As an employee working for a big tech company and worrying deeply about the job security, I start to wonder the nature of the rapid growth and even faster collapse of the tech industry. Here, I summarize my findings by reading articles written by Fu Peng (付鹏), a Chinese economist and Nassim Nicholas Taleb, one of the greatest “troll”s of our generation.

What Fu Peng Said

Fu Peng essentially argues that the tech bubble is a result of excessive capital derived from unusually low interest rates. And the bubble is further inflated by, ironically, the slow growth and even the decrease of productivity. Take the post-pandemic tech bubble as an example. The commence of China–United States trade war signifies the reverse of globalization and hence negatively impacts productivity of companies from both sides. In the meantime, investors, equipped with the extreme liquidity as a result of near-zero interest rates after the pandemic, were eager to spend their free money. Hence, they naturally focused on the fastest and easiest way to make money – tech companies. After all, all you need is a good story for the IPO, after which it’s party time. For big tech, their stock prices are easily lifted by share buybacks. So, it’s still a pretty good deal.

So, the cycle begins. The management correspondingly shifted their focus from real innovation (i.e., technology that works for real) to those that can only make a bombshell. Their business model is no longer the classic: Devise something that works and make profit out of it. Instead, it’s to lure investors with easy money. A side-effect is the spoiled programmers. The rapid expansion of tech companies demands more workforce (pun intended). So, we get ridiculously high compensation, benefits, and the privilege to work from home. Correspondingly, what we talk about daily is not technical issues as “hackers” used to do. Instead, we mostly chat about the stock market, compensation, and the housing market.

Now, tech companies do not have access to easy money and have to please the impatient investors with profitability. The moves are straightforward for the management: cut the expense as well as the projects that won’t produce profit anytime soon. The good news is that people restart to make real innovation. The bad news? A new cycle begins sooner or later.

What Taleb Said

While I haven’t got a chance to read Taleb’s understanding (or teasing) of the tech bubble, the nonlinearity (i.e., winner takes all) he discussed in his book “Fooled by Randomness” is quite relevant in understanding the nature of the tech industry and hence the tech bubble. In a nutshell, Taleb attributed the success of not-the-best-but-dominating products such as the QWERTY keyboard layout and Microsoft office to path dependence. In other words, users simply get used to these technology even though they are far from being the best.

This reminds me of the notorious business model of Chinese tech companies. They spend tons of money on a low-quality product just to make the users depend on it. After that, they raise the price of the product to profit. A character of this business model is that the competition is not about technology but a game of capital. Put it differently, programmers are asked to deliver something as fast as they can and the technology used in it is normally a low priority. A US counterpart of the business model is Uber and Lyft, who still lose money years after their IPOs. So, Lyft’s stock price is hit hard by the interest rate hike: it fails to make its users dependent and thus loses the investment value.

Disclaimer

You should not treat this post as legal advice. Instead, retaining a professional immigration law firm is highly recommended.

Criteria

Let’s cut to the chase. You’re eligible for an O-1 visa if you,

1. have received a major internationally recognized award (such as the Nobel Prize) 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A) or
2. demonstrate at least three of the following forms of evidence 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B):

• Documentation of the beneficiary’s receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1);

• Documentation of the beneficiary’s membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2);

• Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about the beneficiary, relating to the beneficiary’s work in the field for which classification is sought, which must include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any necessary translation 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3);

• Evidence of the beneficiary’s participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4);

• Evidence of the beneficiary’s original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5);

• Evidence of the beneficiary’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional journals, or other major media 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6);

• Evidence that the beneficiary has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7); or

• Evidence that the beneficiary has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other remuneration for services, as evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8).

Case Study

I use myself, a mediocre researcher with a computer science Ph.D. degree, as the case study of the criteria listed above.

The first criterion clearly doesn’t apply to me. As a matter of fact, I would apply for an EB-1A green card instead had I satisfy it. So, let’s ignore it and focus on the second one. Let’s examine them one by one.

Prizes and Awards: 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1)

It does not apply to me. But you may claim it if you have them.

Prestigious Membership: 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2)

It does not apply to me. I doubt it will apply to you as well.

Media Coverage: 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3)

It does not apply to me. But you can probably claim it if your work has shown up in media.

Judging the Work of Others: 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4)

It applies to me because I reviewed a dozen of papers.

Contribution of Major Significance: 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5)

I claimed it and it’s challenged most frequently by USCIS based on my observation.

Publication: 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6)

It applies to me because I published several papers. Note that you may want to highlight that CS researchers mostly publish their work at conferences rather than journals.

Essential Employment: 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7)

It does not apply to me. I’m just a regular dude.

High Salary: 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8)

It does not apply to me. Please refer to the reason above.

In conclusion, a Ph.D. student like me should be eligible for an O-1 visa provided that he or she can provide convincing evidence for contribution of major significance.

Evidence

Let’s examine what evidence we need for criteria 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4)-(6).

Judging the Work of Others: 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4)

Evidence for this criterion is self-explanatory. Normally acknowledgement emails of your peer-review service to journals should suffice. Note that invitation emails may not count as such evidence because they do not prove that you did the reviews. If you work on computer science like me, it’s very likely that your peer reviews are about conference papers instead of journal papers. So, you can show your acceptance emails as program committee members along with the screenshots of your reviewed papers’ information. I once served as a PC member of a conference using EasyChair for paper reviews. I hence submitted a screenshot of the list of papers I reviewed.

USCIS may question the quality of the papers or the venues where you did the reviews. I argue that this type of questions are unreasonable because they not conform to the plain language of the immigration law. However, we petitioners do not have much leverage and have to respond to this type of questions. Normally, ranks of the journals and conferences are reasonable objective evidence. You should be able to find these ranks online. If that’s not possible, letters from journal editors or conference chairs should work well.

Contribution of Major Significance: 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5)

Proving original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field is very tricky since the term “major significance” is pretty vague. I suggest that you talk to your lawyers thoroughly about your work and adhere to their suggestions. If you are working on a case yourself, I’d be happy to discuss this category with you and share more about my thoughts.

Publication: 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6)

Similar to 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4), you only need to provide the copies of your scholarly papers. Normally, the first pages with your name highlighted are sufficient. Again, USCIS may challenge the significance of your papers. You can use citation information along with the ranks of the venues where you published your papers to address the challenge.