
India should make more of a valuable asset abroad - randomname2
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21651331-india-should-make-more-valuable-asset-abroad-worldwide-web
======
xianshou
This is no new phenomenon, but its effects have become more and more obvious
and pronounced over the past decade, especially with the massive
overrepresentation of Indians in engineering, science, and health. Indian
American children actually scored better than any other group on "digit span"
tests given to young immigrants, indicating an average IQ of about 112 (79th
percentile). For an older article on the same subject, see:
[http://newamericamedia.org/2012/07/indian-americans-most-
edu...](http://newamericamedia.org/2012/07/indian-americans-most-educated-
richest-says-pew-report.php)

What is the cause? Most likely, an extremely strong self-selecting tendency
for immigrants. Most of the Indian immigrants I know attended one of the IITs,
and I'm sure many here have a similar experience. The flipside of this self-
selection is a pronounced brain drain on Indian society. It will be very
interesting over the next two decades to see if, with the rise of India, this
trend continues, flattens, or even reverses. Even with the current level of
investment, however, the new "model minority" is likely to stay that way for a
while.

~~~
krat0sprakhar
> It will be very interesting over the next two decades to see if, with the
> rise of India, this trend continues, flattens, or even reverses.

This is true. I graduated from one of the well-known engineering colleges 4
years back in India and a good percentage of my CS batch went to study in top-
schools in the US with a primary motivation to get a job and get settled.

Fast forward to now, most of them are looking at coming back and thinking of
getting a slice of pie in the booming tech / Ecommerce market in the country.
With VC investments booming, and mobile penetration rising tremendously (even
in tier 2 cities / towns) the order of the day is to quickly clone a popular
business model that has worked in the west and innovate under the local
constraints.

I can clearly see the curve flattening or even reversing in the next 8-10
years. All in all, it sounds like good news for the Indian economy.

~~~
shubhamjain
While the VC investments and rise of so many startups is exciting, I am still
worried if it is sustainable or everyone is just riding on the VC fuel. Most
of the startups, are consumer based companies, many of which, have followed
the American counterparts, and to gain market share, they are not worried
about spending money like it is endless. Take an example of "Lenskart", which
will send an optician to your doorstep who will do eye-check for you @ Rs. 50
( < $1 ). Not to mention, the sheer number of promotional and branding
campaigns they have been running.

I believe not every company is like that, but the startup scene in India is
more or less, a gaining-user-share game. In pessimistic future, where these
startups would be relying on the last pennies of their funding, I am not sure
if they would be able to sustain if they start pricing the things they sell at
a price to make a profit, since the Indian consumer finds these offers, the
major reason to use the app.

It would be good if the startups also tilt towards actually making products,
like VWO, Browserstack and ours[1]. Although, I am aware, that question like,
"How the heck that will make money?" has been proved to be pointless at many
times in history, if you think of Facebook / Google but I believe eCommerce
companies find it hard to grow profits quickly unless they are inventing a new
business model (AirBnB, eBay, Alibaba).

[1]: [http://adpushup.com](http://adpushup.com)

~~~
ignoramous
E-commerce is a numbers game. Look beyond e-comm and there are plenty of
promising product based companies-- Freshdesk, helpshift, zoho, boomerang
commerce, indix, pubmatic, zomato, common-floor, housing etc. I think you're
being overly pessimistic about the tech scene in India. Flipkart has already
made a lot of millionaires, and when other unicorns start going public, we'd
start seeing a lot of wealthy individuals that'd turn investors themselves.
The key is that critical mass, which I think the Indian tech scene (4th
largest in the world in terms of capital, behind US, UK, and China) has
already achieved.

Also see: [http://yourstory.com/2015/04/indian-entrepreneurs-merger-
acq...](http://yourstory.com/2015/04/indian-entrepreneurs-merger-acquisitions-
startups-growth/) and [http://yourstory.com/2015/04/billion-dollar-company-
india/](http://yourstory.com/2015/04/billion-dollar-company-india/)

------
madaxe_again
Next up, "Down with immigrants!" and "They took my job!" \- very ugly tide of
anti-immigration sentiment rising in the UK, largely because migrants are
prepared to work, and native brits are not, as they feel entitled to a record
contract and a pony.

~~~
RobertoG
People feel entitled to what they have and don't want to lost it. You don't
need to be an expert in psychology to realize that.

If you have to compete with people that are more desperate that you, you are
not going to like that. This is true for Brits and for Indians.

But I suppose it's easy (but lazy) to make a moral play of this.

Downward pressure on wages is good for some people but not most people. Of
course the immigrants have a right to the good things of life also, and I
don't have a solution, but don't make these issues more simpler than they are.

~~~
shiven
_...but don 't make these issues more simpler than they are._

It makes more sense if you take a Darwinian viewpoint. Survival of the fittest
and all that. In the US this happened a couple of hundred years ago as the
_native_ population got wiped out by European immigrants (or invaders). In
case of the UK, as an Indian, I consider it fair comeuppance for the two
centuries that Brits enslaved my country! And, by the way, I'll have some
fish-n-chips with that NHS plan, thankyouverymuch.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>It makes more sense if you take a Darwinian viewpoint. Survival of the
fittest and all that.

Pretty much everyone knows Social Darwinism to be immoral and, on net, a bad
idea.

>And, by the way, I'll have some fish-n-chips with that NHS plan,
thankyouverymuch.

Fish-and-chips was actually introduced by Sefardi Jewish immigrants from the
Netherlands :-p.

~~~
gumby
>>It makes more sense if you take a Darwinian viewpoint. Survival of the
fittest and all that.

> Pretty much everyone knows Social Darwinism to be immoral and, on net, a bad
> idea.

Agreed. Fun side note / trivia: Some wag had Hubert Spencer (the proponent of
"social darwinism") buried across the path and facing the grave of his
intellectual enemy Karl Marx. It's a well-trodden spot in the lovely Highgate
cemetery, and much as I dislike much of what Marx wrote, I love that so maany
people make a pilgrimage there and turn their backs on Spencer.

------
logibly
I am from India and currently in India.

This is not a news to me. India lacks opportunities for skilled people. Even
with very few opportunities the competition here is fierce. For eg, to get
into IIM or IIT (equivalents of Harvard or MIT in US), you need more then just
knowledge to get selected amongst hundreds of thousands.

Even after studies the competition is fierce. The Indian middle class dream
continues to pursue job as a career and very few take entrepreneurship as a
career.

~~~
lnkmails
>For eg, to get into IIM or IIT (equivalents of Harvard or MIT in US), you
need more then just knowledge to get selected amongst hundreds of thousands.

This is untrue. They all have competitive examinations that are open to
anyone. There is affirmative action after admission which is the only non-
merit part of it. Generally in India, there is age discrimination when it
comes to enrolling in schools. There are age limits. Of course examinations
are not indicative of actual potential but then we need a quantifiable way to
select students. I am also Indian and have participated in these examinations.
Also, I never thought IIMs/IITs are Harvard/MIT. Year over year rankings of
universities around the world indicate they are nowhere closer. So let's get
real there as well.

------
gyardley
The immigration routes to the United States that have nothing to do with
personal merit (family reunification, green card lottery) have hard per-
country caps. Thanks to India's huge population, a greater percentage of their
immigrants have to come from more merit-based routes, like the H-1B visa or
the F-1 visa for students. I suspect _that 's_ why Indian immigrants are doing
better as a group.

The whole article is a strong argument for moving the United States'
immigration policy in a more merit-based direction, like Canada's or
Australia's. Skilled, deliberately-selected immigrants are great, but giving
out permanent residence to the winners of a lottery is ridiculous.

------
randomname2
Just for reference, the actual Economist tweet where the title came from:

[https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/603433973361041408](https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/603433973361041408)

~~~
randomname2
I would assume the reason this is getting so many upvotes/retweets is this is
actually quite surprising to most people, who would still initially consider
Indians of lower "social status" at first sight.

Or maybe that's just a UK thing?

~~~
Brakenshire
Indians in the UK are similar - tend to be high achievers, middle-class, model
minority etc.

In fact, perhaps even more so, because a big proportion of the British Indian
population were the professional class ejected from East Africa by people like
Idi Amin.

------
gumby
India does one thing interesting in regards to its diaspora.

Like some HNers here advocate for the US, India restricts foreign ownership of
things like land, companies etc. (Personally I think it hurts India but that's
another discussion.)

So if someone leaves India and becomes a citizen of another country they lose
those rights. A couple of decades ago the government figured out this was a
problem, so now Indian-born noncitizens and some decedents of Indian citizens
get some ability to travel, invest etc as if they were locals -- even better
in some cases because they can repatriate earnings).

As a kid in South East Asia I saw how Chinese family-based affinity networks
contributed to the well being, wealth and general prosperity of Cantonese
immigrants (my mother, an Indian childhood emigrant who grew up speaking
chinese, was weirdly tied in which is how I saw these).

India's emigrants for whatever reason didn't have the same kind of informal
structure, but cleverly the government formalized the mechanism which is
actually more powerful. Let's see if they can really make use of it.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
resident_Indian_and_person_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
resident_Indian_and_person_of_Indian_origin)

------
josephmx
It's interesting that all the European countries (nationalities) fall together
on that graph[1]

1: [http://cdn.static-
economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecac...](http://cdn.static-
economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-
size/20150523_SRC174.png)

~~~
lmz
So what's the secret of the immigrants from the Philippines? Why do they make
more money with lower % postgraduate compared to other immigrants?

~~~
atonse
I don't know anything about Filipino demographics but a LOT of Indians that
come to the US who aren't highly educated, end up starting small businesses in
retail, etc, because that doesn't require a high degree, just raw hard work
and perseverance. And those translate to really good incomes.

Might be the same thing with Filipinos?

------
CyberDildonics
An Indian immigrant family that makes it to the US is likely to be
exceptional. When people fight immigration this is one side of it. The best
and brightest want to come to the US and the US benefits if it simply lets
them do it.

------
jkot
I think there was discussion about taxes in India some time ago. If you make
decent money in India, you get taxed to oblivion. No wonder their elite is
leaving.

------
dang
Please don't use the titles of HN posts to editorialize. Instead, use the
original title unless it is misleading or linkbait:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

(Submitted title was "Indians “extraordinarily successful minority in
America”, “burgeoning new elite”".)

~~~
randomname2
This how The Economist promoted their own article on Twitter: "Indians have
become an extraordinarily successful minority in America. A burgeoning new
elite"
([https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/603433973361041408](https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/603433973361041408)),
as I had pointed out in the first comment here.

While this doesn't fit into the 80 characters HN enforces, and The Economist
may have been "editorializing" by using that alternative title, they
editorialize by definition and I'm not sure stepping in and changing the title
was necessary here.

The surprisingness of The Economist making that statement is what made that
widely retweeted and made for interesting discussion here. Or was it the
quotes that were "problematic" / offensive?

~~~
dang
The rules here ask you to use the original title unless it is misleading or
linkbait. It's fine to use a subtitle instead, if it's more neutral or
informative. What's not fine is to pick what you think is important about the
article and make that the title—that's what we mean by editorializing.

On HN, the submitter of a story doesn't get to frame it for everybody else.
Since the title of a post is the single most important influence on the
discussion, this is important.

------
wahsd
Caveat: If you are not American, a natural citizen, or even a second
generation immigrant; please refrain from suppressing dissenting opinion I am
expressing below, which you will surely not like. Also, man, this got long in
short order. But it's an important topic.

Now if they could just learn to properly speak English. I know that sounds
like something an asshole says, but it's really an issue that should not be
overlooked just because someone has been trained to be politically correct and
for some reason accept poor language skills by one group of people, yet not
from another. Would you be ok with a black person that speaks "ebonics" but is
otherwise equally competent?

In reality it is a significant issue because you frequently simply cannot
understand those of Indian descent unless they have been in the USA for at
least a generation. It's not really limited to Indians, it also and ever more
frequently applies to Chinese, but they are not the subject of this article.
There are whole departments in tech companies that are staffed with
essentially nothing but Indians who speak various Indian languages among each
other and have such strong dialects when speaking English that it is almost
impossible to understand them. There is even explicit discrimination going on
in those kinds of companies that prevents someone like a "real American", a
person who speaks English to a satisfactory and comprehensible degree from
being hired. Are you going to work with a whole department of Indians that
speak a foreign language to each other and actively ostracize you? Are you
even going to get an interview as a Duane, Chad, Becky, Omar, Mercedes,
Juliana, Marcos, etc.?

This rise of the "burgeoning new elite" is just another symptom of the
corporate and elite sell out of America. Indians were allowed to immigrate to
the USA through various visa programs in order to quickly bolster corporate
tech capacity on the cheap due to the ramifications of incompetent investments
in education and insufficient support for engaging our poor and under-educated
people. Essentially, America's corporate overlords took the easy route and
sold out Americans by kicking the can down the road. What they did was the
equivalent of taking out car title and pay day loans in order to fund their
lavish lifestyles of exploitation.

What should become more and more apparent to people, although I don't see any
real signs of it happening or grabbing hold, is that America is nothing but a
big feeding frenzy by the wealthy and powerful. There really is no sense of
culture and society worth mentioning. As upsetting as that notion is, what we
consider American and defining of our culture is really just all expression
corporate interests and exploitation.

What people don't quite get about America, even the 99%ers of Americans, is
that although the economy is of course not a zero sum game, it is a limited
game that can be represented by the ever popular pie, but where the pie
represents a ratio of wealth and income. Or, another way of putting it, you
can think of it as an ever replenishing pie. Do you have your mental model and
visualization in place? Ok, let me explain.

The thing about America is that there is a defined barrier, a gated community,
if you will, between the 1% and 99% and that barrier has been erected in such
a manner that 99% of the ever replenishing parts of the pie go to the 1%, or
simply that the 1% get 99% of the pie and the rest of the 99% have to share a
single sliver of 100 pieces that the pie is cut into. The problem with
immigration, whether illegal laborers or H1B, is that they are all dumped into
the same pool of 99% that have to share that one single tiny sliver of pie of
the 100 pieces that the pie has been cut into, which makes getting ahead or
increasing income next to impossible.

Sure there are outliers and exceptions, and I am sure that the "success" of
these "burgeoning new elite" would be cited as counter arguments, but the rule
simply is that under normal circumstances it is next to impossible to make
headway when immigrants keep getting dumped into the labor pool, whether it be
construction, manufacturing, agriculture, service, or even all the tech jobs.
That is the real reason why not only poor people in America can't make any
headway and also why students are being buried under student loan debt while
the prospective wages they can earn with the degree they hold has been driving
down by cheap H1B tech labor and outsourcing.

These are real consequences of immigration. I know that we all have been
indoctrinated to love the shit out of some immigration because it has always
been critical to the American elite to further their agenda of exploitation
and domination, but reality is that what you have been led to believe is
counter-productive to your own self-interest. And to think there are some
people who don't believe that people will act against their own self interest.

~~~
denzil_correa
> Now if they could just learn to properly speak English.

You mean British English?

> There are whole departments in tech companies that are staffed with
> essentially nothing but Indians who speak various Indian languages among
> each other and have such strong dialects when speaking English that it is
> almost impossible to understand them.

Every country has an accent - US, Australia, Germany or France - each one of
them have their own accent.

~~~
kamaal
I think the point was that most Indians speak in their local languages at
work. Which is actually true. It can be very annoying to Indians themselves, I
wouldn't be surprised if its any different for other people.

~~~
denzil_correa
That is indeed a valid and a different point. But, the original comment also
comes hard down on accent which is too harsh IMO.

------
honest_joe
"Oh cmon...because there's so many of them and most of them are not that
good."

translating : There are more indian immigrants than the other nationalities.

~~~
logibly
Instead of generalization, how about you discuss objectively?

~~~
honest_joe
Yes i have been generalizing I admit to that crime.

It's a fact that 1% of the best of the best from a country like India that has
so huge population will disrupt the local economics. That and the fact that
the others not that gifted will work for less than the locals.

We live in a globalized world but that does not always work for benefits of
humankind.

They are different cultures...the same as gypsies and poorer social ranks from
post-soviet countries.

