Timing the sowing and watering of crops is as important as ever in agriculture. Jessi Korinek and her co-founders at Nave Analytics are developing a software that uses satellite data to help farmers cut down on water costs for irrigation. We sat down with Jessi to discuss her product, the impact of tariffs on the agricultural industry, and the challenges she faced in receiving federal research and development (R&D) grants.
Startup ecosystem feels the effects of DOGE cuts
The Trump administration’s push for “efficiency” is undercutting key programs and tools that maintain balanced intellectual property frameworks that protect startups against low-quality patents and meritless, but expensive and time consuming, litigation.
With a looming reauthorization deadline later this year, Congress has a chance to renew and improve a government funding program that can be critical to startups engaging in costly R&D.
By a vote of 68-32, the United States Senate completed a landmark bipartisan effort by passing S. 744 on comprehensive immigration reform. We applaud the efforts of the Senators who voted in favor of the bill, and all their staff, as well as recognising the historic impact of the technology community. Today we stand closer to the promise of an immigration system that works for all Americans than we have for decades. Now we must ensure this promise is realized.
This week, we signed and sent a letter to the U.S. Senate alongside other leading tech groups. The movement led by TechNet gathered over 100 signatories, including the Consumer Electronics Association, Cisco Systems, Facebook, and Partnership for a New American Economy. The technology community understands the importance of the high-tech industry to the American economy, and agrees unanimously that comprehensive immigration reform is the solution we need.
Last week, Engine joined software innovators, startups, and investors as a signatory on an amicus brief in Oracle v. Google -- a case centered on how far copyright should be extended with regards to Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). We are in favor of limiting copyright on APIs in order to protect innovation and investment.
In 2012, district courts ruled in favor of Google, concluding that Java APIs used by Android are not subject to copyright. The Federal Circuit is now reviewing the case on appeal.
We are proud to put our name on the brief because we recognize the need for software startups to innovate and the drive economy forward. Startup innovation requires interoperability (ie. open exchange of information) between systems and programs, and this is fostered by APIs.
Our interest is in “preserving the deliberate balance Congress and the courts have established for software copyright.” This balance is integral to maintaining a competitive marketplace and investment landscape. Should copyright restrictions on API’s be tightened, the real-world implications could be significant -- could decrease competition in software innovation and chill investment.
We’d like to recognize Engine member startups who also signed this brief, including: Bright Funds, Hattery, Hipiti, and Vessel. We are also thankful that prominent investors and technology industry veterans lent their voices, including Engine Advisory Board Member Brad Feld, and his partner at Foundry Group, Jason Mendelson. You can find a full list of signatories here.
We encourage you to check out the abstract and full brief.
Related articles:
Today the White House Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues issued a statement with a clear message: it’s time to tackle patent reform. While Washington as a whole has been slow to embrace new proposals after the passage of The America Invents Act in 2011, a steady drumbeat from advocates, startups, and tech companies alike has pushed policy makers to do more to end the economic drag caused by frivolous patent litigation. The Obama administration announced seven legislative recommendations and five executive actions that are a material step toward fixing the broken patent regime.
The executive actions make clarity a top priority. The requirements include ordering the patent office to work on rules that will make the real owner of a patent more apparent, requiring the office to tighten patent examiners’ scrutiny around what a given patent claims to do, and compelling the office to provide clear, plain-English answers for consumers and businesses about demand letters from patent trolls.
The administration's legislative recommendations also meet key startup needs. The White House is calling on Congress to empower and protect individuals and businesses facing legal demands from patent trolls. This includes proposals to further increase patent owner transparency, shift incentives to discourage predatory litigation, expand the patent reviews from the America Invents Act, end-user protections from patent troll suits, and increase incentives to encourage public disclosure of demand letters from trolls.
We are excited that the White House is taking action in the patent debate. While Washington has been divided along partisan lines of late, members of both parties are unifying to right some of the apparent wrongs in the system. Today’s announcement should encourage further dialogue about what the right fixes are, and how Congress can most effectively protect startups and ultimately all businesses from unwarranted lawsuits.
You can read White House fact sheet here. We will continue to post updates on patent reform proposals from Washington.
Related articles:
Picture courtesy of Alan Kotok.
Engine supports comprehensive immigration reform, and specifically the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” bill that passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with amendments that further encourage innovation and boost economic growth.
To the aim of bringing this bill to a vote, and getting it passed into law, we’ve launched Keep Us Here
-- a campaign centered around online tools to call, write to, and tweet at, Congress.
This is a unique moment in American politics, and you can be a part of it.
For this to work, we need to mobilize startups, entrepreneurs, investors, innovators, and everyone who wants an immigration system that works for America in a global economy. We also hope to build a broader coalition, including a wider range of interest groups also pushing for comprehensive immigration reform.
Why does it matter?
1. Startups are responsible for all net job growth over the last twenty years
2. Engine Advocacy research tells us that for every new high-tech job, 4.3 other jobs are created in a local economy
3. With forty percent of Fortune 500 companies founded by immigrants, or the children of immigrants, it’s critically important that we safeguard the ability of the next generation of founders to start business here.
4. Under the current system we are losing knowledge, and losing out to other countries who are welcoming American-taught talent with open arms
Startups promise the rebirth -- and rejuvenation -- of the American economy. Startups can power the next generation of growth in the American economy if we let them.
Engine is working towards an immigration system that works for the United States in a global economy, and we need your help.
You can tell policymakers that you care about knowledge, talent, jobs, growth, and keeping the U.S. competitive in the global economy. Let’s raise our voices to encourage the Senate to pass comprehensive immigration reform now.
Go to Keep Us Here
. Write a letter to your Senator, tweet at Congress, and pledge to call your Senator directly on June 18th, to show your support for comprehensive immigration reform.
Use the image above as your Facebook cover picture, and the badge below for your website. If you want any further messaging, or other images, don't hesitate to reach out to us at comms@engine.is.
Engine has filed a comment with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) encouraging broader allocation of unlicensed spectrum in the 5 GHz band. If that sounds confusing, don’t worry; spectrum management is a highly technical area of public policy. We’re speaking up because innovators need spaces to develop their ideas for new technologies and devices.
Let’s take a step back. Spectrum is allocated to commercial users through one of three main methods. It’s auctioned, as is the case with most cellular voice and data airwaves. It’s assigned, a method that has fallen out of favor since the rise of the FCC auction system but had been widely used for television broadcasters. It is also opened up, allowing users to operate on the same wireless frequencies by setting standards to prevent interference. You’re probably familiar with some unlicensed standards; they include technologies like WiFi, Bluetooth, and RFID.
Why does unlicensed spectrum matter to startups? While spectrum is a public resource, it’s tightly regulated to keep different users from broadcasting on top of each other. As a result it’s also very hard to access. In addition to regulation, the FCC has raised billions of dollars from spectrum auctions over the last twenty years, and Congress in turn has prioritized bringing in money for the federal government, putting new auctions at the front of the policy agenda. While steps have been taken to free more spectrum for unlicensed use, very few new technologies have been deployed on opened frequencies.
It’s critical that government sees unlicensed spectrum as an investment in the future. Wireless policy is as much about opportunity as it is about utilization. Just as policy decisions laid the foundation for the deployment of LTE technologies, more needs to be done for innovators looking to roll out compelling point-to-point technology, internet-of-things technologies like smart grid, and even faster, more robust WiFi standards.
Spectrum management is not a zero-sum game. Allowing innovators access to more spectrum with fewer regulatory limitations won’t necessarily crowd out existing users. We will continue to work with regulators and legislators to find opportunities for innovators to make the most of this critical public resource.
Photo courtesy of Colin Howley.
Peruvian born, Fulbright scholar, engineer, entrepreneur, and Hattery Co-Founder and Managing Director, Luis Arbulu, takes us through his perspective on current immigration policy and the Senate “Gang of Eight” bill. The highlight? The visa specifically for entrepreneurs.
In his spare time, Luis works with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and USCIS as an Entrepreneur in Residence, advocating for growing companies and entrepreneurs right at the center of it all.
If you have a story to tell, email editorial@engine.is
The amended Senate “Gang of Eight” immigration bill yesterday passed 13-5 out of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- but not before concessions were made by Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) reached an agreement on certain provisions for high-skilled labor.
Now the bill moves forward, with significant bipartisan support from the Committee, to the full Senate for their consideration, and then hopefully to a vote. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said this bill will be first up for debate when Senators return from their Memorial Day break, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) vowed that Republicans would not block the immigration bill from the floor.
In a statement on Tuesday night, President Obama thanked “the leadership of Chairman Leahy and a bipartisan group of eight Senators,” and said that “the legislation...is largely consistent with the principles of commonsense reform I have proposed and meets the challenge of fixing our broken immigration system.”
Since the proposal was first released last month, over 300 amendments -- offered by Republicans and Democrats -- were submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration. The Committee debated over 100 and has done a great job of making the bill better where necessary, but also rejecting efforts to severely restrict legal immigration, which would impede the ability to meet workforce needs. Moreover, this mark-up process is essential in giving everyone a stake in the final product as it moves through the approval process.
Focusing on the high-skilled sections of the bill, a host of amendments have been approved, and two were approved unanimously: an amendment by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) to help participants in startup accelerators obtain INVEST visas, and Senator Leahy’s amendment to permanently authorize the EB-5 visa program. The program lets a private entity or state apply to become an approved regional center, and then propose development projects for immigrant investors.
Looking at the H-1B system, the efforts of Senator Hatch were particularly noteworthy; his amendment, agreed upon late in the deliberations, increases the minimum number of high-tech H1-B visas allowed annually -- but it does so without accounting for domestic economic conditions. On the issue of fraud within the system, the broad bill requires employers filing visa petitions to first offer a job to an “equally qualified” U.S. worker, but in another amendment from Senator Hatch yet to be debated, this requirement would only be imposed on “H-1B-dependent” companies.
On student visas and funding for education, the committee adopted an amendment from Senator Grassley (R-IA) to improve the student and exchange visitor visa programs, and a further amendment from Senator Hatch to put the labor certification fee towards “improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education and training in the United States.”
Late in the day, still trying to get the bill to the floor, Senators Leahy and Schumer were forced to agree with dissenting members of the committee to hold off on adding an amendment that would have allowed certain provisions for same-sex couples. As a result of this, and other compromises, Committee members and other Senators know the bill is not perfect, but it is the best shot at fixing our broken immigration system. And with deals already being made between supporters and those who had previously been detractors as part of the full Senate markup process, it’s clear that Senate leadership on both sides of the aisle is looking for a process which swiftly and judiciously moves the bill to a vote.
Last night’s developments are good news for those of us fighting for reform, but now is the time to step on the gas. The need for pressure on Senators to pass this bill and keep moving towards fixing our broken system is real, and it is immediate.
In league with organizations from across the political spectrum, including Organizing for Action, Consumer Electronics Association, Voto Latino, Silicon Valley Leadership Group and many more, Engine and March For Innovation are launching two days of initiatives across the Internet. Stay tuned to Engine for more news about the March, and what we’ll be doing afterwards as well. Join the March, follow us on Twitter and Facebook, and keep working. Your voices can tilt this debate, help guarantee the bill’s passage, and go a long way towards protecting innovation and building an immigration system that works here in America.
Photo courtesy of Talk Radio News Service.
Sumit Suman is the co-founder of Mentii, an online mentoring platform connecting successful mentors with aspiring young people. Sumit started the business both in New York and Bangalore in order to benefit from capital, talent and the market across two startup hubs. But, as the co-founder of Mentii, it was imperative that Sumit could work on the U.S. side. This is where the trouble began.
The whole visa process was an expensive distraction, especially during the early bootstrapped stage when the team needed to devote all their resources to finding and proving the market. After receiving a protracted Request For Evidence (RFE), where responding to it would have resulted in further legal expenses, Sumit had no choice but to withdraw his visa application. This is despite the fact that Mentii had already invested 40 percent of their total expenditure on immigration-related costs!
Now back in India, Sumit explains that his decision was the only option for his business; even if there was a legal (though uncertain) way to stay in the U.S. in order to grow the company, the cost of doing so was too prohibitive. While the Mentii team will still find a way to engage the U.S. market, and U.S. investors, the team will not be growing here -- in other words, no additional jobs will be created in America.
from Engine Advocacy on Vimeo.
If you have an immigration story to tell, email editorial@engine.is
Engine endorses the Senate “Gang of 8” proposal on comprehensive immigration reform. So, on behalf of more than 500 startup members and other startup companies across the U.S., we sent a letter of support to Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Ranking Member Charles Grassley (R-IA) and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
We thought it prudent at this juncture to thank the Senators who have been working hard on this proposal. Going forward, we hope their good work will be the subject of robust debate and then we’ll look towards the swift passage of this bill as we march towards solving our nation’s broken immigration system.
The Judiciary Committee is the first stop on the bill’s journey to hopefully becoming law. The markup process that begins today will amend and refine the legislation into a bill that can pass in the Senate, and one that can also do real and permanent good for people and businesses across the country who are in need of a working immigration system.
As we’ve said before, you can take action as well by committing to remain a vocal participant in this process. You can sign up for the March for Innovation which is now only 11 days away. It is only with your voice that we’ll be able to make a difference on this issue, so sign up, get involved and let your voice be heard today.
Here’s the full text of the letter:
Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley and members of the Committee,
I’m writing to you, on behalf of the startup community, in support of S. 744 -- the recent Comprehensive Immigration Reform proposal released by your Senate colleagues. Engine Advocacy represents more than 500 startup companies from all across the United States, and we believe the provisions in this bill would greatly benefit the startup community, and therefore the U.S economy as a whole.
New and young firms are responsible for all new net job growth since 1980, according to research from the Kauffman Foundation. In addition, our own Tech Works research projected that for every job created in the high-tech sector, 4.3 additional jobs will be created in the local goods and services economy, including barbers, lawyers, and health care professionals. Finally, with forty percent of Fortune 500 companies founded by immigrants, or the children of immigrants, it’s critically important that we safeguard the ability of the next generation of founders to start business here.
The proposed INVEST visa will directly benefit immigrant founders and entrepreneurs who want to start a business here, and already have the support of local venture capitalists. In addition, raising the H-1B visa cap, and expanding the green card system with merit-based visas for high-skilled immigrants, will also make it easier for startups to employ much needed workers. Taking into account recent developments, we also support Senator Hatch’s amendment to make the H-1B visa cap responsive to market demand.
We applaud the work already done by your Senatorial colleagues and look forward to a spirited debate, a robust amendments process, and the opportunity to be a resource for the committee and the Senate at large as the debate advances. In the end, the continued good work of this committee and of Congress can affect real and permanent good for our country -- helping to catalyze continued economic growth in our community, and opportunity for the country as a whole. Startups can power the next generation of growth in the American economy if we let them.
We hope that you will support this proposal that will lay the foundations for a prosperous future.
With thanks,
Michael McGeary
Co-Founder
Engine Advocacy
Photo courtesy of Talk Radio News Service.
In recent weeks, California legislators have shown renewed interest in redrafting online privacy regulations, leading to the introduction of over a dozen bills and the creation of a Select Committee on Privacy to help “update California privacy from the brick and mortar world.” Most efforts have been focused on AB1291 -- the Right to Know Act. While supporters of this two-year bill -- including EFF and the ACLU -- claim it offers more transparency and much needed updates to privacy laws, there are almost no additional protections to users, and the bill imposes significant hardship on startups.
As we spend more time on the internet, conducting more of the business of our lives, online privacy has rightfully come to the forefront of efforts by government regulators and advocacy organizations. Regulations are necessary to protect children, prevent abusive marketing, and allow consumers to make informed choices about the products they use. Unfortunately, Right to Know does none of that.
This bill offers few, if any, improvements to the existing “Shine the Light” law, which already requires businesses to provide information to consumers about direct disclosures of personal information to third parties. At the heart of Right to Know is a new requirement that businesses make all “reasonably available” user data available upon request -- thousands and thousands of pages of it. This ‘give us everything’ mentality might feel right from an intuitive perspective, but it does not improve transparency (what does “reasonably available” even mean?), and it makes data more costly.
For a small startup, this bill is like a regulatory DDoS attack -- there just aren’t enough resources to hunt down all the data about users, especially when you consider the ever-changing nature of databases in growing companies. The beauty of startups is that we collect every piece of information until we can determine what is useful, allowing us to innovate and improve products along the way.
As more consumer-facing services live online, there is a continued need for trust between users and service providers. Startups -- the pioneers of the next great technologies -- need to foster that trust, but giving users thousands of pages of data will not do much to help consumers make informed choices. Right to Know, though well intentioned, will not help consumers make smarter decisions about products, but it could stifle the innovation of startups.
This post is by Fabien Beckers, Co-Founder at Morpheus Medical.
I am a foreign-born entrepreneur in America. My company, Morpheus Medical, has created the first cardiac diagnostic tool that provides 3D interactivity, flow and pressure inside the heart. And all it takes is a ten minute MRI exam. But since I am a French citizen, I faced deportation, and the possibility of losing the chance to build this life-saving company. Understanding the importance of immigration reform is understanding what innovators, of any nationality, are capable of achieving.
Heart-related diseases account for more than a third of all U.S. deaths, and in 2010, the total cost was estimated at around $444 billion; treatment of these diseases accounts for about $1 of every $6 spent on health care in this country. These numbers are second only to oncology -- the diagnosis and treatment of cancer.
Responding to the current lack of accuracy in diagnosis, our technology not only solves the problem, it also reduces the time required by doctors, and therefore lowers the cost. In addition, the non-invasive aspect makes our solution perfectly suited to diagnosing small children with heart defects and diseases.
After studying for my PhD at Cambridge in the UK, I came to the United States in 2010 to attend Stanford’s Graduate School of Business where I certainly benefited from the best education this country has to offer. But when I graduated and wanted to start a business of my own, I faced an additional challenge as a result of my nationality.
Founding a business is already a very challenging and chaotic process. When finding partners, investors and customers is just the beginning, immigration battles present another, totally unnecessary, hurdle.
At Morpheus, we were lucky enough to pique investor interest early, but unfortunately, the investment was conditional upon securing my immigration status. When my H-1B application was denied, my appeal failed, and other avenues were successively closed off, the survival of this company came down to one person in one office in California who thankfully put a stamp on my O1 application.
This is not how the system should work.
No company, community, or country can survive without talent. So we should be helping brilliant innovators who want to build companies that will change lives, here in America. Everyone I’ve spoken to -- Republicans and Democrats -- agrees that this issue needs attention. Now is the chance to act; this bill needs our support. A quarter of all tech startups have an immigrant founder. I think I speak for many of these founders when I say that I want to stay here and build a successful company that creates jobs. We need an immigration system that supports the American innovation economy.
If you have an immigration story to tell email editorial@engine.is.
Recent claims of an excess supply of high-skilled workers in the STEM occupations of science, technology, engineering and math are at odds with anecdotal and empirical evidence. While it’s difficult to definitively conclude whether or not there is a shortage of workers in any field, publicly available government data and common sense reject the notion that there are “too many” high-tech workers in the United States. More importantly, this entire discussion misses a larger point—high-skilled employment isn’t a zero sum game where a fixed set of workers are competing for a fixed set of jobs in an economy free from global competition. Let’s separate fact from fiction as we move forward with immigration reform.
Background
As the immigration reform debate heats up, so too has the rhetoric. One issue that has generally received broad support is the idea of expanding visas for high-skilled foreign workers—in particular those in the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering and math. Such support is based on the view that there aren’t enough qualified native-born American workers to fill demand for these roles. It also comes from the acknowledgment that employment in these fields is critical to economic growth, making them a national priority.
Despite this, some critics have voiced concerns about expanding visas for STEM workers, arguing not only that there isn’t a shortage of STEM workers, but in fact there are too many of them. Expanding high-skilled work visas, they claim, would push native-born American workers out of key technological occupations and reduce the wages of those who remain in them. Such claims are certainly outside the mainstream, but they have been taken seriously enough to appear recently in the Op-Ed page of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and most recently, the Atlantic.
So, which is it? Are there too few or too many STEM workers in the United States? It can’t be both. Since the truth has important implications for thousands of workers, startups, and the economy, we had better get it right.
The “we have too many high-tech workers” hypothesis is flawed because it is informed by an incomplete set of information. It also lacks common sense. The aforementioned articles rely upon a November report and a report published last week by the same think-tank, both of which point to tepid inflation-adjusted wage growth in computer and math sciences (CMS) fields—a subset of STEM—as definitive evidence of an abundance of labor supply in those professions.
The fact that inflation-adjusted wages grew slowly during the last decade lacks important context. Quite obviously, there were two economic recessions during this period—one of which was the worst contraction since the Great Depression. Both were followed by “jobless recoveries,” or prolonged periods of low employment growth after the economy has begun to grow again.
At minimum, a more relevant question is: how did wages in the CMS fields, and by extension STEM, grow relative to other professions? Looking at just one side of the story is the intellectual equivalent of concluding that the Cincinnati Reds lost last night because they only scored 2 runs. They actually won, because the team they played, the St. Louis Cardinals, scored just 1 run. Context matters.
A more complete and responsible analysis would look at relative performance as well as a broader set of measures to determine labor market “tightness”—a term that applies to areas where potential shortages may exist. A tight labor market would have some or all of these qualities relative to others: rapid employment and wage growth, low unemployment, and a high prevalence of job vacancies.
One final note before we get started: because this debate is taking place in the context of immigration reform for high-skilled workers, whenever possible the data here will be restricted to workers with at least a bachelor’s degree.
Wage Growth
Economic theory says that if shortages existed, prices (wages) would adjust upward until supply (workers) met demand (employers). But the reality is much more complicated. For example, wages adjust slowly and workers must learn new skills—especially for technical roles like in STEM. Still, it’s an important measure for assessing labor market tightness.
The chart below shows how the inflation-adjusted median wage has changed since January 2000 through 2012, for three groups of workers—those in the STEM occupations, those in the CMS subset of STEM, and those in all occupations outside of STEM.
Real Median Wage Change, Bachelor’s Degree Holders (2000-2012)
The median wage in STEM and CMS occupations grew by an inflation-adjusted 3.5 percent and 4.0 percent respectively. That amounts to average annual growth rates of around one-third of a percent. Ouch.
But let’s take look at this in context: it’s been a very rough twelve years. As I mentioned before, there were two recessions—one of them the worst economic contraction since the Great Depression—followed by two jobless recoveries. The fact that there was wage growth at all during this period might actually be impressive.
Compared with workers in other fields, wage growth for STEM and CMS workers was actually quite robust. The inflation-adjusted median wage for all occupations outside of STEM fell by 5.5 percent during the same period, for a decline of half a percent each year on average.
Employment and Unemployment
Beyond wage growth, there are a few other measures to consider when analyzing labor market tightness—here we look at employment growth and the unemployment rate before turning to job vacancies afterward.
Employment Change, Bachelor’s Degree Holders (2000-2012)
This chart shows employment growth since January 2000 for college-educated workers in the STEM, CMS and non-STEM categories. Employment in the non-STEM occupations increased 31.3 percent, for an average annual gain of 2.3 percent. STEM fields performed even better, growing 41.6 percent or 2.9 percent per year on average—that’s about one-third more growth than non-STEM. The CMS subset blew the others away—more than doubling non-STEM growth as it increased by 83.1 percent or 5.2 percent annually on average.
Unemployment Rate, Bachelor’s Degree Holders (2000-2012)
This chart shows the unemployment rate for each of our occupational groups during the same time period. The unemployment rate shows the number of people without a job, but who are willing and able to work, and are actively looking for a job (the unemployed), as a share of the total labor force (the unemployed plus the employed). In this case, the occupation assigned to an unemployed person would be the one they held in their last position.
As the chart shows, unemployment rates for college-educated workers of all varieties have been quite low over the last twelve years. The rate for STEM, and especially CMS workers, spiked during the dot-com boom—highlighting the job losses that occurred in that segment of the economy. Important to note, however, is that after peaking unemployment in STEM and CMS fell sharply. This indicates the ease with which unemployed workers in those fields were able to find new work—highlighting their relative value to employers.
The three rates peaked at about the same level during the Great Recession, though STEM and CMS unemployment has fallen sharply since mid-2010; declining by about 2.5 and 2.0 percentage points respectively during that two-year period. Unemployment for workers outside of STEM has only declined by about half a percentage point during the same period. Overall, the evidence here is more mixed: STEM workers seem to face higher volatility while unemployment for non-STEM workers rises less during recessions but also falls slower in recoveries. Even so, the STEM rate has fallen sharply in the last year.
Job Vacancies
Perhaps the most important measure for assessing labor market tightness is the ability of employers to fill open positions. If labor shortages exist, it would be difficult to fill open positions—openings would remain vacant for extended periods or discouraged employers may not even bother posting them at all. Since the reasons for not filling a job are complex, and even if they weren’t, data are elusive, the next best option is to compare the number of open positions with the number of workers available to fill them.
Here, we look at two ways of presenting that data. One caveat first—the job vacancy data used here aren’t available by level of educational attainment. Therefore, we are unable to restrict this portion of the analysis to workers with a bachelor’s degree or more. As a result, the differences here between STEM, CMS and non-STEM may be somewhat overstated.
Number of Unemployed per Job Opening (2005-2012)
In a market with an abundance of available labor, the ratio of unemployed per job opening would be high—a large number of workers would be competing with one another for a smaller number of jobs. Where the labor market is tight, this number would be low—in other words demand is outstripping available supply. While the reality is more complicated, this is still a very good way to estimate the relationship between demand and supply.
As the data make clear, the market in STEM and CMS fields is much, much tighter than for fields outside of STEM. At the end of 2012, there were 2.4 CMS job openings for each unemployed CMS worker and 1.4 STEM openings for each unemployed STEM worker. That’s a lot of job openings for each unemployed worker to potentially be matched with. The exact opposite was true in non-STEM fields, where 4 unemployed workers battled for each job opening.
Job Vacancy Rate (2005-2012)
If you’re unconvinced that unemployed workers are an adequate measure of available labor, we can extend that definition to include workers who are currently employed in those roles. Recall that the unemployed plus the employed constitute the labor force. Here, we use the labor force as a measure of labor availability for STEM, CMS and non-STEM workers.
This time, the number of job openings is in the numerator and is expressed as a share of the labor force. This is often referred to as the job vacancy rate. Here, a bigger number would indicate a tighter labor market, showing that there are a larger number of job openings relative to the ability of the labor force to fill them. A smaller job vacancy rate would indicate the opposite.
We still see a similar story, though less pronounced: there is a larger number of job openings relative to available labor to fill those roles in STEM and CMS, compared with fields outside of STEM. The difference between this chart and the prior one likely has to do with a more rapidly declining unemployment rate and higher employment growth in STEM and CMS—both positive signs.
Conclusion
Wage growth for STEM and CMS workers with at least a bachelor’s degree has been more robust during the last twelve years than it has been for workers outside of these fields. Not only did wages grow at the median for these fields while wages in all other professions fell substantially, that growth also reached workers with a broader set of income levels.
Looking at other measures, available labor to meet job openings has been scarcer for the STEM and CMS fields, employment growth has been more robust, and unemployment has fallen to lower levels. The evidence is more mixed when it comes to unemployment, but overall the consistency across measures and the magnitude of differences point to tighter labor markets in these fields.
In fact, according to performance thresholds to assess labor market tightness outlined in a comprehensive review of the literature published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the CMS labor market is tight on each of three metrics (employment, wages, and unemployment). STEM is tight on two of three (wages and unemployment) and goes halfway on the third (employment). The BLS report doesn’t provide threshold criteria for job vacancies because these data weren’t available at that time.
This highlights a few important points worth making. Firstly, providing definitive evidence of the existence or nonexistence of a labor shortage in any profession is difficult, both because what constitutes a shortage can be broad based and because the appropriate data can be elusive. It’s irresponsible for researchers to claim there is an oversupply of STEM workers because of one metric taken outside of its proper context.
To be clear, the approach here does not claim that there is a shortage of workers in STEM and CMS fields. Instead, it shows that these labor markets are tighter than others based on a broad set of measures. At minimum, it is a clear rejection of the notion that we have too many high-tech workers in the United States—an argument that not only fails on evidence, but common sense as well.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the argument about whether there is or is not a true shortage of STEM workers misses the entire point. Recent research has shown that foreign-born STEM workers increase employment and wage opportunities for high-skilled native-born American workers (STEM and non-STEM). In other words, these workers are complementary to, not substitutes for, one another. Foreign-born STEM workers are important contributors to productivity gains, which fuel economic growth and national prosperity. And because these workers tend to be employed in sectors of the economy that compete globally, if the United States doesn’t capture the talent and therefore growth, someone else will.
Let’s get our facts straight, and in context, as we move forward with immigration reform. Sure, foreign worker programs like the H-1B visa have a number of problems and need rethinking. So does our education system. But let’s fix those, not shut our doors to high-skilled foreign workers based on poor economics. That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and in the process, shooting ourselves in the foot.
Ian Hathaway is the research director at Engine.
Sacha Tueni, co-founder of Changemakrs, grew up in Austria. When he moved to the United States to work with Facebook’s mobile partnership team in 2009, he was granted a visa within 3 short months. As a result, when Sacha decided to start his own business, he had no sense of how complicated the immigration process could actually be for a small company with limited resources. Now Sacha spends a third of his time talking to his lawyer, instead of growing his business.
Startups Speak: Sacha Tueni from Engine Advocacy on Vimeo.
If you have an immigration story to tell, email editorial@engine.is.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT.), author of the original Electronic Communications Privacy Act (or ECPA), is once again pushing for amendments that take into account rapid advances in technology since, er, 1986. Passing the Senate Judiciary Committee today, the bill will soon be debated by the Senate.
In Leahy’s own words, the “bill takes several important steps to improve Americans’ digital privacy rights, while also promoting new technologies -- like cloud computing -- and accommodating the legitimate needs of law enforcement.”
Engine, together with a coalition of tech companies, is pleased with the clarity this new act brings to how content can be accessed by government; excluding emergencies, law enforcement must obtain a warrant in order to compel a service provider to disclose the private content of users.
Since data plays an increasingly important role for many startups, uncertainty about compliance increases the burden of time and resources, and puts a strain on user trust. Currently, a complex legal request from law enforcement would force startups to chose between legal action and alienating users.
The bipartisan Amendment Act is co-sponsored by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). “When ECPA was enacted”, Senator Lee explained, “email was primarily a means of communicating information, not storing it. Today, we use our email accounts as digital filing cabinets, where we store many of the personal documents and sensitive information that the Fourth Amendment was meant to protect. This bill takes an essential step toward ensuring that the private life of Americans remains private.”
Here’s a rundown of this new bill:
Tweet at any or all of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee listed below to tell them that protecting data matters to startups.
Chairman Patrick Leahy @SenatorLeahy
Sen. Michael Lee @SenMikeLee
Ranking Member Charles Grassley @ChuckGrassley
Sen. Dianne Feinstein @SenFeinstein
Sen. Orrin Hatch @Orrin Hatch
Sen. Chuck Schumer @ChuckSchumer
Sen. Dick Durbin @SenatorDurbin
Sen. Jeff Sessions @SenatorSessions
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse @SenWhitehouse
Sen. Lindsey Graham @GrahamBlog
Sen. Amy Klobuchar @amyklobuchar
Sen. John Cornyn @JohnCornyn
Sen. Al Franken @alfranken
Sen. Christopher Coons @ChrisCoons
Sen. Richard Blumenthal @SenBlumenthal
Sen. Ted Cruz @TedCruz
Sen. Jeff Flake @JeffFlake
Sen. Mazie Hirono @maziehirono
Photo courtesy of Talk Radio News Service.
Last Wednesday, the Senate’s so-called “Gang of 8” released their proposal to fix our nation’s immigration system. The 844-page bill, (which you can read here you speak legal), aims to rebuild a system which has become overloaded, burdensome and anti-competitive in a global context. The nuanced proposal covers multiple sectors of our economy, and different skill levels of potential immigrants.
For our community, there are many encouraging signs which we’ve written about in our full policy update. The inclusion of provisions like a startup visa, merit-based visas, and an increase in H-1B visas provide for more and better pathways for immigrant entrepreneurs to build business in America.
So, ok, great! Job well done everyone. Glad we fixed that. Is it time to move on?
Not even remotely.
From at least one conversation I had at the end of last week with a tired Senate staffer, I can report that “now is the time for the real work to begin.” This comes from an individual who has been working on immigration legislation with other Senate offices for the last four years.
The next step for the bill is to wind through the sometimes-rocky committee and amendment processes in the Senate. We also expect, in fairly short order, to see a companion piece of legislation from a similarly tasked group of House members. Then, the pundits, interest groups, and others will weigh in on what they see.
If the Senate bill passes in both chambers, it can be sent for the President’s signature to become law. If the Senate and House proposals pass through both chambers, the bills must then be conflated before reaching the President’s desk. In the worst case scenario, neither bill passes both houses and we start again from the beginning.
Now more than ever, it is critically important for you to keep the pressure on Congress to make sure the immigration debate and reform legislation continues to advance -- we need to ensure that the positive provisions for our startup community are represented in the final bill. We can do this by reminding members of Congress that building an immigration system that works, and can scale, is of critical importance to our ability to remain competitive in a global marketplace. We started by telling the House Small Business Committee just how important startups are to the U.S. economy.
Right now, the best way to take action is to join with our friends at March for Innovation. There, you’ll find resources, ways to get active, and can sign up for the Thunderclap in anticipation of the upcoming virtual march on Washington. We’ll be making more resources available in the coming weeks and months as this process continues.
To ensure we reach the eventual goal of rebuilding a broken immigration system, we as a startup community need to continue our active engagement in this process as it unfolds. Our voices will be critically important, and our work is underway. Engine, and all of its resources, stand at the ready to help reach our goal.
If you have an immigration story to tell, email editorial@engine.is
Michael Ang (or Mang as he is better known) is an engineer from Canada. He works for Changemakrs here in San Francisco. In fact, Michael has been working in the United States for over fifteen years -- mostly within the startup community. He was the first employee of Xoom -- a company that is now post IPO and employs hundreds of Americans. Despite Michael’s experience, his masters degree from NYU, and his contribution to the startup community -- and the U.S. economy as a whole, he has only ever been granted a succession of temporary visas. Watch Michael tell his story, and tell us what he’s most excited about in the new immigration bill.
Startups Speak: Michael Ang from Engine Advocacy on Vimeo.
If you have an immigration story to tell, email editorial@engine.is.
After months of waiting, the bipartisan Gang of Eight Senators released an immigration reform bill (full 844 pages here!) The plan we’re seeing today is not only the first real attempt at truly comprehensive immigration reform -- it might also have a shot. The eight Senators included provisions for high-skilled labor that are a testament to the powerful role the tech community has played coming together strongly on this issue.
Despite some areas for improvement, this plan is something the technology community can, and should, rally behind. The new Invest Visa (better known by the community as a Startup Visa) will really encourage smart individuals to start businesses in the United States. In addition, provisions making it easier for students to apply for green cards will encourage the best and the brightest to come to school here and stay, and relieve the pressure on the H-1B system. This bill is also planning for the next generation of innovators with much-needed investments in our own education system.
First Look Key Takeaways:
1. Starting a business is lot easier for foreign founders with two types of Startup Visa
2. Hiring Foreign Talent
Here are the details:
1. Foreign startup founders get a Startup Visa
Currently, there is no visa class for foreign individuals who want to stay in the United States to start a company. This proposal makes it easier by creating an Invest (Investing in New Venture, Entrepreneurial Startups and Technologies) Visa with two categories -- the first is a temporary visa, the second grants permanent residency. Both categories establish reasonable criteria for startup founders as they work to establish their business in this country.
The startup community knows this better as the startup visa. With reasonable requirements and options for renewal, this is a big step in the right direction. Moreover, it gives lifelines to founders whose first venture might have failed. If further investment is forthcoming, the individual can start again. According to the definition for entrepreneur in this section, up to three individuals of the founding team can use this visa.
a) Non-immigration Invest Visa
3 year temporary visa
No numerical caps, or limits to the number of times an individual can renew.
To qualify, individuals must show $100,000 in investment from an accredited investor, venture capitalist, or government entity.
Or if the company already exists, the founder needs to prove that they have created at least three jobs and have an annual revenue of at least $250,000.
For a full 3 year renewal, the company must employ 3 people with annual revenue of $200,000 for two years, or $250,000 of additional investment.
b) Immigrant Invest Visa
The revenue and employment requirements should allow most successful startup founders to switch to this permanent visa category. For serial entrepreneurs, however, the time it takes to acquire this visa might be cumbersome. In addition, a founder might not be able to sell a successful venture, or start another, while waiting for visa approval.
2. Hiring Foreign Born Talent
Hiring the right individuals is crucial for startups to grow. Through H-1B reform, changes to the green card allocation system, and new merit-based visas, this bill offers a few changes to the current system that will encourage foreign born talent to remain in the country after completing their studies, slowing the brain drain. But, it might make attracting new talent from abroad comparatively more difficult.
a) Expanding the H-1B
The cap increases are necessary, especially after the 124,000 H-1B applications and resulting visa lottery this year. But this is where the bill falls a little short. Since the cap can only be raised by 10,000 annually, H-1B supply might still be unable respond to the demand. We advocate for an H-IB visa cap that is responsive to the needs of the market.
Higher wage requirements for H-1B recipients
Despite trying to counter the perceived abuse of wage depression of H-1B system, the change in wage requirements is where this bill could do more harm than good for startups. Though this is not as steep as expected, and we haven’t seen these wage ranges for startup cities, we’re still concerned that this tenet of the bill will make H-1B hires unaffordable for startups, in comparison to larger companies with bigger budgets. Startups, generally clustered in large metro areas, think San Francisco and New York, with already inflated incomes across a large range, may simply not have enough funding to meet the prevailing wage requirement. This provision also does not account for equity or other benefits, so startups with limited budget for payroll might be able to attract talent, but unable to afford it under these new rules.
Reducing the burden on H1-B
b) More green cards for startup workers
This bill makes great strides towards improving the green card system. Many changes will impact individuals who had long waits for green cards as a result of the country caps. The new family definitions will also make a significant difference, considering that spouses and children of green-card holders used 78,000 the 140,000 EB visas that were approved last year.
c) Merit Based Visas
What next?
The bill will now be debated on the Senate floor with a period of time allocated for members to attach amendments. While it will certainly help that the Gang of Eight is a bipartisan coalition, opposition still lurks, and arguments about border security, American workers, family visas, and the price tag of reform might make their way into the debate. The danger is that high-skilled reform could get caught in the crossfire. Ideally, the bill would be done before the August recess after which Congress switches to campaign mode ahead of the 2014 midterms.
As Senators Schumer (D-N.Y.) and McCain (R-Ariz.) wrote in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, “Like all genuinely bipartisan efforts, this bill is a compromise. It will not please everyone, and no one got everything they wanted.” Still, this plan is starting from a higher base of support than any other we’ve seen yet, and high points for the tech community are the startup visa and pathways to permanent residency. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t for improvement. Join us, and our friends at March for Innovation, and keep the pressure on.
After months of work, and internal debate, the Senate Gang of Eight has reached an agreement on immigration reform. While we’ve yet to see the full text of the bill, here’s a quick rundown of what we know so far.
The plan predominantly deals with the controversial issue of undocumented immigrants already in the country, border security, and visas for low-skilled workers. Still, there are also a number of provisions that impact the technology community.
Key Provisions:
Stay tuned for full analysis.
Last week, Engine submitted a filing on patent assertion entity (PAE) practices to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. Patent Assertion Entities, often referred to as “patent trolls,” are businesses that own patents and
And a have hours viagra online multiple of everything nail came cialis side effects I that the canadian pharmacy online have Kiss cialis pills forehead package two review products viagra for men back had... Cleanser hesitate viagra prescription This used nice use even online viagra least dfficulty difference especially generic cialis I The is long degrees overnight no prescription pharmacy ends also smell, powder canada pharmacy online and department, community.
make money by suing others for infringing on the patents – rather than developing products. Regulators in Washington are gathering information about these business practices to better understand the impact they can have on innovation, competition, and consumers.
While there is a host of excellent quantitative research on the cost of litigation to innovation, there is little discussion of the practical impact PAE litigation has on startups. In addition, many startups that have faced such demands and lawsuits are reticent to publicly discuss their experiences for fear of being targeted by further baseless infringement claims. To add more to this discussion, we suggested the Justice Department and FTC keep a few startup-related concerns in mind:
Let’s break this down.
First, we know from research conducted by Santa Clara University professor Colleen Chien that companies with less revenue are increasingly being targeted by patent trolls. Her extensive work on how the patent ecosystem impacts startups demonstrates how the “patent wars” affecting big companies like Apple and Samsung are very different than the often-overlooked struggles of startups against trolls.
Second, as mentioned above, too few entrepreneurs are comfortable discussing their experiences with patent litigation. Whether under nondisclosure agreements from settlements, or for fear of making themselves repeated targets or having what they say used against them in depositions, there is little incentive for innovators to speak out against what they agree with President Obama amounts to “extortion”.
Next, there appears to be increasing evidence that patent trolls are taking advantage of the startup investment and financing cycle. When a startup secures a round of funding, they often issue a press release, or find their company’s name in TechCrunch, VentureBeat or The Verge. Many founders, as well as internal and external legal staff, have noted that demand letters seem to follow such public announcements. If patent trolls are “following the money,” as it were, this is a very concerning development – predatory litigation will act as a tax on investment. Individuals with great ideas, actually building innovative products, should not be forced to hand over money as a result of their success.
In addition, startups are particularly sensitive to the productivity drag litigation imposes. As great engineering talent is more and more difficult to find, losing engineers for days or weeks at a time, to prepare and advise lawyers and provide deposition, presents a huge barrier to getting a product up and running and in the hands of users. Larger startups face these challenges, but the problem is more pronounced for small teams trying to fight baseless patent infringement claims.
Finally, uncertainty about the direction of the patent ecosystem is driving startups and innovators to take matters into their own hands. Securing patents takes a significant amount of time and money. While some startups need patents to protect their core technologies, many are pursuing applications to protect themselves from troll activities. Moreover, groups as diverse as Twitter and Berkeley Law are creating so-called defensive patent regimes, within which those who secure patents agree to pool their portfolios and only use them for defensive purposes.
Lawmakers need to take note of the effort, time and resources that startups are putting into protecting themselves from the threat of patent trolls.
As we’ve previously argued, startups need to lead the discussion on patent reform. Policymakers, the Patent and Trademark Office, and the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission must keep startups and entrepreneurs in mind as PAE activity is discussed and scrutinized. We are encouraged by the opportunity to engage in dialogue with the federal government, but more must be done to protect the ventures of risk-taking entrepreneurs and ensure a more innovative future for the American economy.
Picture courtesy of Alan Kotok.
Your privacy is important to us. To better protect your privacy we provide this notice explaining our online information practices and the choices you can make about the way your information is collected and used.
