One statistic I read recently was that India is the second largest foreign investor in either London or Britain. I can't remember which one, but even five years ago, that would have been unbelievable. India has begun to colonise the British economy. I just want one comedian to buy up some British business crown jewels and name their multinational company 'The West England Company' in tribute to the dastardly 'East India Company' under whose yoke the dastardly blighters took over the Hindoostanees.

I just want one comedian to buy up some British business crown jewels and name their multinational company 'The West England Company'

Or, perhaps, the "(Dis)Honourable Western Europe Company", full of fiendishly ambitious, unscrupulous capitalist rogues twirling their moustaches villainously and living apart from the natives in their own fortified cantonments, otherwise known as Southall, Ilford and Wembley ;)

Mittal's just the scout for the hordes to come -- they're already stealthily infiltrating Britain by taking over the nation's back-office functions and call centres. It's really only a matter of time before Wipro, Tata or Infosys are renamed as above. Just you wait and see.

Today Strictly Come Dancing, tomorrow the world !

Excellent post, to sidetrack a little Indian Companies have been on a acquisition spree in 2006, Indian companies made acquisitions of about $7.4 billion in 2006.

I'm a little surprised that Pakistan's numbers are so small since I assumed that the educational etc. profile of the Pakistani immigrant is the same as that for the Indian immigrant. If there is any influence of culture, I would assume they are the same too. However, Indians probably have a much better network laid down in the US already... OK, even my guesses are pathetic.

- Igno-Raman

It makes sense to me that immigrants in general are filled with an entrepreneurial spirit. If someone has the motivation to move to another country (let alone half-way across the globe) to seek a better life, they're probably have the motivation to pursue a business opportunity when they see it.

For my own curiosity, I'd like to see how many companies worldwide have been started by Indians. Preston Merchant's website has photographs from Dubai where he mentions that Indians dominate the jewelry trade there, and he's now in Kenya, where the Indian population is "are rich...They are in business".

Does the trend in the US hold up in other countries as well?

Excellent post. The data doesn't surprise me at all but it's nice to have numbers that back up the arguments in favor of more open immigration policies.

Maurice, I would agree. It probably has less to do with the fact that they are from India and more to do with the fact that they are immigrants. I heard on NPR the other day that 98% of human beings die within 60 miles of where they were born. The urge to move is a rare thing and immigrant populations are often the cream of their home countries in entrepreneurial spirit anyways. Of course, there are forced migrations, but refugees are not documented as doing exceptionally well in their new countries.

We aren't smarter by any means. Entrepreneurship takes big cojones. We done got it.

Apparently the U.S. government has finally begun to accept the fact that if it doesn’t start making science and engineering a sexier option then we are headed for disaster

I doubt the government can project a "sexier" image for engineering and sciences when the popular culture's idea of a techie is a socially inept geek (pick any tv show). There are fewer women now in computer jobs than 20 years ago. And as long as there are no controls to make it less profitable for tech companies to move their R&D overseas, no one is going to see a career in tech as stable, rather as another case of corporate greed putting profits above people.

"The basic conclusion of the study is obvious. We NEED MORE IMMIGRANTS to maintain our edge as a nation."

The person who wrote the study is the same person who wrote this article, right? Keeping this in mind, I think Vivek Wadhwa would support increased immigration for only specific groups.

We NEED MORE IMMIGRANTS to maintain our edge as a nation.

qualification: we more more smart & motivated immigrants who need social capital to keep an economic edge. though, some would offer that economic dynamism isn't always without cost. washington state, for example, is a nice place to live even if it isn't as 'vibrant' as california or new jersey.

Abhi, when they talked about "companies" were they talking about incorporated groups or small businesses? I think it makes a bit of a difference.

Definitely interesting, though!

rather as another case of corporate greed putting profits above people.

Vikram,
I thought you were a republican. What happened? Why should a corporation put people about profits?? Its not a corporations job to do public good. They are for the value enhancement of their share-holders.

Vikram, I thought you were a republican. What happened? Why should a corporation put people about profits?? Its not a corporations job to do public good. They are for the value enhancement of their share-holders.

Just because I don't toe the left wing party line doesn't make me a Republican. I've voted across party lines depending on the candidate. Sure a corporation is ultimately for profit, but when their policies lead to killing the very golden goose of American tech R&D by offshoring it, how long will their profits keep coming in ? If in 20 years everything is developed and made in China and the world has moved to the Euro as the currency of trade, what value will be provided for the share-holders ? And you are pretty mistaken if you somehow think that the Democrats are somehow more "people friendly" when it comes to corporation control.

This rocket scientist might do more to create a "sexier" image for scientists than the Pentagon's lame strategy:

Summer Williams is a Houston Texans cheerleader. She's also a rocket scientist.

This is a true story.

"Well," Williams said, "I don't actually use the term 'rocket scientist.' "

That's what she is, though. Williams is a 25-year old aerospace engineer for the Jacobs Engineering Group, which is NASA's main scientific support contractor. Williams, a small-town Kansan, is an assistant project manager on the group that figures out how to keep the international space station habitable. link

Re comment # 1

India is the second largest investor in the city of London with its 30% share of all foreign investment in the city. Indian-owned businesses in London include 140 multinationals that generate a combined revenue of approximately 8.5 billion pounds.

Entrepreneurship takes big cojones. We done got it.

I guess you mean figuratively

I happen to be a tiny sliver on that tall, blue bar on the left. Based on my own entrepreneurial odyssey as well as that of others, I have a more practical rationale for the disproportionate number of immigrants becoming entrepreneurs. It has very little to do with drive, though being your own boss and having to meet payroll every Friday does makes you "driven" in a hurry. Like George Bush, we all grow into our jobs, as scary as that might sound.

I think the primary reason why immigrants start businesses is that they don't feel comfortable walking into the Great American Corporation and selling themselves into the best jobs as ABD's and other Americans do. Now, we must qualify this a little bit. The tech companies, even the blue chip ones like Microsoft, will hire good programmers even if all they spoke were Telugu and Java and brought lunch in a "tiffin carrier." But tech companies are very task oriented operations. Most companies, on the other hand, are people oriented businesses. Even high tech fields require much greater people orientation as one goes higher in one's career. A physician on the floor or an engineer on the bench is one thing. A product manager or a head of medicine is something else. Immigrants have a much tougher time measuring up to the enormous people oriented task that is business.

Having spent several decades with very smart first geners, ABD's and other American borns, I will say this. First geners simply do not have the sense of entitlement to believe they could command the best jobs and perks in American business. Now, many do acquire this trait as they grow older, but by that time the game is over. Becoming confident about your worth in American business at age 40 means you have already blown the most crucial part of your career.

So we start our own businesses. But the reason why we do it is not really important. My sole purpose was to tone down the drive and motivation rationale. But I don't apologize for it. Ask any soldier awarded a medal for valor, and you will find out that his back was against the wall and he did what he had to do. Successful entrepreneurs, and yes, dear readers, I count myself as one, are a little bit like that soldier. We aren't any more driven.

Another prespective ....

I know several engineering/programmer first genners , educated in India, who are the anti-thesis of driven but are nonetheless content. As one guy put it, "You take the local train in Mumbai for twenty years, spend hardly any time on a payground, always run form class to tutions to extra class - then a routine home-office-Costco life in America is pretty good payoff."

It is good to have some numbers and affirms anecdotal evidence that people see. But until at least one other report backs this up we need to take it with a grain of salt.

Our research team then made thousands of unsolicited phone calls to these companies. We asked whether one or more immigrant key founders had established the company and if so, what their nationality was. This became the source of the data presented in this report.

I would like to point out that nearly 50% of the companies didn't answer the phone calls. It is more likely that a immigrant founded company would more likely to participate in the survey compared to non-immigrant founded companies. That can skew things a bit.

Another interesting thing is that 54% of Indian immigrants have come to US between 1990-2000 where as only 43% Chinese are. That difference is much larger between 2000 and 2006. This may be the reason why large number of immigrant Indians have founded companies compared to others.

But would this report change the popular support against increasing immigration quotas? I don't think so because reasons for restricting immigration are nothing to do with success of the immigrants but more political and social.

Indians have founded more engineering and technology companies in the US in the past decade than immigrants from the U.K., China, Taiwan and Japan combined.

Indians dominate New Jersey with 47% of all startups.

I do not mean to downplay or berate the accomplishments of Indians in the US but from my experience these numbers may not seem as impressive if you know what many of these so called "technology companies" actually do. Having worked for one, and then found out that there was hundreds or thousands of others, many 'IT Consulting' companies are little more than body shops run by two or three people who try to hire as many people on H1-B visas as possible, exploit their fear of having their visa taken away and then putting these tech workers on consulting projects where they are given almost no benefits and lousy pay. The two or three people running the "company" become very rich by charging high hourly rates to clients and a measley amount to their employees. The so called management of most of these companies do not even know how to turn on a computer themseleves, they have opened up the company to simply make as much money as possible and then do a runner. Pathetic people.

Of course, I say if you take these types of companies aside (I would say at least 50% by my unscientific guess/ knowing the industry) then yes, thed accomplishment is impressive but will fall more in line with people from other countries.

Vikram,

when their policies lead to killing the very golden goose of American tech R&D by offshoring it, how long will their profits keep coming in ?

Interesting insights from Floridian!!!

Of course, I say if you take these types of companies aside (I would say at least 50% by my unscientific guess/ knowing the industry) then yes, thed accomplishment is impressive but will fall more in line with people from other countries.

That is probably true.

I think there is a strong bi-modal distribution, one end being "body shops", and others are like junglee.com, wagehera, wagehera.

Anyhow, a lot of Silicon Valley startups are immigrant heavy, be it from India, UK, China.

I know several engineering/programmer first genners , educated in India, who are the anti-thesis of driven but are nonetheless content. As one guy put it, "You take the local train in Mumbai for twenty years, spend hardly any time on a payground, always run form class to tutions to extra class - then a routine home-office-Costco life in America is pretty good payoff."

I second that too...

This study looks like it was designed to prove what the authors wanted to prove. You know that India has contributed to a disproportionate number of recent techie immigrants. So, measuring the number of techie-immigrant-entrepreneurs seems contrived. I bet a chart of "Birthplace of Engineering and Technology Immigrants" reads identical to the one above.

Also, the number and quality of Chinese immigrants coming to the US is falling. If they can get the best jobs in Shanghai, why come over here and slog for a egocentric desi prof, struggle with the language, get a phd and then join the h1B/labor cert/greencard circus?? ;-)

Here's a related topic:

A Times of India article on the decline of IITians leaving for US.

The article is factually incorrect becuase it does not account for the students who opt for MS/PhD in US colleges. They've done a shoddy job in reporting numbers...by just looking at the number of foreign placements that companies offered during on-campus recruitment.
Most of the tech-startups by IITians in the US are by MS/PhD students trained in US colleges.

But corporations wont (and shouldnt) do something for "the people".

We may differ on the details of what "do something" should be, but I would draw the analogy to how industries have had to clean up their act with respect to environmental issues due to government legislation. One could say that this environmental legislation is "for the people". If corporations were to their own devices, we would be having a Minamata like environmental disaster every day. So if environmental issues do require industries to be regulated and fined for violations, why not people issues (which in a way is also environmental)?

popular culture's idea of a techie is a socially inept geek (pick any tv show).

Floridian,
On second thought, I think that you are being modest (about drive, motivation).

Another way to look at this is that, those who feel that American business will not give them their due (the first generationers), who end up starting businesses, must be sure about the fact that they are worth more. This strong self belief and confidence is key for those who venture out on their own. It may not be drive to make a lot of money, but its for sure a strong belief in one's own abilities, one's own worth.

I can say from experience that the start-ups that I have known in the Telecom industry are immigrant heavy, atleast the successful ones.

I do not mean to downplay or berate the accomplishments of Indians in the US but from my experience these numbers may not seem as impressive if you know what many of these so called "technology companies" actually do. Having worked for one, and then found out that there was hundreds or thousands of others, many 'IT Consulting' companies are little more than body shops run by two or three people who try to hire as many people on H1-B visas as possible, exploit their fear of having their visa taken away and then putting these tech workers on consulting projects where they are given almost no benefits and lousy pay. The two or three people running the "company" become very rich by charging high hourly rates to clients and a measley amount to their employees. The so called management of most of these companies do not even know how to turn on a computer themseleves, they have opened up the company to simply make as much money as possible and then do a runner. Pathetic people.

Agreed to a certain extent. These companies don't exactly sell "masala dosa" either. It doesn't matter if they don't know how to switch on the computer. The fact is they are providing a "technology service" to big companies(like cisco,microsoft,verizon,cingular). And most of those technical consultants get absorbed as full time into those big time companies, which on any other normal day wouldn't even consider the application of those consultants for full time. This is in line with what Floridian says in comment #18. Most of these guys have very very poor ommunication skills. But most of them can do the job pretty good. These consultants provide a service and it is "technical".

I guess you mean figuratively

begtodiffer, i know you beleive that article as much as http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm

because if BBC says so. it's gotta be true.

"Also, the number and quality of Chinese immigrants coming to the US is falling. If they can get the best jobs in Shanghai, why come over here and slog for a egocentric desi prof, struggle with the language, get a phd and then join the h1B/labor cert/greencard circus?? ;-)"

Of course. There is already a brain drain reversal in progress with respect to India. They call it r2i. But it is only evident in the high paying tech jobs. Other fields in India still have a lot of catching up to do before they can attract NRI's back or keep the Indians from leaving in the first place. But that day is coming - perhaps in another 20 years, which is the same lead that China has had over India.

"I think there is a strong bi-modal distribution, one end being "body shops", and others are like junglee.com, wagehera, wagehera."

I don't know if it is all that bimodal. In between the two extremes is really the sweet spot of the immigrant-run tech industry, meaning companies that sell neither bodies nor the next big thing but quietly add value to existing business processes through some level of technology. For instance, one Indian I know figured out how to automate the balancing of data at big banks. Another built a better mousetrap by adding a few high tech features to good old programmable controllers. If you look beyond Silicon Valley, Boston and a few other nodes of extreme technology, you will find thousands of immigrants using low to mid-tech solutions as business builders. You will find these immigrants in places such as Chicago, New York, Detroit, Ohio, Houston, Dallas and so on.

"So if environmental issues do require industries to be regulated and fined for violations, why not people issues (which in a way is also environmental)?"

Actually, people issues are of great concern to business leaders but admittedly in a narrower sense, in that happier people make better employees which makes everybody more money. Whether people should be making even more money, spending even more time with their children, retire earlier, work less hours, and be given some worthwhile jobs for some pay even though they might be incompetent or just plain old - these are not necessarily the responsibility of one entity, in this case business. Business has its own agenda, as does every institution. To expect business to wholistically serve its employees is expecting too much of it.

Of course, there is a more clinical view on the subject, which I do not fully subscribe to, and that states that an all-consuming pursuit of profit is ultimately - and ultimately is the operative word - good for everybody. Supporters of this theory cite the amazing success of the American economy in the last 25 years. Using all the standard metrics of GDP growth (3+% over decade), unemployment (the lowest in 25 years), average salaries and the acid test, purchasing power in the hands of common people (the highest ever), America has proven that, yes, Gordon Gekko, "greed is good." But the pursuit of business efficiencies at all costs has taken a social toll in the last 25 years - elimination of old age pension, reduction of health coverage so that millions of well fed, SUV riding Americans can't even afford an annual check-up, underemployment of qualified people cast away in their peak years due to downsizing, and this one that does not get my sympathy, either - the disappearance of a rather cushy middle-class formed by low-skilled and semi-educated Americans thanks to high union wages of American manufacturing. (C'mon guys, you can't get $18/hour for tightening screws in today's global economy.)

Are we happier as a nation after having achieved unprecedented economic success using the efficiency and profit model? The answer will have to be a very qualified "yes." Those tragic gaps that have appeared in our society in the last 25 years have been caused by the changes in business but they cannot be filled by business. It is like holding schools responsible for managing our drug problem. I would rather hold parents responsible, and in the case of social ills described above, the government responsible. The unbridled efficiency of American business also kicks back a huge dividend to the US Treasury. The question is how we allow our politicians to spend it - on a trillion dollar war or on education and health care.

Sorry about rambling on. Business is one of my two most favorite activities.

brown fob:

The article is factually incorrect becuase it does not account for the students who opt for MS/PhD in US colleges. They've done a shoddy job in reporting numbers...by just looking at the number of foreign placements that companies offered during on-campus recruitment.

It says in your article:

There was a time when I had to set aside days to write recommendation letters for students wanting to go abroad, either to study or work," says Ashok Misra, IIT-B director. ‘‘Now, because good jobs are available to BTech students, not many opt for post-graduate courses abroad. Only about 15% students go overseas for higher studies and approximately 5% take a job outside India."

Are you contending that that's factually inaccurate?

Business has its own agenda, as does every institution. To expect business to wholistically serve its employees is expecting too much of it.

Agreed. But to blindly follow a path of singleminded profiteering by outsourcing intellectual expertise is a recipe for disaster. Unless everyone is comfortable with a future of being a service industry worker. Ironic for a country that built itself on technology and automation to have to move to a future economy where jobs that remain inshore are those that require manual labor or physical presence to perform.

the disappearance of a rather cushy middle-class formed by low-skilled and semi-educated Americans thanks to high union wages of American manufacturing. (C'mon guys, you can't get $18/hour for tightening screws in today's global economy.)

Funny how that "global economy" has only affected the $18 workers and not the CEOs with the $100 million benefits packages:

In 2004, the ratio of average CEO pay to the average pay of a production (i.e., non-management) worker was 431-to-1, up from 301-to-1 in 2003, according to "Executive Excess," an annual report released Tuesday by the liberal research groups United for a Fair Economy and the Institute for Policy Studies.

That's not the highest ever. In 2001, the ratio of CEO-to-worker pay hit a peak of 525-to-1.

Still, it's quite a leap year over year, and it ranks on the high end historically. In 1990, for instance, CEOs made about 107 times more than the average worker, while in 1982, the average CEO made only 42 times more.

Had the minimum wage risen as fast as CEO compensation since 1990, the researchers calculated, it would now be $23.03 an hour instead of just $5.15. And the average production worker would be making $110,126 a year instead of $27,460.

link

To borrow from George Orwell, some employees are more equal than others. Greed has been selectively good for some. Once in a while a Dennis Kozlowski lands up as a resident of a federal institution, but not often.

At what point do Indian Americans stop being Indian Americans? I'm a 1st gen Brit Indian (my parents came to the UK in the 60's), married to another Brit Indian. Our kids, also Brit born are going out into the world as US citizens. Where do WE count in these figures? Are we Indian, UK or US entrepreneurs, and more importantly, does it actually mean anything?

And Shlok, yes, if the Beeb says it's so, it is so, get used to it.

Funny how that "global economy" has only affected the $18 workers and not the CEOs with the $100 million benefits packages:

Did the $18 worker worked 10 hr days right from when he was in high school. Did the $18 worker get his MBA from an ivy league?. $18 worker with a high school degree expecting a $100,000 per year job is ridiculous.

risible:

The opening lines of the artcile are factually incorrect:

The brain drain from IITs has diminished to a trickle, with only 21 out of 3,980 BTech graduates going abroad in 2006.

Later on they say:

‘‘Now, because good jobs are available to BTech students, not many opt for post-graduate courses abroad. Only about 15% students go overseas for higher studies and approximately 5% take a job outside India."

If this true then 15+5 = 20% of 3980 is around 800 students going abraod evey year.

'At what point do Indian Americans stop being Indian Americans?"
Well in the US at least, this term relates to ethinicity, not identity, and will last indefinately. For instance the terms African Americans, Native Americans, Latino Americans, still exist after many generations. This of course does not make any of them less "American."

"I would like to point out that nearly 50% of the companies didn't answer the phone calls. It is more likely that a immigrant founded company would more likely to participate in the survey compared to non-immigrant founded companies. That can skew things a bit."

What is your reason for suggesting that immigrant companies are more or less likely to participate in such a survey....this is just conjecture.

"
Another interesting thing is that 54% of Indian immigrants have come to US between 1990-2000 where as only 43% Chinese are. That difference is much larger between 2000 and 2006. This may be the reason why large number of immigrant Indians have founded companies compared to others.
"
There are far more Chinese(>5 million) than Indians(2-3 million) in the USA, 43% of Chinese is a bigger number than 54% of Indians.

"Of course, I say if you take these types of companies aside (I would say at least 50% by my unscientific guess/ knowing the industry) then yes, thed accomplishment is impressive but will fall more in line with people from other countries."

What makes you think that a higher percentage of Indian founded companies falls into this type of company compared to the others.

"Had the minimum wage risen as fast as CEO compensation since 1990, the researchers calculated, it would now be $23.03 an hour instead of just $5.15. And the average production worker would be making $110,126 a year instead of $27,460."

And this economy would come down crashing like a house of cards, with both the $110,126 a year production worker and $100 million CEO selling apples on the street.

It is already established that income disparity is rising in America, and that is a direct result of the profit and efficiency focus. But the answer to this problem cannot be a dumb redistribution of the $100 million CEO pay package across the factory floor. That runs counter to this country's philosophy. Should we also begrudge the big NBA contracts and Tiger Woods's $50 million endorsement deals while we are at it?

"Funny how that "global economy" has only affected the $18 workers and not the CEOs with the $100 million benefits packages:"

But it has. CEO jobs are far more insecure today than low-level jobs, thanks to global economic pressures and a drive for quarter-to-quarter measurable results. Let's try to find out the average CEO tenure today in the Fortune 500 companies vs. the average 20 years ago.

"But to blindly follow a path of singleminded profiteering by outsourcing intellectual expertise is a recipe for disaster."

I am going to be glib on this one. Do you know that the biggest call center company in India, called MPhasis or something similar, was acquired by an American company that will enrich American shareholders?

In economics there is a law of comparative advantage which is as old as Adam Smith or as we would say in Hindi, "as old as Baba Aadam." It simply means: let each country produce whatever it produces better and cheaper than anybody, and in the end, the world will be a happier place. The law was never practiced fairly, though, because of tariffs, cartels, import restrictions, dumping and all the other usual frictions in the world economy.

The law is being practiced more fairly and more widely today for the first time, and one of the innovations that has facilitated the law of comparative advantage - of which intellectual outsourcing is merely a manifestation - is the internet, ironically an American invention. (Well, the guy who first thought of it was British, but I am talking about www, not specifically the scientific internet.)

Let's see what America's comparative advantage is. I am not sure, but let's hope it is something more remunerative in the value chain than flipping burgers. I think it is. Even in software, the most outsourced intellectual resource, America leads in innovation and, hence, product ownership and, hence, wealth creation. I maintain that it is still very difficult for the Japanese, let alone our brothers in India, to conceive of an original product that changes the world like the spreadsheet, relational database, and hey - the internet!!! - did. Why? Because writing source code is a learned skill with a high labor input - their advantage. Creating an iPod and changing the music industry as Gutenberg changed the writing business is something of a much higher economic order. It is not even teachable like Oracle and Java. Innovation is a result of peculiar social norms which seem to be found in greater abundance in this crazy country than anywhere else.
Law of Comparative Advantage, anyone?

begtodiffer,

if you raise a son to have an inferiority complex, he's sure to suffer from it

My point refers not to how we see ourselves but to how the data is collected. Who defines an Indian, UK, or Chinese entrepreneur? Zero gen immigrants asides, using ethnicity alone can be a complex issue. Broad generalizations become totally meaningless, especially once mixed ethnicity become involved.

Zero gen immigrants asides, using ethnicity alone can be a complex issue. Broad generalizations become totally meaningless, especially once mixed ethnicity become involved.

For starters, census data and other US data collection agencies.

They have boxes to tick, some of them you can tick multiple of them in addition to mixed.

I remember filling the census forms here, and there are fairly complex.

US is fairly an old hat at this stuff - for lot of Federal and State benefits, etc. are determined, say for Native Americans (issues like 1/8 the or 1/16th Native American blood), royalties for casinos, oil revenues for Native Alaskans in addition to current residents in Alaska.

PS: I do not know how Duke researchers determined it, but is not difficult with the data available.

its no secret that tech start-ups and their vc financiers have an over-representation of indians and pacific rim asians. its still mostly an white-male (and american) world (with london coming in 2nd); but the lack of women and even fewer blacks in this universe is quite shocking...especially considering it's more meritorious than big biz, has not developed an old boy network, and is too young an industry to have a history of a glass ceiling.

Floridian, thanks for your insights. I'm learning a lot here. Great thread.

And this economy would come down crashing like a house of cards, with both the $110,126 a year production worker and $100 million CEO selling apples on the street.

So the more "equitable" solution is that the $100 million CEO keeps his/her outrageous compensation, while the average worker earns 25K, to maintain the stability of the economy...

Should we also begrudge the big NBA contracts and Tiger Woods's $50 million endorsement deals while we are at it?

That analogy doesn't hold as the NBA stars and Tiger Woods are the reason people watch basketball & golf and hence the "producers of product". Carly Fiorina & her ilk don't design the products their companies sell nor do people buy the companies' products because of who the CEO happens to be. Rather the designers and engineers of the product are told their jobs are outsourced. Sports is different: the person making the product directly benefiting from the contract.

CEO jobs are far more insecure today than low-level jobs,thanks to global economic pressures and a drive for quarter-to-quarter measurable results.

But it is not as though they are risking their own money (in most cases) to compete against the global pressures. If their salary was truly pegged with the profits/loss , then there is some pressure. But when somebody like the IBM CEO receives a raise even when the company posts a 19% loss, there obviously isn't much of a connection between "global pressures" and the pay package.

Let's try to find out the average CEO tenure today in the Fortune 500 companies vs. the average 20 years ago.

Which might explain some of the drive to earn as much in the short tenure these days... Am sure they earn more in the fewer years that they have the keys to the corporate kingdom than the CEO of yesteryear who spent a lifetime building a company.

I am going to be glib on this one. Do you know that the biggest call center company in India, called MPhasis or something similar, was acquired by an American company that will enrich American shareholders?

I wouldn't equate acquiring a call center with retaining "intellectual expertise". And the same company would have no qualms moving their R&D and data centers off shore.

let each country produce whatever it produces better and cheaper than anybody, and in the end, the world will be a happier place

In the 1950s the Rosenbergs were executed for giving the Soviet Union the secrets to the atomic bomb. The "exporting" of strategic intellectual knowledge in some sense is the same in that it provides the competition a quantum leap in knowledge that would have taken decades to develop otherwise.

Creating an iPod and changing the music industry as Gutenberg changed the writing business is something of a much higher economic order.

Generation iPod is going to inherit a country where the development of technology is increasingly seen as something arcane and mysterious, even as more hi-tech gizmos arrive in neat boxes labeled "Made in China".

until at least one other report backs this up we need to take it with a grain of salt.

Exactly. This Vivek Wadhwa guy is a chest-thumping ethnic propagandist who also wrote this self-aggrandizing embarrassment that was discussed at SM recently:

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003788.html

I do not mean to downplay or berate the accomplishments of Indians in the US but from my experience these numbers may not seem as impressive if you know what many of these so called "technology companies" actually do. Having worked for one, and then found out that there was hundreds or thousands of others, many 'IT Consulting' companies are little more than body shops run by two or three people who try to hire as many people on H1-B visas as possible

The study does not compare the quality of the immigrant-founded startups to those founded by americans. It does conclude that: "Nationwide, the immigrant-founded companies produced $52 billion in sales and employed 450,000 workers in 2005." Now that figure is pathetic if accurate. Thats a much lower proportion of the american economy and the american job force than the percentage of immigrants in America.

A cursory look at the top echelons in American Technology shows that while immigrants are well-represented, their numbers are not as overwhelming as this study would imply; and indian names are conspicuous by their absence at the top. For example: Steve Jobs of Apple Computers, the glamour boy of american technology, had an arab immigrant father (who abandoned him at birth though). One of the two founders of Google, Sergei Brin, is a russian jewish immigrant. One of the two founders of Yahoo is a chinese-american. And one of the founders of the latest IT sensation YouTube is also chinese. Where are the indians?

But given the desi tendency to ridiculously exaggerate desi status and accomplishments you can be sure many indians are puffing up their chests and thumping it furiously. The indian media is at it already:

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1072784

"Guess who is making Uncle Sam rich? A study shows that Indian immigrants have emerged as the biggest wealth creators among all immigrants in the US."

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/iitians-laid-the-foundation-for-silicon-valley-boom/top/30269-7.html

"IITians started Silicon Valley boom"

One of the two founders of Google, Sergei Brin, is a russian jewish immigrant. One of the two founders of Yahoo is a chinese-american. And one of the founders of the latest IT sensation YouTube is also chinese. Where are the indians?

HOTMAIL. Sabeer Bhatia.

One of the two founders of Google, Sergei Brin, is a russian jewish immigrant. One of the two founders of Yahoo is a chinese-american. And one of the founders of the latest IT sensation YouTube is also chinese. Where are the indians?

But given the desi tendency to ridiculously exaggerate desi status and accomplishments you can be sure many indians are puffing up their chests and thumping it furiously. The indian media is at it already:

Whoever makes the loudest noise gets noticed. I think the Indian media has woken up to that fact. Coz if you ain't bragging, you don't have anything. Nobody gives a sh*t about a silent guy in the bar. And it doesn't matter if you dont have a porsche, you just need to be loud and aggressive when talking about yourself, otherwise someone else will.

And one of the founders of the latest IT sensation YouTube is also chinese.

Out of three youtube guys, one of them is Bangladeshi-German American too. Siddhartha blogged about him while ago.

As I said earlier, I do not think Indian-origin or Indian or South Asian immigrants are the only captains of business innovation in America, but are fairly well represented.

The point to note that most of them are 1st genners from a developing country who made it in early 80s.

How can you forget kingmaker, Vinod Khosla of Sun Microsystems fame.

How can you forget kingmaker, Vinod Khosla of Sun Microsystems fame.

Sabeer Bhatia and Vinod Khosla are yesterday's news. Neither is involved with the companies they founded. Khosla was one of 5 or 6 founders of Sun. I think he is now doing something in alternative energy.

We are talking of current big names in tech. Which is why I did not mention the chinese sole founder of Computer Associates either, which is a major software corporation; or the chinese founder of Wang Labs (30,000 employees at its peak)....

This discussion is not really something I have too much knowledge about, but what about Vinod Dham?

I'd like to add to the chest thumping. Besides Khosla, Promod Haque, Rob L Soni, and Geoffrey Yang land on Forbes Midas list...top financiers of tech ventures.

Unfortuantely, this doesn't make me a better businessman. So I thump with one fist only...but I hold an American flag in the other.

I forgot Ram Shriram. Thump!

...the disappearance of a rather cushy middle-class formed by low-skilled and semi-educated Americans thanks to high union wages of American manufacturing. (C'mon guys, you can't get $18/hour for tightening screws in today's global economy.

So what is the alternative to tightening screws? Even if all of these people decided to lay down their tools and pursue "real" middle-class jobs (allowing for the very large assumption that they could readily acquire the skills needed to do so)... would there even be places for them? The competition for professional-level jobs (and professional level education) is already fierce.

In theory, the solution to outsourcing, offshoring and the other hazards of globalization is for America to focus on what it does best... creativity and entrepreneurship. The problem is that over time business owners, managers and inventors have only comprised a tiny portion of the workers in any given economy. Not coincidentally, only a small percentage of the population has the ability and inclination to do well at these pursuits. If America is supposed to concede mastery of hands-on labor in favor of more intellectual pursuits... if all the cutting-edge widgets and IPO's are built using largely foreign workers... what becomes of all those extra Americans?

The solution I hear proposed more and more often is that the American middle class should be scaled down. The argument is that the Keynesian consumer economy that has dominated the US since WW II is a fluke, a historical aberration... and not a positive one. Large numbers of ordinary people... factory workers, bus drivers, clerks, etc... are now enjoying the middle class lifestyle previously restricted to a relatively small group of merchants and professionals. Part of the opposition to this trend has a moral basis. Some will argue that it is unfair that the average have access to things... spacious homes, personal vehicles, luxury goods, entertainment, travel... that were previously reserved for the exceptional. Others claim that overconsumption by the masses is literally destroying the planet. A more practical/cynical take on the issue holds that a lower standard of living is the only card that most Americans will have to play in the globalization game. The one certain way for domestic workers to beat their foreign competition is to accept comparably low wages while working onshore...

For those that agree that this is the best course, there is one very large question left unanswered. How could such a thing be done safely? The economic dangers are obvious. American consumers drive a substantial portion of the world economy. Where would businesses find enough new customers to compensate for the contraction of that middle class? Would the American upper middle class and wealthy be earning that much more... and consuming that much more... so that they could now carry the economy on their backs? Expanding foreign markets might also make up for the shortfall... but what if other countries decide not to repeat America's "mistake." Obviously any solution that relies on mantaining the previous level of material production and consumption would not satisfy environmentalists...
Even if the economic consequences could be managed... what about the political and social fallout? Presumably the legions of the downwardly mobile would not accept their lot gladly. The upheaval caused by such a process would make existing benchmarks for recent civil unrest... such as the 60's/Vietnam era... seem trivial in comparison. The most obvious parallel would be the Great Depression. Of course there would be important differences. This would be a controlled demolition instead of an accidental collapse... and there would be little hope that it could be undone in anyone's lifetime. By the time it was complete this country's society and culture would be changed beyond recognition...
For a truly frightening prospect... imagine such an implosion happening in both the US and Europe. By no means does America hold a monopoly on over-entitled bolt-tighteners...

Whys a story like this get only 56 posts but one on a desi swimsuit calender get nearly 120 posts?

Doordarshan says

This Vivek Wadhwa guy is a chest-thumping ethnic propagandist

Whoever makes the loudest noise gets noticed.

I understand people who thump their chest and overstate their achievements (and of their communities), but not the one who undermines it! Would that be an inferiority complex?

I hate to dampen all the feelings of Indian nationalism spurred on by this posting, but the fact is that even though the Chinese have founded fewer companies, the ones that they have founded are much more significant and their roles in these companies have been a lot more meaningful.

Look at for example Yahoo, youtube and QUALCOMM.

The most significant company with an Indian founder is Sun Microsystems. But Vinod Khosla’s role was very minor, and he got out well before the company amounted to anything. Let's also look at Hotmail. Some people think that Sabeer Bhatia actually invented e-mail, which is hilarious. He just happened to get in very early on and contributed nothing to the technology.

My point is that this is just another post trying to perpetuate this model minority myth to make us feel we're better than everyone else.

Let's also look at Hotmail. Some people think that Sabeer Bhatia actually invented e-mail, which is hilarious. He just happened to get in very early on and contributed nothing to the technology.

Proof?

Seems like there are a lot of Indians/Asians working in premier VC firms in the US too, especially given the new rush of private equity money flowing to the region: As yourself what about India and China?

Doordarshan: I would disagree that Vinodh Khosla is yesterdays' news. He went on to work with Kleiner Perkins and was instrumental in a lot of successful startups, Google, being one of them. Venture work in alternative energy looks like the next big thing, although years away from being as profitable as tech was, its the next thing on the global agenda that needs a big overhaul.

How about the Amritraj types? They are pretty big in film production.

I hate to dampen all the feelings of Indian nationalism spurred on by this posting, but the fact is that even though the Chinese have founded fewer companies, the ones that they have founded are much more significant and their roles in these companies have been a lot more meaningful. Look at for example Yahoo, youtube and QUALCOMM.

And Computer Associates. The three founders of ATI are all chinese as well; so is one of the two founders of Nvidia. These two companies dominate the graphics card business. Incidentally, the company that dominates the sound card business with Soundblaster was also founded by a chinese (albeit in Singapore). Ebay was founded by an iranian. Amazon's founder Bezos is claimed by the hispanic community as one of theirs.

Here's a list of the top 100 IT companies globally, ranked by revenues. No company founded by an indian, in India or anywhere else, can be found in the top 50. While 10 companies founded by chinese, in the US, Taiwan, Hongkong, make the top 50. The total revenues of all the indian companies (almost all in software services) in the top 100 is less than that of Acer which is only the fourth-largest Taiwanese company. And less than a quarter of the revenues of Nokia founded in tiny Finland.

Yet the Indian media boasts of India being an IT Global Superpower and of indian immigrants dominating IT in America! Isn't that pathetic? Can such boasting fool anyone who knows the facts? What does all this jive-talking self-promotion accomplish? The biggest victims of this con game are indians themselves.

what about Vinod Dham?

Vinod Dham was leader of a large team at Intel. His boss was chinese, who in turn reported to his hungarian jewish boss, the CEO of Intel.

Whoever makes the loudest noise gets noticed. I think the Indian media has woken up to that fact. Coz if you ain't bragging, you don't have anything. Nobody gives a sh*t about a silent guy in the bar. And it doesn't matter if you dont have a porsche, you just need to be loud and aggressive when talking about yourself, otherwise someone else will.

Interesting rationale for this dishonest desi boasting. Loud talking ghetto jive-talkers in America can relate to this justification I am sure. But at the end of the day such men are looked at with pity or contempt. And they remain in their ghettos fooling each other with tall tales and wild claims. Anyone with a brain can see that its real accomplishments that count, not baseless boasting.

I understand people who thump their chest and overstate their achievements (and of their communities), but not the one who undermines it! Would that be an inferiority complex?

It is not a question of undermining your achievements, but of being honest about them. You can thump your chest all you want but if the numbers dont back you up you just look like an ignorant fool or a deceitful con artist.

Here's a list of the top 100 IT companies globally

What does all this jive-talking self-promotion accomplish?

The biggest victims of this con game are indians themselves.

Vikram,

Never thought I would have to debate against you on SM...

You start off well by writing...

>>I doubt the government can project a "sexier" image for engineering and sciences when the popular culture's idea of a techie is a socially inept geek

True. It's not the Government's job not "sell" certain professions to the public, especially in a country found on free-market principles.

But then you say...

>>another case of corporate greed putting profits above people.
>>environmental issues do require industries to be regulated and fined for violations, why not people issues (which in a way is also environmental)?

People issues are not similiar to environmental. When a river is polluted by industrial waste, downstream innocent people suffer for no fault of their own, sometimes dying by the dozens. The corporation in question is treating public property like private property - hence there needs to be laws against that.

But when a company outsources manufacturing to China or call-center to India, that's no skin off anyone's nose. The company is not violating anyone's public or private property. They are not violating any pre-determined agreements. Sure, the CEO may make a 100 Million bonus, but that does not come at anyone's expense. Any if talent leaves the country and profits fall, the company will wind down and the CEO will retire to Bahamas. It's perfectly legal. Let him enjoy - he's earned it. The market has rewarded him for perceived productivity.

If you want to stop this, the only recourse is for the public to not buy anything made overseas. That will prohibit them from buying even milk (cartons are made by Japanese machines), toilet paper (Most paper comes from Indonesian rain forests), DVD players(Asia), Vodka(Europe) etc etc.

You would have to become a sanyasi!!

M. Nam

Here's a list of the top 100 IT companies globally, ranked by revenues. No company founded by an indian, in India or anywhere else, can be found in the top 50

India's capitalist revolution has just begun, so it's silly to use revenue as a metric. Abhi's data indicates indians are dominating other immigrants (but not Americans) in founding tech start-ups. so give them at least 10yrs to become billionaires and multimillionaires like the Khoslas and Bhatias.

The biggest victims of this con game are indians themselves.

Indian immigrants are many things, but victims? As for the Indians themselves, its not exactly capitalistic irrational exuberence that's been oppressing them all these years.

BTW, watch out for Indians in bitotech start-ups and Biotech VC.

It is not a question of undermining your achievements, but of being honest about them.

Here's a list of the top 100 IT companies globally, ranked by revenues. No company founded by an indian, in India or anywhere else, can be found in the top 50. While 10 companies founded by chinese, in the US, Taiwan, Hongkong, make the top 50. The total revenues of all the indian companies (almost all in software services) in the top 100 is less than that of Acer which is only the fourth-largest Taiwanese company. And less than a quarter of the revenues of Nokia founded in tiny Finland.

So according to you if companies are not in the top 50 you cannot brag? So the measure of success and the right to bragging is reserved by the top 50 companies homelands. You can go ahead and claim Indians are good for nothing. But people who make a change are there and always be there from all countries. If you don't like the claims of Indian media about IT global power dont listen to it.

I hate to dampen all the feelings of Indian nationalism spurred on by this posting

It is not about nationalism. When Lou Dobbs berates Indians as "stealing jobs" then some facts have to be put on the table. This is one of them.

... but the next generation prefers to stay home.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/For_IITians_today_home_is_where_the_moolah_is/articleshow/1054987.cms

Not to threadjack but did you see the Sundance Documentary on "Office Tiger"?
Its an Indian BPO company started by a couple of American Wall Street guys. "Driven" is an understatement - for these 2 guys and their Indian managers. Some of the dynamics in the place made me cringe though.
They recently got bought out by R.R. Donelly for $250 million.
The closing shot was of a man getting drwoned in a sea of shredded paper :-)

Whys a story like this get only 56 posts but one on a desi swimsuit calender get nearly 120 posts?

1. Premature call on the 56 posts. It aint over till its over :-)
2. Maybe a scaled down variant of the color of the bikeshed is to blame ? Its easier to notice and comment on media-pushed glamour and eye-candy than it is to be a regular reader of Forbes\NYT or whatever medium one chooses to keep abreast.
3. I prefer fewer but more intelligent comments to tons of comments with fluff. I spend most of my lunchtime reading SM comments :-( ...my other RSS feeds beg me to visit them. I wonder if a Slashdot style comments system would work for SM(Maybe the poster-lurker ratio is bigger than i can guess). For both these sites, i spend more time reading comments than i do to RTFA.

But when a company outsources manufacturing to China or call-center to India, that's no skin off anyone's nose. The company is not violating anyone's public or private property. They are not violating any pre-determined agreements. Sure, the CEO may make a 100 Million bonus, but that does not come at anyone's expense. Any if talent leaves the country and profits fall, the company will wind down and the CEO will retire to Bahamas. It's perfectly legal. Let him enjoy - he's earned it. The market has rewarded him for perceived productivity.

I think that the $100 million bonus does come at someone's expense, considering that many companies are scrapping employee pension plans while giving executives iron clad protection for their own personal retirement plans. "Perfectly legal" is a gray area that the CEOs and their legal teams fight hard to define in their favor in most of these cases. There are several cases of lawsuits against executives to sue them for return of their outrageous severances. If enough of this keeps up and there are enough pissed off ex-employees, perhaps the phrase "executive head hunter" may take on a literal meaning...

More than a 100 years ago Mark Twain summarized it best:

“But it was impossible to save the Great Republic. She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home; multitudes who had applauded the crushing of other people’s liberties, lived to suffer for their mistake in their own persons. The government was irrevocably in the hands of the prodigiously rich and their hangers-on; the suffrage was become a mere machine, which they used as they chose. There was no principle but commercialism, no patriotism but of the pocket.”

Whys a story like this get only 56 posts but one on a desi swimsuit calender get nearly 120 posts?

sex trumps power

Or maybe sex is power

sex trumps power

Trump has both

Where is the list?

I forgot. Here it is ranked by revenues, the US dominates:

http://bwnt.businessweek.com/it100/2006/index.asp?sortCol=rank_sales&sortOrder=ASC&pageNum=1&resultNum=100

And here it is ranked by revenue growth, three of the four fastest growing IT companies are chinese, from Taiwan and Hong Kong:

http://bwnt.businessweek.com/it100/2006/index.asp?sortCol=chg_sales&sortOrder=DESC&pageNum=1&resultNum=100

What does all this jive-talking self-promotion accomplish?

Increased attention to the community, easier access to capital, better political representation, better India US relations to name a few.

Do you really think american businessmen and politicians are all so dumb that they are conned by desi jive-talking? Compare FDI in India to that in China for example, what does that tell you?

The biggest victims of this con game are indians themselves.

How so?

Who is falling for these lies? Indians mostly. How is it beneficial to believe in untruths?

India's capitalist revolution has just begun, so it's silly to use revenue as a metric

Whats really silly is to strut around thinking India is already an "IT Superpower", that Indian immigrants dominate IT in America, or that IITians are mainly responsible for the Silicon Valley boom...

Do live in a fantasy world where you think honesty always wins?!

Its revealing of the sad state of the indian psyche that you all think that dishonesty, boastfulness etc give indians an advantage over others. If you think that the developing stereotype of desis as delusional, liars and braggarts is a good thing, you better think again pal.

Do you really think american businessmen and politicians are all so dumb that they are conned by desi jive-talking?

Its revealing of the sad state of the indian psyche that you all think that dishonesty, boastfulness etc give indians an advantage over others. If you think that the developing stereotype of desis as delusional, liars and braggarts is a good thing, you better think again pal.

Its revealing of the sad state of the indian psyche that you all think that dishonesty, boastfulness etc give indians an advantage over others. If you think that the developing stereotype of desis as delusional, liars and braggarts is a good thing, you better think again pal.

Its sad that you actually believe American companies rake in revenues because of honesty and humility. Please. Saying 25% of the tech company founders were Indian is neither "delusional,liar, and braggart" nor "strutting around claiming "IT super power". All the article mentioned was 25% of the company started that provided "employment" to many people in "US". This is good news especially when Lou Dobbs of the world claim Indians steal jobs. But again you can believe whatever you want to. Whatever makes you happy.

Doordarshan:

You're fighting strawmen. someone demonstrates indian immigrants dominate other immigrants in tech start-ups and you read this as "Indian immigrants dominate IT in America." So you post stats on revenue (with non-working links) to disprove an assertion no one made.

you claim indians "ridiculously exaggerate desi status and accomplishments" but you're the one making the exaggerations.

for example, you complain about an article that says "A University of California study found that 10 per cent of all start-ups in the Silicon Valley between 1995 and 1998 were by Indians, most of whom had come from the IIT system." by exagerating that claim into "IITians are mainly responsible for the Silicon Valley boom..."

you respond to KarmaByte's theory:

Increased attention to the community, easier access to capital, better political representation, better India US relations to name a few.

with this:

Compare FDI in India to that in China for example, what does that tell you?

...as if KarmaByte made a claim that India is more attractive than China right now. Only you are, by insinuation, making that claim.

Likewise, you reply to my claim:

India's capitalist revolution has just begun, so it's silly to use revenue as a metric

with this:

Whats really silly is to strut around thinking India is already an "IT Superpower",

If the revolution has just begun, how can it already be a superpower?

To be fair, I see why you're getting so worked up. The claims you think you're responding to are in fact quite ridiculous.

Sit down, have a kingfisher, watch a bollywood flick (which has surpassed hollywood by some measures). things are looking up for India; which is (before you bust another nut) not saying much considering where she's looking up from, but is something nonetheless. So maybe just one celebratory beer is in order.

maybe what you mistake for exaggeration is an infectious form of im-so-excited-i-cant-hold-it-inside kind of optimism peculiar to indians.

http://datelinebombay.blogspot.com/2007/01/setting-expectations-for-2007.html

Thanks Manju, that was well put. Was getting tired of that. Need a distinction here between ranting and debating.

You're fighting strawmen.

I dont think you understand what a straw man argument means.

you post stats on revenue (with non-working links) to disprove an assertion no one made.

Are you denying that the Indian media has hoodwinked indians into the delusion that India is already an "IT Superpower"? Then you must think these men, whose names you should recognize, are also "fighting strawmen" like me:

http://www.rediff.com/money/2004/feb/05nass.htm

"After two decades of being in the information technology business, India is still a 'toddler' with only 2 per cent of global market share, according to N R Narayana Murthy, Chairman and Chief Mentor, Infosys Technologies Ltd.

"We are just toddling; hence we should stop terming ourselves as an IT superpower," Murthy said.......Politicians, administrators and the media should stop saying that we are a superpower," he said and added that the country has a long way to go, both in terms of quantity and quality of services."

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-515630,curpg-2.cms

"India not an IT superpower: Kanwal Rekhi"

"The hype over India’s IT superpower status made him state the obvious: “India is a bit player, it is just learning and it is not an IT superpower. The IT industry is very broad, with applications, platforms, products, hardware.... and India is a very narrow player,” he said. The figures speak for themselves: the global IT industry is in trillions of dollars; IBM Global Services alone being a $42-billion business. India’s IT services exports are worth $10 billion."

for example, you complain about an article that says "A University of California study found that 10 per cent of all start-ups in the Silicon Valley between 1995 and 1998 were by Indians, most of whom had come from the IIT system." by exagerating that claim into "IITians are mainly responsible for the Silicon Valley boom..."

Its not me but the Indian media that is exaggerating that claim. Didnt you read that link I provided above:

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/iitians-laid-the-foundation-for-silicon-valley-boom/top/30269-7.html

"IITians started Silicon Valley boom"

you respond to KarmaByte's theory:

Increased attention to the community, easier access to capital, better political representation, better India US relations to name a few.

with this:

Compare FDI in India to that in China for example, what does that tell you?

...as if KarmaByte made a claim that India is more attractive than China right now. Only you are, by insinuation, making that claim.

What part of FDI inflow and "easier access to capital" didnt you understand?

If the revolution has just begun, how can it already be a superpower?

Lol. You are acting as if its me who is claiming that India is a superpower. Is it dishonesty or something else thats making you twist my words and intent?

watch a bollywood flick (which has surpassed hollywood by some measures)

That belongs in the same category of jive-talk as: India has surpassed the world in IT.

A little bit of self-promotion is healthy and even necessary for improving our chances in this society. But we need to go beyond that. With all the money, education and other resources floating around in the desi community, we have practically no organization granting scholarships to the young, seed capital to budding entrepreneurs, legal aid to the disadvantaged or discriminated, shelter to the battered women... I could go on and on. We need to mobilize in these areas rather than splurge on more multi-million dollar temples and annual parades, which seem to be our main public expression of ethnic pride. I am just as religious as the next guy and personally guilty of organizing a few desi parades in my time, but I am beginning to question if we are sufficiently focused on the more pressing needs of a diaspora that is now two-million strong. The desi population has reached that critical mass where the far more serious social and human problems begin to surface. Do we have the initiatives in place to address those needs?

This is not really off the topic. Entrepreneurship, for example, could be targeted for community funding and mentoring. We all know of the informal business loan system among the Gujaratis. Why not have a similar but more formalized community loan program for all desis? I know TIE is one organization that has done a remarkable job in this area, but it is strictly a high tech venture capital program, not a broad-based desi lending organization. Speaking of entrepreneurship, why not raise funds to send our youth to the best business programs instead of building another addition to the temple? Please excuse me if I sound sacriligeous, because I am not, but I find our goals as a community completely misdirected.

Are you denying that the Indian media has hoodwinked indians into the delusion that India is already an "IT Superpower"?

I agree, absolutely delusional. And this is nothing, we've been hoodwinked into far worse. O the litany of woes in South Asia! Bride burnings, bonded labor, communalism, casteism, Islamism, Hindu nationalism, the misery of the Dalits and tribes, disease upon disease, including eradicated ones like polio, superstition, epic mallnutrition, 70 million (70 MILLION) people bathing in a river of pestilence in honor of devious godlings!

We need to burn the place down and start over. And these colorist, black "brownz" who think they're "wheatish" delude themselves into believing there is some worth in "hybrid global desi culture"!

Here's another Indian CEO, who didn't come up in this discussion so far. Sanjay

Doordarshan:

Are you denying that the Indian media has hoodwinked indians into the delusion that India is already an "IT Superpower"?

I don't doubt some in the press claim India's an "IT superpower,"--it's the press after all-- but on this thread no one but you used the terms to which you so object. So you strangely spent a lot of time disproving a claim only you took seriously.

Its not me but the Indian media that is exaggerating that claim. Didnt you read that link I provided above:

I read it. Here's what the article reports:

A University of California study found that 10 per cent of all start-ups in the Silicon Valley between 1995 and 1998 were by Indians, most of whom had come from the IIT system.

Here's their exaggerated headline:

IITians started Silicon Valley boom

And somehow, you managed to exagerate their exageration, with this description of what they wrote:

IITians are mainly responsible for the Silicon Valley boom

Congratulations, your jive outdid theirs.

What part of FDI inflow and "easier access to capital" didnt you understand?

The part where comparing china's FDI to India's somehow disproves Karmabytes notion that self-promotion attracts capital...something every investment banker knows.

Lol. You are acting as if its me who is claiming that India is a superpower. Is it dishonesty or something else thats making you twist my words and intent?

You respond to my claim that India capitalist revolution is in its infant stage, by mocking the almost opposite notion that india is an IT superpower. It's not your words getting twisted...it's your panties.

Are you denying that the Indian media has hoodwinked indians into the delusion that India is already an "IT Superpower"?

Its not me but the Indian media that is exaggerating that claim.

Doordarshan, dude! why are you berating us on the contention you have with the Indian media? Seriously, who wronged you so badly brother? We are here to help you, tell us.

Here's another Indian CEO, who didn't come up in this discussion so far. Sanjay

Technically not Indian as he's Sri Lankan by birth.

Here's another Indian CEO, who didn't come up in this discussion so far. Sanjay

Immigrants have a much tougher time measuring up to the enormous people oriented task that is business.

Agreed. This probably has to do with cultural differences and the way people in both the work place and social spheres interact with each other in various countries/cultures. The roles men and women play and how they interact in various countries and cultures would also have to be taken into account, as well as the roles that seniors and juniors in age play across countries and cultures.

The major MNCs over in India address all these issues with their employees and India is developing a "customer service bhav" now as well as improving interactions amongst various placed employees.

I think the real striking success of Indians (and immigrants more broadly), incuding 1st generation, has been in financial services. There was a time a couple years ago that the investment banking/institutional securities function of almost every major firm was run by immigrants - CSFB (Ogunlesi), Merrill (Zakaria), Morgan Stanley (Meguid/Pendit/Chamma), Citi (Menezes), Bear (Noujaim) etc. etc. All of this, in an industry that is exceptionally people oriented.

So I would dispute the notion that immigrants are most successful in analytic/tech oriented industries. I would go so far as to say that the act of immigration provides a sensitivity that is a competitive advantage in "people businesses".

self-promotion attracts capital...something every investment banker knows.

Yeah right, you know more about what investment bankers want than Narayana Murthy and Kanwal Rekhi. They dont agree that this kind of self-promotion is productive at all. Its nothing but an embarrassment. When the "self-promotion" is out of touch with reality the self-promoters attract ridicule not capital. If all this hype and self-promotion is working so well as you all imagine why does India, even after years of boasting, still attract only a minute fraction of global FDI? All that this bragging and hyping seems to accomplish is to fool the Bollywood and Kingfisher crowd into premature celebrations.

I don't doubt some in the press claim India's an "IT superpower,"--it's the press after all-- but on this thread no one but you used the terms to which you so object. So you strangely spent a lot of time disproving a claim only you took seriously.

There you go being dishonest again. The posters arguing with me, who you are supporting, are seriously defending this media hype as in: "Whoever makes the loudest noise gets noticed. I think the Indian media has woken up to that fact. Coz if you ain't bragging, you don't have anything." and "What does all this jive-talking self-promotion accomplish? Increased attention to the community, easier access to capital" and "self-promotion attracts capital".

why are you berating us on the contention you have with the Indian media?

Thats funny. Just a few hours ago you were justifying the indian media's silly boastings: "Whoever makes the loudest noise gets noticed. I think the Indian media has woken up to that fact. Coz if you ain't bragging, you don't have anything."

Meanwhile this new study is providing additional fuel for the desi media in its roaring campaign to make deluded fools out of itself and its readers:

http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1167954561&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&

"Indians Dominate Tech Sector in U.S.: Study"

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5922_1889303,0015002100000000.htm

"If India is shining at home, the diaspora is dazzling in America."

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1072784

"Guess who is making Uncle Sam rich? A study shows that Indian immigrants have emerged as the biggest wealth creators among all immigrants in the US."

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/iitians-laid-the-foundation-for-silicon-valley-boom/top/30269-7.html

"IITians started Silicon Valley boom"

It seems that many,if not most, here think such dishonest headlines instead of being an embarrassment, are a cause for celebration!

Yeah right, you know more about what investment bankers want than Narayana Murthy and Kanwal Rekhi.

You provided no quotes where they said promotion doesn't attract capital. You exagerate just like the media you so dislike.

The posters arguing with me, who you are supporting, are seriously defending this media hype

You bought up the media hype, and no one defended it's accuracy, they just pointed out it's a normal occurance in business. There's a lot of boasting here on Wall St in America too. Happens all the time.

It seems that many,if not most, here think such dishonest headlines instead of being an embarrassment, are a cause for celebration!

Abhi's post was not about the media you cite, so that's not what the celebration's about. In fact, you are the only commenter using the term "IT superpower" to refer to india...so this very thread is evidence that indians are not "hoodwinked" as you say, into beliving India is an "IT superpower." You should be happy b/c, in essence, there's really very little disagrement...unless you're really upset about something else.

Thats funny. Just a few hours ago you were justifying the indian media's silly boastings: "Whoever makes the loudest noise gets noticed. I think the Indian media has woken up to that fact. Coz if you ain't bragging, you don't have anything."

Doordarshan seems like a Pakistani troll. The bitter tone of his arguments is too envious to pass off as simply critical and pejorative. For instance nobody claimed to be an 'IT Superpower', its just an exercise in putting words in everybodys' mouth and motivated disputation to push further his agenda - attack our achievements by belittling our abiity to compare with the best. We are Injuns after all!

Doordarshan seems like a Pakistani troll. The bitter tone of his arguments is too envious to pass off as simply critical and pejorative.

ooooh. That makes sense. Here in the Americas, Canadians get the same way too. ;-)

Thats funny. Just a few hours ago you were justifying the indian media's silly boastings: "Whoever makes the loudest noise gets noticed. I think the Indian media has woken up to that fact. Coz if you ain't bragging, you don't have anything."

Yes i said that. And i still stand by it. First it is not "silly" boastings. There is enough facts to support the bragging. Secondly. You seem to misuderstand "marketing", and "facts". Marketing is about "image". And i don't know who would be laughing at the "silly boastings" which includes the fact 25% of the tech startups had some sort of Indian involved.
Let me give you an example. HR department will not give raises to just anyone. It will give raises to people who think they deserve a raise. Everyone thinks they deserve a raise. But only a few speak it out loud and get what they want. Because if you don't have the confidence to brag then you won't get anything. Of course you need facts to support. Only to a certain extent. Remaining is filled with image. How you present yourself. And nobody is climbing on top of the mountain with a loudspeaker and claiming India is on the top. Now that, would be silly.

And I guess Gorbag is right. Pakistani troll, indeed.

Gorbag is right. Pakistani troll, indeed.

That just confirms that this pathetic need to lie/exaggerate/hype is so deeply entrenched in the indian psyche that anyone who points out that it is embarrassing/unproductive/wrong is assumed to be an enemy of India. Perhaps you also suspect that Narayana Murthi and Kanwal Rekhi and others who agree with them must be pakistanis?

There is enough facts to support the bragging.

Show us the facts that support bombastic claims like:

"India Shining"
"India is an IT Superpower"
"Indians Dominate Tech Sector in U.S."
"IITians started Silicon Valley boom"
"Indian immigrants have emerged as the biggest wealth creators among all immigrants in the US."

They are all shameless lies.

i don't know who would be laughing at the "silly boastings" which includes the fact 25% of the tech startups had some sort of Indian involved.

Anyone who knows the facts would laugh at such claims. In fact anyone who doesn't have reading comprehension issues would also laugh at your "fact" that "25% of the tech startups had some sort of Indian involved". Thats actually 25% of the startups by all immigrants. That puts the figure for indian involvement in total tech startups at ~6%. Get it now?

And even that 6% figure is probably dubious, since the methodology of this shabby study is flawed. An indian who is known as a cheerleader/hypemeister for his community (see his other article linked above) leads a study which employs disproportionate numbers of indian students to phone a list of tech companies asking for personal information about their founders, CEOs, Presidents and CTOs. Not surprisingly a huge chunk of companies did not go along with the survey. The data has to be skewed as a result.

Secondly, the study does not compare the quality of the startups founded by indians to that founded by other immigrant groups. The study finds that "immigrant entrepreneurs' companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in sales in 2005". That itself is very unimpressive compared to the size of the american economy and workforce, and the indian contribution to this wealth generation is even less impressive, since none of the companies founded by indians is in the top 20 of american tech companies. Compare that to Google founded by a russian-american or Yahoo and Qualcomm founded by chinese-americans.

That just confirms that this pathetic need to lie/exaggerate/hype is so deeply entrenched in the indian psyche that anyone who points out that it is embarrassing/unproductive/wrong is assumed to be an enemy of India.

waah waaaah waaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Why are you wasting your time here Doordarshan?

Secondly, the study does not compare the quality of the startups founded by indians to that founded by other immigrant groups. The study finds that "immigrant entrepreneurs' companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in sales in 2005". That itself is very unimpressive compared to the size of the american economy and workforce, and the indian contribution to this wealth generation is even less impressive, since none of the companies founded by indians is in the top 20 of american tech companies. Compare that to Google founded by a russian-american or Yahoo and Qualcomm founded by chinese-americans.

Do you know the percentage of Indian immigrants are there in the US. Link
"The Asian Indian population had risen more than two-fold in 2000, growing to 1.6 million or 0.6 percent of the total US population from 815,447 or 0.3 percent of the total population in 1990. "less than 1%. But this less than 1% of the population from India has been involved with (according to you) As the population increases so will more Indians be involved in this. And better quality products.
450,000 jobs created is not impressive to Whom? you!!.
As far as quality, I can't think of any audio system better than Bose for the money it involves. Go read some reviews of Bose audio systems.
I would just love to know your opinions about Lou Dobbs talking about Indians stealing jobs.

sorry missed this line.
But this less than 1% of the population from India has been involved with (according to you) 6% of the tech startups.

And even that 6% figure is probably dubious, since the methodology of this shabby study is flawed. An indian who is known as a cheerleader/hypemeister for his community (see his other article linked above) leads a study which employs disproportionate numbers of indian students to phone a list of tech companies asking for personal information about their founders, CEOs, Presidents and CTOs. Not surprisingly a huge chunk of companies did not go along with the survey. The data has to be skewed as a result.

Skewed to which side?. There is a fair chance the people who refused to provide information could have been immigrants!.

Secondly, the study does not compare the quality of the startups founded by indians to that founded by other immigrant groups. The study finds that "immigrant entrepreneurs' companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in sales in 2005". That itself is very unimpressive compared to the size of the american economy and workforce, and the indian contribution to this wealth generation is even less impressive, since none of the companies founded by indians is in the top 20 of american tech companies. Compare that to Google founded by a russian-american or Yahoo and Qualcomm founded by chinese-americans.

The definition of quality itself is blurred. It is more like the definition of beauty. It is not by the number of people who use a product or by number of people who like it or the revenue generated. Quality is defined by what consumers want. Consumers may want the opposite thing tomorrow. Walmart does not exactly sell high quality products. But it is the number one in revenue. Again the so called "high quality" products like "Ferrari" does not get that much revenue. I am not going to compare Yahoo to whatever Indians made or Russians. Again Oracle is trying to buy iflex

It is not due to lack of quality that oracle is offering a staggering $2 billion to buy iflex. And I-flex is not a call center, it is known for its high "quality" software for financial services companies. Just because you don't know certain names doesn't mean they don't exist.

"India Shining" "India is an IT Superpower" "Indians Dominate Tech Sector in U.S." "IITians started Silicon Valley boom" "Indian immigrants have emerged as the biggest wealth creators among all immigrants in the US."

No Injuns beleive that. Only the media blows that trumpet to increase circulation - something picked right from the American media. If desis believed India was shining then VPie would still be PM

You provided no quotes where they said promotion doesn't attract capital. You exagerate just like the media you so dislike.

You are being dishonest yet again. Not surprising since what you, MyTake, KarmaByte et al are basically defending is dishonesty itself. I already quoted Narayana Murthy and Kanwal Rekhi, who should know better than you all what attracts capital:

"We are just toddling; hence we should stop terming ourselves as an IT superpower," Murthy said.......Politicians, administrators and the media should stop saying that we are a superpower," he said and added that the country has a long way to go, both in terms of quantity and quality of services."

Do you really think that if this sort of "self-promotion" attracted capital Murthy would discourage it?

Only the media blows that trumpet to increase circulation - something picked right from the American media.

Firstly, you are comparing mainstream desi media with american supermarket tabloid journalism. This kind of stupid, deceitful "self-promotion" would not be tolerated in mainstream media anywhere in the developed world.

Secondly, its not just the mainstream indian media, but also major indian political parties that propagate these lies and exaggerations. It was the BJP that was behind the "India Shining" and "India is an IT Superpower" propaganda campaign for example:

http://www.bjp.org/NEM/feb_0604.htm

"India is today an IT superpower. The world respects us. It also fears our abilities."

"India is shining."

Do you who are defending/justifying this outrageous hyping really believe that non-desis are so much dumber than desis that they can be conned with silly boastings? That itself is a sure sign that you are out of touch with reality.

It is mostly indians themselves who are being hoodwinked. And its mostly the educated in the english-medium psuedo-elite that seem to fall for this nonsense hook, line and sinker. That does not speak well of the indian educational system. A modern educational system should train students to think rationally and objectively, about everything. The fact that even educated desis are so susceptible to being conned by patent falsehoods is alarming.

Do you really think that if this sort of "self-promotion" attracted capital Murthy would discourage it?

Really? Is that why Murthy has built a Glass Pyramid and his own hotel inside infosys campus to improve "image" and get more offers to people who visist him.

I bet that is not "self promotion". Every "non desi" who goes to infosys campus goes through all the garbage and poor people. So why is "murthy" "self promoting" himself with glas pyramids and mini eiffel towers and own five star hotel inside the campus?

I already quoted Narayana Murthy and Kanwal Rekhi, who should know better than you all what attracts capital:

You still have not provided any quotes of them saying this promotion doesn't attract capital. Your exagerating their statements to mean something you want them to mean...you are a mirror image of certain excitable people in the media.

Anyway, just look at the last tech booms in the US. How over-promoted were some of these internet compaines. Think of Henry Boldget and Mary Meeker and the press that fawned over them. Think of the amount of intenet or genomic start-ups that went bust. They all attracted loads of capital.

Do you really think that if this sort of "self-promotion" attracted capital Murthy would discourage it?

Certianly. Such irrational exuberence has its downside (market crash, inflation, recession, --which is what Murthy and Rekhi are probably worried about) but supressing investment is not one of them.

You still have not provided any quotes of them saying this promotion doesn't attract capital. Your exagerating their statements to mean something you want them to mean...you are a mirror image of certain excitable people in the media.

Firstly, I have already provided quotes from which anyone who understands english and logic can easily deduce where Narayana Murthy and Kanwal Rekhi stand on this issue. Secondly, it isn't just "certain excitable people in the media" who are BSing/jive-talking, it is much if not most of the mainstream desi media, and worse, it was the ruling political party of India at that time, the BJP, which took the hyping and delusions of grandeur to idiotic levels with bombastic boasts like: "India is today an IT superpower. The world respects us. It also fears our abilities."

Such irrational exuberence has its downside (market crash, inflation, recession, --which is what Murthy and Rekhi are probably worried about) but supressing investment is not one of them.

What part of "India is a bit player, it is just learning and it is not an IT superpower. The IT industry is very broad, with applications, platforms, products, hardware.... and India is a very narrow player" and "Politicians, administrators and the media should stop saying that we are a superpower" he said and added that the country has a long way to go, both in terms of quantity and quality of services." didnt you understand? It is obvious that they discourage such "self-promotion" for the simple reason that it is a lie. Not because of "market crash, inflation, recession, --which is what Murthy and Rekhi are probably worried about" as you are feverishly imagining.

But this less than 1% of the population from India has been involved with (according to you) 6% of the tech startups.

According to the study genius, not according to me. How did you manage to conclude from that study that Indians are involved in 25% of tech startups??

And that 6% figure is also deceptive. That does not mean that 6% of founders, CEOs, Presidents, and CTOs of american tech startups are indians. Only that at least one indian immigrant was involved in 6% of startups according to this (shoddy) survey. For example in the most prominent american tech company with an indian founder, Sun, Vinod Khosla was just one of 4 founders. 94% of tech startups, including the most successful ones, had no indian involvement at all in their founding. Yet we have the desi media making laughably tall claims, based on this survey, such as: "Indians Dominate Tech Sector in U.S."!

So, where were these "dominant" indians during the CES and Macworld Expo? There was the iconic Steve Jobs, founder and CEO of Apple who is half-arab, there was Jerry Yang chinese founder and CEO of Yahoo, and the overwhelming proportion of the rest were american-born whites. Where were the supposedly dominant indians hiding?

Doordarshan:

It is obvious that they discourage such "self-promotion" for the simple reason that it is a lie.

Actually, in the very article you cite, Murthy gives his reason for wanting to stop calling India an IT superpower:

In fact, despite India's low market share, global IT majors have begun to consider certain Indian companies like Wipro, Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys and Satyam as a 'threat' to their businesses, he pointed out. He also said the growing opposition to outsourcing of jobs in the United States was a 'sensitive issue,' which had to be dealt with 'sensibly.'"It should not be sensationalised and carried on the front pages of Indian newspapers, especially when the US is facing an election year," he said.

So Murthy is concerned that Americans are starting to consider India a threat and this may lead to a political retaliation.

Firstly, I have already provided quotes from which anyone who understands english and logic can easily deduce where Narayana Murthy and Kanwal Rekhi stand on this issue.

Yes, it is easy. In the very article you cite Rekhi explicitly states where he stands. India is not an IT superpower but:

In the US, it is essential for every start up to have an India office. The sense there is the India cost advantage, trained manpower and the country is on the verge of something big,”

And you should be happy that the TOI calls his prudent observations "obvious"

The hype over India’s IT superpower status made him state the obvious: “India is a bit player, it is just learning and it is not an IT superpower.

These prudent observations, pointing out India great strides are not yet enough to declare her a "superpower" are a good counter measure to the excitable persons on either side of this issue.

Actually, in the very article you cite, Murthy gives his reason for wanting to stop calling India an IT superpower:

Jeez, such stubborn dishonesty. What part of "We are just toddling; hence we should stop terming ourselves as an IT superpower" didnt you follow?

So Murthy is concerned that Americans are starting to consider India a threat and this may lead to a political retaliation.

And that despite India's very low market share. This is another reason not to thump your chest. Why taunt those who butter your bread? Isnt that self-defeating? So why are you defending the hype/self-promotion?

And since you are well aware of the reasons for Murthy's discouragement of the hype, why were you dishonestly speculating that his reasons involved "market crash, inflation, recession"?

What part of "We are just toddling; hence we should stop terming ourselves as an IT superpower" didnt you follow?

The part where he says excessive self-promotion doesn't attract capital. You're reading far too much into his comments, the same way some in the press read far too much into India's recent economic gains.

So why are you defending the hype/self-promotion?

Show me where I defended the self-promotion. Once again, just like the press you so loathe, you're reading too much into my comments.

And since you are well aware of the reasons for Murthy's discouragement of the hype, why were you dishonestly speculating that his reasons involved "market crash, inflation, recession"?

good point. It was just specualtion since this is one of the well know dangers of self-promotion and irrational exuberence, to use Alan Greenspan's term. But after closer reading, I see his real concern is Anerican fears of an Indain "threat" to their business may lead to a political retaliation.

Why are you dishonestly speculating that Murthy's discouragement of a particular hype (India as IT SUperpower) means he's saying self-promotion does not attract capital? No where does he say that, and it can't be inferred, unless you are a member of the same excitable press you're using this thread to rail against.

BTW, Doordarshan, since I see you're a bit pre-occupied with the fact that some believe India is an "IT superpower," back in the roaring 1990's I worked in the Sales & Trading division of a global investment bank, Salomon Smith Barney (now Citigroup Capital Markets), and one of the first books they gave us to read was:

Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds

And boy, back in those days, there was a lot of self promotion attracing a lot of money, maybe not smart money, but money nonethelss.

Doordarshan: Damn those Veggie Dhoti wearing Injuns launched four satellites into space on a single PSL space vehicle. I refuse to acknowledge it as a major achievement, because it wasn't advertised all over your sorry ass

Why taunt those who butter your bread? Isnt that self-defeating? So why are you defending the hype/self-promotion?

And that 6% figure is also deceptive. That does not mean that 6% of founders, CEOs, Presidents, and CTOs of american tech startups are indians. Only that at least one indian immigrant was involved in 6% of startups according to this (shoddy) survey.

Give me the name of a tech company started just by one single person. Hmmm, can't think of a single one. First get your facts right. Apple was not just started by steve jobs(Steve Wozniak? is not an half arab), and yahoo was founded by two guys and only one of them was chinese. How about microsoft.
And one more thing even one of the major venture capitalist that funded google was Ram shriram.

You are an old man who wants to believe India is a disgusting, poor, good for nothing country. Go ahead, you are the one who is fooling yourself, its so sad.

Some of you need to get your facts straight. A 50% response rate for a survey like this is fantastic. Ask any statistician. The sample size was about 4 times larger than it needed to be. The fact that Indians, who constitute 0.6% of the population start about 7% of the technology startups is amazing.

It seems that many of you have been left out and have not achieved any meaningful success. Don't be so resentful of other that have, please! Let's take pride in the accomplishments of the community.

Having done grad school in the late 90s at a non-ivy league school with a 94305 zip code, I have to reluctantly second some of the points that doordarshan makes. I was there at the time when everybody on campus was starting a company.

I think that Indian FOBs have developed a great ability to talk through their arses. Indeed, I found that start-ups with other asian entrepreneur founders were much more technology focused. Believe me, many FOB Indian "TECHNOLOGY GUYS" free-rode on the backs of techies who were non-Indian. It is for this reason that I absolutely hate the bastardized the-farm-meets-bhendi-baazar accent since I have heard it in so many pitches. My mind switches off and I immediately go into self-preservation mode!

Just my $0.02. Sorry to all the trolls on here but I won't be debating this with any of you. Peace.