Maybe the smartest thing to do is avoiding United States altogether, collaborating with this kind of dumb rules is only reinforcing this kind of behavior since people keep trying to get in even when bothered.
You voted with your wallet, you can now vote with your passport. Moreover, some decentralization and diversity in economy can only bring benefits to the world, monoculture is toxic in the long run.
Moreover, some decentralization and diversity in economy can only bring benefits to the world, monoculture is toxic in the long run.
While this is true, it'll be years (probably decades) before starting technology startups anywhere else in the world is as likely to succeed as it is in the US (particularly Silicon Valley, but Boston will do, in a pinch, I guess). You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. But, hopefully, some of the Brits and Canadians and Indians, etc. who come to the states to build their startups will strike it rich, and go back home and help develop a startup friendly culture. It'll still be decades before any place is as big as the valley, but it'll be a start.
I agree. But I think if the center of technology does go somewhere else, it won't be because that other place catches up to the valley, but because the valley screws up and some other city can take its place. For instance, if the punishment for violating patents became life in prison, civil rights in US kept falling, the US put up larger barriers to skilled immigrants, acquisitions became heavily taxed, and/or a "windfall tax" was applied to Silicon Valley to pay for the economic depression elsewhere in the US, SV would very quickly die.
Between a place like Singapore catching up and SV falling behind, I'd guess a shift in who's in the technology hub would likely be caused by the latter.
The more people move to Silicon Valley to start their venture, the more time will pass before its easier to do so in their hometown. Moreover, maybe the Silicon Valley way of thing is not the only way to bring innovation, maybe Nigerian people have another economical system to do this, maybe there can be a Spanish way of doing thing things, a Brazilian way etc.
I'm sure that the best way to do things the Silicon Valley's way is moving there, but where's the innovation apart from the product ?
But I have a Silicon Valley tale : Steve Jobs, if he distorts reality and makes his twisted ideas of reality become the real reality, it's not by conforming to established things. He creates his battleground, convoke his enemies on it and then fight.
There's some "second order" risk to take : not only you risk to fail in your venture, but you can take a higher risk by failing in the way you start your venture. Going to a rural area, taking money from other people than VCs, and doing something that's neither electronics nor a web 2.0 website (nor a traditional business, of course). And with this additional risk, comes a reward.
The more people move to Silicon Valley to start their venture, the more time will pass before its easier to do so in their hometown.
You're placing the value of hope that the future will be better in your hometown over the value of the fact that things are better right now in Silicon Valley. You and I both hope that, in the future, an entrepreneur-friendly culture will grow in many places. But, I'm accepting the reality that for my current business to succeed today, I need to take part in that culture today.
If you're willing to forego success today in exchange for helping other people in your hometown have success in the future (distant, but questionably made nearer for your willingness to stay home), then we're talking about different questions. Of course, I happen to believe you have to have some success under your belt in order to make a real impact on your hometown's startup culture. Random dudes who are passionate about startups is far less effective than random dudes with millions of dollars and a proven track record of building one or more companies who are passionate about startups.
And then we're back to the question of, "How do I best insure my business is a success?" If it's a technology startup the answer is often, though not always, "build it in Silicon Valley".
That's true, actually I'm more a global thinker than a individual thinker. That's why even if I fail, I should first do no harm and have at least led others to the right direction (in my case, health and ecology).
And this kind of thinking doesn't makes me try to succeed whatever the price. Or in this case, I can even pass over opportunities that would make my personal success more likely but my global influence less positive.
I can say "I will strike rich AND THEN have a positive impact" but the odds are 5 on 1 against me to strike rich so I have to be positive for others even if I personally don't strike rich.
While I'm rarely accused of humility, I'm afraid that in this case I am too humble to imagine that by staying in Austin (or Houston, or Greenville, SC, or any other place I've lived) that I could have turned their economy and culture into one that is more friendly to entrepreneurs given my existing resources.
It sounds as though you are not hindered by any such weakness. Best of luck to you.
> The more people move to Silicon Valley to start their venture, the more time will pass before its easier to do so in their hometown.
You're looking at it as a zero sum game with only one move. Some people may go to silicon valley, make money, or at least learn about startups and the culture there, and take some of that home with them. If they'd simply stayed home, it's not a given that they would have been able to start a company, or be as successful at it.
You're getting the cart before the horse. One reason a given reward can exist unplundered is because no-one has taken the risk necessary to get it. There are rewards that don't require risk, but they're quickly taken.
Your comment sounds more like a veiled swipe at the US rather than anything constructive.
Take an introductory macro economics course to find out why what you said actually doesn't work out in practice. It's much better if a country specializes in what they are good at rather than try to do everything. Given that the US has proven itself to be quite good at making software and internet, that would make it a pretty good place to be, regardless of immigration rules.
When it gets down to it — talking trade balances here — once we've brain-drained all our technology into other countries, once things have evened out, they're making cars in Bolivia and microwave ovens in Tadzhikistan and selling them here — once our edge in natural resources has been made irrelevant by giant Hong Kong ships and dirigibles that can ship North Dakota all the way to New Zealand for a nickel — once the Invisible Hand has taken away all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani brickmaker would consider to be prosperity — y'know what? There's only four things we do better than anyone else:
You voted with your wallet, you can now vote with your passport. Moreover, some decentralization and diversity in economy can only bring benefits to the world, monoculture is toxic in the long run.