Googles and Microsofts of the world support a program that allows them to hire top engineers from all over the globe.

I find it especially galling that this NYT writer can't make the distinction, given their paper did a great article about H-1B abuse by outsourcing firms: [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/06/us/outsourcing...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/06/us/outsourcing- companies-dominate-h1b-visas.html)

<comment><USER3> Did you read the article? That was brought up in there.

<comment><USER2> Sorry, where? I'm not seeing it.

<comment><USER4> _> most of the people writing about the problems with H-1B visas can't distinguish_

My response assumes you're saying the journalist of the NYT piece is among _" most of the people"_ not able to make a distinction between the 2 categories you laid out.

category 1: _> between companies that hire the best they can get (and paying competitive salaries),_

NYT article: _" Proponents of the H-1B system argue that it is an important vehicle to attract top talent to America. After coming to the United States, these visa holders may apply their skills to start new companies or create new, innovative products"_

category 2: _> and outsourcing companies that file a ton of applications (and pay their employees much less)._

NYT article: _" The H-1B program's critics say the system provides a way for American companies to turn over technology departments to outsourcing companies. These are gaming the system to snap up the visas so they can replace American workers with less expensive, temporary staff members."_

It seems the NYT journalist has correctly distinguished both categories. (There are more paragraphs in that article that add more details about both categories but I only copypasted 1 example of each.)

<comment><USER5> (I didn't read the article yet, but):

There is a difference between proponents and critics describing the same activity in different terms and noting that different companies treat the system differently and that it is roughly bimodal: "Google's" use and "Infosys'" abuse.

I interpreted the two quotes you pulled as the former.

<comment><USER6> > (I didn't read the article yet, but)

reddit.com is that way --->

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The visa system is prone to abuse as long as it is the sponsoring company that controls the visa. The visa should be issued to the individual and be valid for a fixed length of time.

<comment><USER8> Of course, doing this would almost entirely eliminate the economic incentive for companies to bring in foreign workers since they would be free to negotiate better deals once here, which would rapidly reduce the demand for H-1B visas by US companies and the number of foreign workers who come to the US under that program.

<comment><USER9> That's completely not true - the programs goal is to bring in skills that are not available in the market. The fact that it's being used to reduce the cost of the skills is arguably an unintended consequence (though my personal opinion is the lobby that helped make H1-B a reality fully intended this consequence).

A much better use for these visas would be to bring in workers we need at competitive US salaries. There are plenty of positions that need filling that would still make sense to pay full market salary for. (Speaking from personal experience trying to find certain skill sets in LA.)

<comment><USER8> Well, that's my point. In theory, this program is intended to provide US employers with employees who have skill sets that they cannot find here.

In practice, it's ludicrous to think that the vast US university system cannot produce employees with whatever skills are in demand, so workers must be imported from countries that have much smaller education complexes.

The reality is that many US employers don't want to pay market rate for those skills. I would argue that this is especially true in tech. The same or similar forces are at play at the bottom end of the labor market, which is what has driven much of the illegal immigration through the southern border.

<comment><USER10> Dont get me wrong. But to my understanding these visas would be used by a lot of people from countries with way better education systems. Hence the whole reason for this.

Edit:// as example. Right now barely any swiss tech pros consider the U.S. as interesting destination. A lot of husstle for just minimal more pay.

<comment><USER11> As a Swiss working abroad (in Berlin right now), it's not always about pay, two years ago I interviewed with a dozen of companies in the US because there are just so many more opportunities.

<comment><USER10> True that. But there are many options outside of the U.S. that are less complicated to reach. Like berlin, schengen makes it easy

<comment><USER11> Yes indeed. And high salaries don't make up for everything. And these days companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon,... are increasing their engineering headcount in Europe (they must realize how cheap European engineers are with the strong USD :)

Sadly in my case I was applying for jobs at companies that are relatively big but concentrate their developers in the silicon valley.

<comment><USER10> If i learned one thing in switzerlands IT is that it is easy to earn a lot but also relatively easy to earn more than enough while still having a lot of free time and beeing able to enjoy your job.

I just throw in the money argument because almost always i say anything against SV someone comes with the money argument ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have a certain level of sympathy for unemployed Americans who the government could be retraining as technology workers. There are some H-1B workers who legitimately have skills that are highly valuable and uncommon within the U.S., but the majority seem to employed by large contracting firms who specialize in bringing in folks to perform relatively simple labor.

I have much less sympathy for folks already in the tech industry who are complaining about this. Tech is basically the most overpaid career there is. And not because it's especially hard or valuable, but because as soon as some CEO starts getting the idea that they could be the next Mark Zuckerberg then all rational thought goes out the window.

Hiring developers is basically rich people's version of blowing all their money on lottery tickets. The entire industry is completely unregulated despite putting the nation's critical infrastructure and economy in grave danger, which artificially drives up wages by externalizing the risk onto everyone else. And H-1B workers are placing basically zero downward pressure on wages as far as I can tell.

<comment><USER13> The tech worker salaries are completely unreasonable compared to other jobs. The characters from the article could just agree to work for $60 000/year (which still is a lot) and wouldn't lose their jobs.

<comment><USER14> I don't understand why there are self hating developers on HN or those who don't seem to grock the free market system - there is no god given "fair " rate for the job.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, it is a little strange. People make statements about a "shortage" of workers without mentioning pay and working conditions. Or, if they do, they'll discuss a shortage at the "market rate", without considering that the "market rate" itself is insufficient to attract talented people with freedom into the field.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> In Norway, if you are on a knowledge worker visa, your salary needs to be competitive. This amount increases each year with inflation.

As an American working in Norway, I have to say that this is how it should be done in the US . My Norwegian coworkers do not resent me because I was not hired because I am any cheaper than they are. And, I get a salary that allows me to meet the high cost of living here. If companies were allowed to pay foreigners significantly below industry standard, it would be a disaster. I don't understand why this is still standard practice in the US.

Oh wait, I do understand: it allows companies to pay less for labor and pad their profit margins. But it is bogus, and this is one Trump initiative I can get behind.

<comment><USER17> The hb-1 visa does require the same salary same as norway

[http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/h-1b-employers- what-w...](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/h-1b-employers-what-wage- must-you-pay.html)

<comment><USER18> I believe it is currently a minimum of $60K / year, which was established in 1989 and not updated since. Companies in the US (and the government too) tend to skirt laws justifying the misdeeds as, "we interpret the law differently."

In other words, some shops will gladly pay a senior software engineer $60K a year, claiming they are something else like tech support. There are plenty of examples of other methods some companies use.

<comment><USER19> The minimum salary is based on the Labor Department's "prevailing wage" which is informed by a survey of current salaries. It's based on a given role and geographic location.

Yes, you may find some prevailing wages are lower than what Google pays, but that shouldn't be surprising since high paying tech jobs don't represent the average wage.

<comment><USER20> The point being, it needs to be updated.

<comment><USER19> Do you have any suggestions on how?

If you have programmers being paid anywhere from $80K to $150K for a given skill set, the average is going to be lower than what the top companies pay.

The only way around that is to create another subset of programmers that only look at the highest wages.

<comment><USER21> It's simple: require that the employers pay the H1-B visaholder in the 95th percentile or above of the salary range for that position.

And if an employer is found to have abused the system (hired someone for a lower position and then made them do higher-level work, e.g., call them "tech support" when they're really a senior engineer), then force the company to pay the H1-B the equivalent of 100 years' salary and put any employees found to have been complicit in this in prison.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think it's funny that people complain that the H1B visa program are "shipping jobs abroad" when by being a visa program, the whole point is to allow people to work in the US. No one is going through all the trouble to enter a 10% lottery to "ship jobs abroad" when actually shipping jobs abroad requorws no visa, and requires no minimum 60k payment.

Now, this doesn't mean there aren't problems with the H1B program. By making workers so dependent on their employers (for example, if an H1B visa holder gets laid off or fired they have to leave the country immediately without legally having the opportunity to find a new job) it most likely drives down wages slightly, but the "sending jobs abroad" rhetoric is little more than xenophobic sloganeering which only serves to distract people from the actual problems related to the H1B (the power differential between the employers and the employees, and the ridiculousness of a lottery system which benefits those who can flood the system with applications as opposed to actual companies that need good workers).

<comment><USER18> By shipping jobs abroad, I believe most people think they are taking jobs held by US nationals and giving then to foreign nationals, regardless of where they fill a seat.

<comment><USER23> >regardless of where they fill a seat

But this seat-filling is important. A person who is hired for a job shipped abroad is not living in the US, paying taxes in the US, buying groceries, spending money, etc etc. A non-American brought into the US is participating and contributing to the economy just as any American worker is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I have vivid memories of what 2003 was like for me, a computer science grad who entered the workforce just as management's solution to control a new, major cost center (IT) was taking hold. Many of the DevOps functions that you celebrate today were considered commoditized and consequently eligible for offshore tech consultancy. I watched middle-aged, highly skilled professionals train their low-cost, unskilled replacements after being explicitly told by HR/management that their severance packages required their complete cooperation during their "employment transition".

This was at Merrill Lynch during its heyday.

<comment><USER25> That explains why Merrill Edge has the shittiest trading interface of all the online brokers I've used.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is wage dumping. The article explains the problem perfectly i.e. a 130K job is replaced by a 60K job. Call this globalisation and efficient markets if you like. However, on a personal note, if Trump manages to put in place policies to make it more of a level playing field and stops some of the greed which CEOs apply when replacing jobs with outsourcing contracts then I think he may have found a policy which will carry a lot of favour with middle class workers.

<comment><USER27> Just given the timing of the business cycle, Trump is likely to face a recession or at least a stagnation by the time he's working on reelection in 2020. There's very little he can do about it now: Most economists believe it takes almost four years for fiscal policy to affect the business cycle and two years for monetary policy. And Trump won't be appointing his own Federal Reserve chairman to set monetary policy until 2018 at the earliest.

But Trump can take action that will open up jobs and raise wages for American workers even in the face of a recession. He can deport illegal aliens and cut off the H-1B and L cheap professional visa categories. That would create a lot of working class and lower-tier professional jobs for Americans fast.

<comment><USER28> Yup. All those unemployed miners from Ohio are going to move to California and become maids, pool cleaners, burger-flippers and agricultural workers.

<comment><USER27> OH and CA aren't swing states.

<comment><USER28> Why is that important? You're welcome to substitute any states you like....

The fact is that many migrants are willing to risk destitution or even death to relocate, and they will work their socks off at menial jobs for a better life (for their children in particular).

How many unemployed American workers are doing the same?

<comment><USER29> Why should you have to work a shit job because someone from another country will?

Start prosecuting employers of illegal immigrants, and you'll see the wage floor rise.

Employers are not entitled to cheap labor. Advocating for such an environment is why the US has a pseudo-populist president now.

<comment><USER28> Sorry, I thought the claim was that removing immigrants would create more jobs for Americans.

As far as I can see, it would just create jobs that Americans won't or can't do.

And while you can raise the wage-floor, that increases costs, which may well raise prices....

<comment><USER30> >As far as I can see, it would just create jobs that Americans won't or can't do.

I see this stated often, largely by people who have never worked these types of jobs, and for the record I'm not saying that this is the case with you, but it really doesn't match my own experiences.

I've worked as a janitor in a super market, a landscaper, a manual laborer in construction, a laborer in the Central Valley on a farm, as well as a dishwasher, all in CA, and while my coworkers were mostly Hispanic, and some were undocumented, many were white, black or Asian and born in the US. These were all minimum wage or below jobs so I'm not sure were this idea is coming from. When people are poor and desperate, they will usually take any work they can get regardless of immigration status or citizenship.

<comment><USER31> Your experiences are directly contradicted by Alabama. In 2011, the state passed HB56, a law that criminalized everything from hiring or renting to an illegal immigrant to accepting them into a state school. Before it was neutered by the courts, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants fled the state and the agricultural industry nearly collapsed when farmers couldn't find labor willing to work in crap conditions for low pay. There was a barrage of news stories for almost two years about how farmers had to watch as their crops died in the fields with no one to harvest them.

Meanwhile, unemployment fell from 9.2% to 8.7% due almost entirely to the automotive industry (which doesn't really hire illegal immigrants) with no change in construction, agriculture, etc. Afaik the agricultural industry in Alabama still hasn't recovered from the shock, even though the majority of those who left returned by 2015.

<comment><USER32> "For low pay.."

Exactly. If the cost to produce something exceeds its profit, then either the prices must rise or the business closes.

Why do you think California is so fiercely protective of illegals? Because one of their major industries is agriculture. They have a competitive advantage against states like Alabama because of their unwillingness to enforce the law. Essentially California is stealing from Alabama as they are taking advantage of below-market labor to harm competitors. A lot of the $15 minimum wage advocates are in California -- yet nary a peep about minimum wage violations by the agricultural industry there. If there were actually an enforced $15 minimum wage, Alabama would be competitive agin because they'd be on equal footing with labor costs (and more competitive because of lower regulatory costs and taxes.) Illegals working California fields aren't making anywhere near $15 per hour.

Hiring illegal aliens is quite simply a means to avoid minimum wage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> If they reduce H-1B visas, can't large companies just hire more people overseas? How would you make companies hire more Americans?

<comment><USER8> Evidently, having devs live in SV is important enough that companies pay enough so that their employees can afford the hyperinflated cost of living in the Bay Area. So I don't think it's the case that anyone would be making them hire more Americans; rather, by limiting the ability for companies to hire people from overseas who will work for less, the theory is that they will hire the people who already live in the US, presumably people who already have citizenship.

The interesting thing will be whether SV will be willing to absorb the (presumably) higher labor rates for these citizens. Their other options will be to outsource the jobs or to develop more infrastructure in less costly areas of the US.

This is the most plausible explanation of the theory, unless of course you believe the version where the motivation for H-1B hires isn't purely economic, but rather that there just aren't enough Americans available who can do the work.

<comment><USER28> A lot of US companies were founded or co-founded by immigrants including Google (Brin), Yahoo (Yang), eBay (Omidyar), PayPal (Levchin, Thiel, Nosek), WhatsApp (Koum), Tesla (Musk), Radioshack (Deutschmann), Comcast (Aaron), Nordstrom (Nordstrom), Colgate (Colgate), DuPont (DuPont), Kraft (Kraft), Pfizer (Pfizer), Procter & Gamble (Procter & Gamble) and AT&T (Bell).

Apple was co-founded by the son of a Syrian from Homs, and Intel wouldn't be the company it is today without Hungarian-born refugee Andy Grove.

Companies founded or co-founded by the children of immigrants include Walt Disney (from Canada), Oracle (Russia and Iran), IBM (Germany), Boeing (Germany), 3M (Canada) and Home Depot (Russia).

More than 40% of the Fortune 500 in 2010 were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants.

If the US blocks immigration, it will be much worse off. If the best people go to other countries, those countries will probably end up much better off.

<comment><USER8> Right, but I don't believe any of those people came here on an H-1B visa. And it seems like many of the best and brightest are still trying to get into the US, though right now perhaps fewer than previously.

I'm not arguing against immigration. Heck, I don't even think that the current administration is against immigration. (Yes, I know this is not the popular view of the current administration here on HN.)

My point was that the H-1B program is basically built on the hypocrisy that these are jobs that cannot be filled without bringing in immigrants because no one here has the skills.

It seems pretty obvious that the reality is that the H-1B program is built to enable employers to bring in high-skilled workers at a steeply discounted rate, and to keep them steeply discounted by preventing the immigrants from looking for better jobs once they get here. If this were untrue, I wouldn't read so many comments and even articles about how people here on H-1B visas ought to have the right to find another job.

In other words, make the program declare its real intentions. But that would never fly, because politically it would be unpalatable to people in any part of the political spectrum, with the possible exception of the <1% of those who profit from H-1B employees.

<comment><USER28> Agreed!

In passing, tech companies only use a small proportion of H-1B visas -- less than 100,000 out of 647,852 from Oct 1 2015 to Sept 30 2016 -- and most of those are Indian outsourcing firms: Wipro, Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services, IBM India (75,606).

[https://www.axios.com/tech-firms-arent-biggest-filers-of- vis...](https://www.axios.com/tech-firms-arent-biggest-filers-of-visa- applications-2226392488.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The Trump administration should consider voiding all existing H1-B visas, without exception, and enforcing that all holders return to their home countries, before being eligible to re-obtain a H1-B under new, fairer rules. I know more than a handful of very qualified 40+ folk who were laid off over the last couple of years, and told quite frankly, and with no words being minced, that they were too expensive for the company, so their jobs were being "out-sourced" to cheaper/younger workers.

Most H1-B holders are from pretty desperate circumstances and put up with just about anything, at least until they obtain their GCs.

<comment><USER35> The market's pretty hot for tech jobs. I'm surprised they can't get hired.

<comment><USER36> That's the thing. Most new tech jobs are only being created in the tech hubs of the country. The rest of the country is seeing a decline in good IT jobs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I looked into H-1B after being offered a senior technical role in the CTO office of a big networking vendor (based in the valley).

I turned down the role. I would have to enter a lottery to get a visa and then have my visa tied to my role at that company. For me as someone with two young children and an already good life in the UK, it was far to uncertain for me.

</comment><comment><USER38> im a hb1 worker paid 150000/y. this is slightly less than some colleagues, slightly more than others (though slightly less qualified arguably)

it ist is hard to find qualified employees for that job. the last person we found works remote from canada, because that's all we could find that had the right minimum skillset and was available at all.

for the past 2y we no longer hire via h1b. why? because we cant. the chance than an applicant gets a visa is now ridiculously low. this is because of the flooding and first come first serve system this article is mentioning: we can submit for 2 or 3 100-150k jobs a year. others submit thousands at 60k no chance. (this is because we do not fire lower skill jobs to replace em by h1b)

<comment><USER39> > it ist is hard to find qualified employees for that job

...at that salary.

$150k sounds like a lot, but adjusted for cost of living, it's fairly middle- of-the-road salary for senior engineers in, say, Texas. In fact, it would be an effective downgrade in quality of life for many. Your employer could easily poach _those_ engineers by calling them up and offering $225k or more, offering housing vouchers, etc.

I'll note that I'm assuming SF or NYC as your location. If you're in Texas, Atlanta, etc., I withdraw all of the above.

<comment><USER40> > Your employer could easily poach those engineers by calling them up and > offering $225k or more, offering housing vouchers, etc.

I'd dispute the "easily" here. IME, it's extremely hard to get senior engineers to relocate -- many of them have families, deep ties to their locations, and are way to accustomed to their way and quality of life to consider moving.

<comment><USER39> I didn't say you could get any particular engineer to relocate with only a good comp package. The point is that you could get enough to fill empty positions purely by investing more in employees.

Salaries are a simple conversation point, but we could also talk about remote work, retraining, opening sites in more affordable areas, etc. I also listed many specific benefits (housing, child care) that would make a relocation zero hassle for a senior engineer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I was a part of the Infosys offshore team (India) that took the transition from Eversource energy's IT department (mentioned in the article).

I clearly remember now, how disappointed, sad and gloomy were the members of the departing team.

<comment><USER42> If they are older, and aren't white & male, they likely have a long, potentially multi-year search ahead of them to find employment. Especially if they specialized in the operations of Eversource's software, and not in software development, that is going to put them in a really crappy position when applying at other local employers.

<comment><USER41> Yes, you are right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Keep in mind that H-1B visa is almost the only legal way for skilled workers to immigrate to the United States. Unlike other visa types, H-1B requires the applicant to have at least bachelor's degree. At the same time USCIS issues about 650,000 family-based immigration visas and 120,000 visas for refugees every year.

<comment><USER44> And the number for employment based immigration visas is 140,000.

<comment><USER43> Yes, but usually you have to get H-1B or L-1 visa first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> > "We are at a disadvantage as Americans," Ms. Hatten-Milholin said.

This is so ridiculous. A disadvantage against who? By any rational measure, it's the H1-B holders that are at a huge disadvantage against Americans.

<comment><USER15> I'd take a softer stance against the statement, though I do disagree with it.

As a Californian, I'd have trouble signing away my right to leave the software field for the next 7 years, or granting to my employer the right to have me deported if I quit my job.

Employers may prefer employees who they know have limited legal rights to participate as free members of the work force. In fact, the US has a long (and at times, horrendously ugly) history of programs to import workers who aren't free to choose the circumstances of their own lives. Because US citizens can't give up certain rights, they may be at a disadvantage where it comes to getting jobs where employer control over a worker's residency rights have become the norm.

After all, why would you hire a free person who can threaten to leave during salary negotiations, when you can instead hire someone who depends on you for the right to live and work in the US?

Of course, I'd never, ever make that trade. I'd rather switch fields, or avoid that field altogether. This may account for some of the aversion to software development careers we observe among people who do are free as individuals to live and work in the US without corporate "sponsorship"

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> @ericseppanen,

I agree, that there seem to be two distinct practices. I experienced the latter, where a company performed wholesale off-shoring of several thousand jobs.

I don't understand how the stewards of that program approve such visas when they're clearly being used to replace existing workers (i.e., the argument that you can't find qualified locals is demonstrably false.)

My other hard-won conclusion: the companies that do this don't recognize the long-term impacts. They're less capable, less competitive, and their outsourcing partners can become their overlords. The outsourcers gain considerable negotiating leverage, and any attempt to unseat them becomes economically impossible.

What can we do about it? Look at the policies that make American employment unappetizing. The cost of benefits (principally health care.) Regulations that make it difficult to fire poor performers.

Finally, there's a feedback mechanism here. I saw many leave technology because they perceived that the opportunities were all moving off-shore.

</comment><comment><USER47> I am confused by the article. The examples given are examples of outsourcing, which doesn't require visas at all, right?

</comment><comment><USER48> Irony of only focusing on tech jobs when talking about H1-B is two-fold:

1) Tech jobs (especially in software fields) are some of the easiest to do remotely. Creating higher barriers to H1-B visas will only create higher incentives to let those same workers work from their home countries instead of bringing them all the way to the US. The unintended side-effect of course is that this is actually cheaper for the employers, siphons spending outside the US economy and to the extent this is believed to be zero-sum market (it's not), you have to believe that this will depress the job market here.

2) Software is not the only field H1-B jobs are used in. There are whole categories of jobs where $130K salary is absurdly high even for top candidates (without any visa restrictions). Case in point, academic researchers and scientists.

</comment><comment><USER49> I would love to see a New York Times or Washington Post article on H1-B that is based on interviews from those who are abused either by these consulting companies that pay low wages or the impact it has on driving down overall wages of American worker while the tech companies reap reward profits.

</comment><comment><USER50> Crazy idea...

How about a one line regulation: You pay whatever you want to your H1B employee. For every dollar under some limit (say, $130K) you pay that dollar to Uncle Sam.

At least it would keep them honest, since any cheating would be a tax violation.

</comment><comment><USER51> Try hiring Politicians on H1B

</comment><comment><USER52> can anybody tell me the legal implications to start a US based company as a foreigner? Is it possible to start one in F-1 OPT and later file for H1-B?

</comment><comment><USER53> Am I the only one here who thinks that a person has a basic right to work with whoever and wherever they want regardless of their birthplace? Is discriminating against someone based on where they were born somehow less of a fallacy than discriminating based on skin color, etc. ?

<comment><USER54> You can either have open borders or a welfare state, but not both. Otherwise, what is to stop millions of poor masses from migrating to the country offering the best welfare and driving down the wages for locals (by, say, willing to work for a lower standard of living)?

A popular rebuttal is that immigrants will contribute to the growing economy and will pay taxes. But we are talking about completely open borders here (anything else is just some fiddling around current system), where anyone willing to do even minimum wage job can migrate. How can such people contribute enough in taxes, when the welfare cost needed to support them (schools, roads, sewers, hospitals...) and their families far exceeds the taxes paid by them? And while I admit that I don't have any stats to support my argument, I am just going by my gut feeling that generous welfare is usually paid for by the richest and not by the poorest.

Another offered solution is to cap welfare for new migrants until they pay enough taxes. But that just creates a two-tier society and is a separate can of worms in itself.

<comment><USER55> >You can either have open borders or a welfare state, but not both. Otherwise, what is to stop millions of poor masses from migrating to the country offering the best welfare and driving down the wages for locals (by, say, willing to work for a lower standard of living)?

What stops this from happening in the Schengen Area, where some countries participating have welfare states and some (I believe) do not? Genuine question - I've heard other people make the same argument before and it seems like we have a pretty good real-world example to either verify or refute it.

<comment><USER56> > What stops this from happening in the Schengen Area

EU countries are much more uniform than the rest of the world in their level of welfare support and social development (e.g. UK and even Portugal are much more alike than say Bangladesh and the US).

Besides, there _has_ been a lot of movement from poorer countries to richer countries within the EU, and many people in the richer countries are angry about this. See Brexit etc.

<comment><USER57> _> there has been a lot of movement from poorer countries_

There has also been a lot of movement _back_ towards such countries as soon as their wealth levels improved (or UK ones got worse), which happened in no small part thanks to remittance payments. It's the sort of movement you also observe in-country when industries in certain regions do better than others. How many people from Scotland moved to Southern England in the last 100 years?

But that is _the whole point_ of the European Union, which is also expressed in things like the infrastructure and development funds: we promote solidarity and cooperation between neighboring countries, rather than competition that will ultimately result in war.

It's a shame how you only need a couple of generations to forget everything about their history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> The outsourcing is another issue, as any tech job that can be telecomuted will be moved overseas (with the exception of security risk aversion factors, like with HIPA compliant organizations and such). What this allows is for foreign workers to come to the U.S. too work for less at jobs that require that a person be on-site. Then they have no power to negotiate, as they're here at their employer's whim. If there are going to be worker's protection laws, that I as a citizen am guaranteed, and which raise my cost, then allowing for a loop hole like this is pricing me out of decent work. Come on President Trump, raise that price cap and end this loophole!</comment>