[Nacraile]

> This doesn't move the needle in the biggest economy in the world. That's not even a viable business in most cities with high cost of living.

This sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish thinking is the root of the problem. Many large, important businesses start very small and stay small for a while. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#1972.E2.80.9384:_Fou... , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.#1976.E2.80.9384:_Fo... ) By admitting only founders of companies that are already large, you ensure that many of these companies are established and grow elsewhere.

> Why would the United States want to let you in where there are more promising businesses/entrepreneurs on the path to $100m/year companies within 5 years?

Blatant false dichotomy. Nothing prevents the US from admitting both.

[qaq]

In reality number of people trying to game the system is to a point preventing relaxation of rules.

[smokeyj]

How terrible. Others want access to the same opportunities we have.

[davidw]

They should have worked harder to be born to the right parents, I guess.

[qaq]

I am not saying it's a good idea but it is a valid concern.

[biocomputation]

The US doesn't have infinite resources.

[refriedbeans3]

I didn't say only admit people that are already running large companies, though those are welcome as well.

I said "on the path to 100m in 5 years"

That could be $0 through year 1-3, but it would be wholly different if that company was a technology startup creating value vs a services business like a non-chain Mexican restaurant mentioned below that is not necessarily creating an outsized impact on the US economy with low wage service jobs.

Apple was incorporated and immediately had $250,000 in capital invested. Me thinks you did not read the wiki page.

> During the first five years of operations revenues grew exponentially, doubling about every four months. Between September 1977 and September 1980 yearly sales grew from $775,000 to $118m, an average annual growth rate of 533%.