America is currently the center of the tech world. This is largely due to two things:
1. The internet is cheaper here than anywhere else in part because everyone else pays to connect to the US; and
2. The university endowment system combined with some of the greatest research institutions on the planet created the tech VC system that fuelled the growth of Silicon Valley.
Manufacturing has already left the US (and most of the developed world). While the barriers are higher for skilled labour, it's not impossible. Many countries have a sufficiently stable political system and sufficient infrastructure to create tech businesses.
My point is that the US is outright hostile to those seeking to enter the United States, be they as tourists, residents or temporary workers, and to those who choose to come here and put up with a level of invasiveness that rivals third-world dictatorships and the old Iron Curtain countries.
Now some of the post-9/11 measures I don't have a problem with. I see no issue with fingerprinting those entering the United States.
On the other hand, as a foreign worker I need to report every foreign bank account I own (separately or jointly), have a financial interest in or signatory authority over whether or not that money was ever earned in or otherwise entered the United States. This includes retirement accounts. Or does it? No one can really say because the rules aren't clear.
Failure to comply can result in civil penalties as high as 300% of the balance of that account and criminal penalties including years in jail.
When it comes time to renew my visa I have to leave the country to do it.
Should I want to leave my job and start a business here I don't believe I have any legal recourse to reside lawfully in the United States so I have to go somewhere else.
I'm actually encouraged by stories like this one just because I'm optimistic that the US is finally figuring out that it needs tourists. Maybe someday soon it'll figure out it needs foreign workers and entrepreneurs too. Hopefully before it's too late.
It saddens me actually because the fate of the US is the same as that of many companies. Early-stage companies are innovators. Eventually they get so large that they live in constant fear that their success will go away or something will kill the golden goose. Instead of innovating they simply play a game of defense and interference. This is Microsoft of today with its Windows/Office cash cow.
The US was formed my immigrants coming to escape the rigid structure and persecution of the Old World. In a mere century the US turned from an agrarian backwater of 2 million (in 1800) to an industrial superpower of 50 million, thanks largely to migrants. The US shut its doors at the outbreak of World War One has been building increasingly larger walls ever since.
What disturbs me most is the presumption of (criminal) guilt that seems to pervade state institutions, particularly when it applies to confusing, complex, special-interest bought rules like the IRS code. In no other country I've been have I felt fear that I'd be locked up even when trying to do what I believe is the right thing. This doesn't just apply to foreigners either. The US seems just as hostile to its own citizens too.
EDIT: regarding Internet speed, so as to be clear there's a difference between Internet end-user cost (consumers and businesses) and service provider cost.
End user cost is indeed expensive, which seems largely due to the regional monopolies that exist in the US, meaning cable companies. That is however irrelevant (for the purpose of my argument).
I'm interested in the cost of a Facebook, Google, Ebay or Amazon providing their service in resource terms. Of course there's a latency component to this as well (the US being disproportionately represented in customer terms) but ultimately it has been cheaper and I believe that to still be the case, especially if you get to the scale whereby peering is possible and viable.
> Now some of the post-9/11 measures I don't have a problem with. I see no issue with fingerprinting those entering the United States.
Just out of curiosity, why is that? If it matters, I live in Eastern Europe (and grew up under an oppressive regime as a kid), and I had this same discussion (about the US fingerprinting innocent people) with some of my friends way back in 2007. At the time I thought this was crazy, I still do.
The US has a large problem with people entering on limited term visitor or student visas and then never leaving. While most of those people are harmless, others aren't (including a number of the 9/11 hijackers). By taking fingerprints of all foreigners, those prints can be entered into law enforcement databases if they overstay their visas. I don't really understand why people would have a problem with it. What bad things would having your fingerprints make it possible for a government to do that having the information from your passport and visa forms wouldn't?
Fingerprinting has negative connotations for many. It's typically associated with criminal behavior, as those are mostly the only people afforded such treatment. Not commenting on whether it's a valid practice which should continue, but it's easy to see why people, who as far as they're concerned have done nothing wrong, object to be treated in such a manner.
Also, there's the usual concerns about any state entity (particularly a foreign one, which the US is far as foreigners are concerned), amassing large amounts of biometric data. It's a black box which you can't see into, have no assurances how that data will be used, who can access it, etc.
Why not take the fingerprints of citizens, too? There are lots of unsolved crimes with fingerprints filed away. If we made it mandatory for citizens to submit their fingerprints, we could punish many people for the crimes they've committed.
Actually, why not mandate a video camera in every home? That way, the government could know about and stop any crimes you were planning. They could also give you sex tips to ensure that the next generation is numerous enough for the conquering we need to start doing!
Setting aside the problems with fingerprinting, how exactly does taking foreigners' fingerprints prevent them from overstaying their visas? You mention the 9/11 hijackers - would taking their fingerprints have prevented 9/11? This is just security theater.
I also live in Eastern Europe and I've enjoyed the american experience of being fingerprinted in my attempt to get a touristic visa ...before deciding if they'll grant or deny it to me (which is before knowing if I'll ever set my foot anywhere close to their territory). Till then, the fingerprinting was something I only heard of to be something applied in the case of suspects and criminals, in law enforcement institutions.
The United States is one of the most dominant manufacturers in the world, $2+ trillion dollars every year and continues to grow. Until the last year or two, no other country was even close. Most economists predict that over the next ten years manufacturing will be a major growth area as China's competitiveness in this area declines.
Do not make the mistake of conflating manufacturing jobs with manufacturing. US manufacturing is almost entirely high-end and very automated, not the kind of thing you can do with minimum wage labor.
The United States will never employ millions of workers making cheap clothing. However, it will employee thousands of highly paid engineers to design the machines that make cheap clothing.
I agree with what you say, except for point #1. At least as far as Europe or East Asia is concerned you can find much faster and cheaper internet connection. Even for hosting it's common when buying from Europe for them to advertise unlimited bandwidth - which usually means up to 10T/m and you get slowed down after.
1. is completely wrong. (Last time I checked the US was the 15th).
2. I think the Pentagon deserves more credit, as some of the most important research was publicly funded.
Wholesale bandwidth is probably cheaper in the US than anywhere else, but retail internet service certainly isn't. And neither is mobile internet access given the oligopoly of the big four cell phone companies.
The cost of bandwidth for US servers is little of an advantage to the tech start up (or later) world. Being outside the US doesn't make using US servers more expensive, plus, when you are the size of those you mentioned, you are multi-national anyway. Servers need to be near the consumers, not their owner; and again multinationals will have servers on each continent.
One significant advantage for the US is that you have 300m customers to hand, while European citizens will have a 'only' a home market 60-100m. To move above that, you have to deal with multiple languages, legal systems and tax issues etc.
So where would you start? Not to mention it is also the richest country, low tax (especially if you are choosing your state), and seems to have no other major issues (decent education system). The VCs multiply the advantage, as does the community that arises because it is attractive in the first place.
To be fair, requiring you to leave the country to renew your visa is not unique to the US. China does this as well and I've heard that are many other countries that do too. Honestly, I've never understood why this happens and I can't come up with any explanation that makes sense.
1. Wrong. Completely wrong. Internet is cheaper and much, much faster in many other countries. And many of those countries are rolling out FTTH/FTTN as we speak e.g. Australia.
2. True but a bit irrelevant.
The reason the US is the capital of the tech world is 110% due to the success of the VC industry. It is so flush with cash (from its previous successes) that it can reinvest in whole rafts of companies to create tomorrow's successes. It's very much self perpetuating.
>> 2. The university endowment system combined with some of the greatest research institutions on the planet created the tech VC system that fuelled the growth of Silicon Valley.
> 2. True but a bit irrelevant.
> [...] US is the capital of the tech world is 110% due to the success of the VC industry.
Are you disagreeing just to disagree? How is the thing you're giving "110%" of the credit irrelevant?
Access to money doesn't create success and without success that money would just go somewhere else. You can't seriously give it "110%" of the credit without looking at the reasons for the VC system and the underlying factors of the success.
I meant the quality of the universities. It might have been important decades ago but it isn't the reason Silicon Valley is the centre of IT today.
It's because of (a) money and (b) willingness of VCs to take chances and invest in companies with 23 year old CEOs and vague business plans. That sort of thing just doesn't happen anywhere else.
Yes, I'm so glad I have 1000 mbps line so that I can play games at > 200ms ping and watch stuttering movies. It isn't wrong to say that the internet is faster in the US as long as so many sites/services are hosted in the US.
I'm not confusing them. It's more than just latency and bandwidth..it's about peering and routes. By the time I hit US East from Asia, I'm doing typical ADSL speeds...same (or worse) with Europe.
Also, citation needed for your last point. Most sites? I'd be surprised if it was 1%.
Exactly. Near as I can tell, internet cost-to-bandwidth is pretty much a function of affluence and population density. The US, while affluent, has a low population density. High speed internet isn't that expensive. Getting people connected to that high speed internet is.
1. The internet is cheaper here than anywhere else in part because everyone else pays to connect to the US; and
2. The university endowment system combined with some of the greatest research institutions on the planet created the tech VC system that fuelled the growth of Silicon Valley.
Manufacturing has already left the US (and most of the developed world). While the barriers are higher for skilled labour, it's not impossible. Many countries have a sufficiently stable political system and sufficient infrastructure to create tech businesses.
My point is that the US is outright hostile to those seeking to enter the United States, be they as tourists, residents or temporary workers, and to those who choose to come here and put up with a level of invasiveness that rivals third-world dictatorships and the old Iron Curtain countries.
Now some of the post-9/11 measures I don't have a problem with. I see no issue with fingerprinting those entering the United States.
On the other hand, as a foreign worker I need to report every foreign bank account I own (separately or jointly), have a financial interest in or signatory authority over whether or not that money was ever earned in or otherwise entered the United States. This includes retirement accounts. Or does it? No one can really say because the rules aren't clear.
Failure to comply can result in civil penalties as high as 300% of the balance of that account and criminal penalties including years in jail.
When it comes time to renew my visa I have to leave the country to do it.
Should I want to leave my job and start a business here I don't believe I have any legal recourse to reside lawfully in the United States so I have to go somewhere else.
I'm actually encouraged by stories like this one just because I'm optimistic that the US is finally figuring out that it needs tourists. Maybe someday soon it'll figure out it needs foreign workers and entrepreneurs too. Hopefully before it's too late.
It saddens me actually because the fate of the US is the same as that of many companies. Early-stage companies are innovators. Eventually they get so large that they live in constant fear that their success will go away or something will kill the golden goose. Instead of innovating they simply play a game of defense and interference. This is Microsoft of today with its Windows/Office cash cow.
The US was formed my immigrants coming to escape the rigid structure and persecution of the Old World. In a mere century the US turned from an agrarian backwater of 2 million (in 1800) to an industrial superpower of 50 million, thanks largely to migrants. The US shut its doors at the outbreak of World War One has been building increasingly larger walls ever since.
What disturbs me most is the presumption of (criminal) guilt that seems to pervade state institutions, particularly when it applies to confusing, complex, special-interest bought rules like the IRS code. In no other country I've been have I felt fear that I'd be locked up even when trying to do what I believe is the right thing. This doesn't just apply to foreigners either. The US seems just as hostile to its own citizens too.
EDIT: regarding Internet speed, so as to be clear there's a difference between Internet end-user cost (consumers and businesses) and service provider cost.
End user cost is indeed expensive, which seems largely due to the regional monopolies that exist in the US, meaning cable companies. That is however irrelevant (for the purpose of my argument).
I'm interested in the cost of a Facebook, Google, Ebay or Amazon providing their service in resource terms. Of course there's a latency component to this as well (the US being disproportionately represented in customer terms) but ultimately it has been cheaper and I believe that to still be the case, especially if you get to the scale whereby peering is possible and viable.