The Builder's Dilemma: From Creation to Gatekeeping | Generated by AI
You’re touching on a fascinating and thorny tension in how societies and organizations evolve: the shift from bold, inclusive building phases to more guarded, selective ones. It’s not inherently “dark,” but it can feel that way when it prioritizes preservation over expansion, especially if it echoes a hoarding instinct. Let me unpack this a bit, drawing on how it plays out in the examples you mentioned—tech giants like Google, Goldman Sachs, and Meta, and nations like the USA and Singapore—and whether that mindset is “right” (or at least defensible).
The Builder’s Dilemma: From Creation to Gatekeeping
At the heart of your point is a common arc for ambitious founders or pioneers:
- The grind phase: People like Larry Page and Sergey Brin (Google), Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), or even Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew pour everything into creating something extraordinary. They bootstrap, innovate, and endure chaos to build value—search engines that democratize info, social networks that connect billions, or city-states that rise from swamps into economic powerhouses.
- The protection phase: Once success hits, the focus flips to sustainability. Why? Scaling introduces risks—dilution of culture, resource strain, or competitive threats. So, they erect barriers: rigorous interviews at FAANG companies (e.g., Google’s infamous “brain teasers” and LeetCode gauntlets), or nations’ visa regimes like the USA’s H-1B lottery (capped at ~85K annually, with odds worse than a coin flip) or Singapore’s Employment Pass (requiring salaries over ~S$5,000/month for skilled workers).
This isn’t always malice; it’s often pragmatic. Builders reason: “We sweated blood for this ecosystem—top talent, infrastructure, networks. Flooding it with newcomers could crash the value we’ve created.” It’s like a startup founder vesting shares to avoid instant dilution. In Singapore, for instance, the government’s “high-bar” immigration (only ~30% of the population are non-citizens, tightly controlled) has helped maintain one of the world’s highest GDPs per capita while keeping social cohesion intact. The USA’s selective policies (e.g., prioritizing STEM PhDs) have arguably fueled Silicon Valley’s edge.
But here’s where it veers toward “dark”: It can calcify into elitism, where the “high bar” isn’t just merit-based but a moat for insiders. Studies show tech hiring favors pedigrees (Ivy League, specific bootcamps) over raw potential, sidelining diverse talent. And nationally, strict visas exacerbate global inequality—talented folks from less-resourced countries get locked out, while locals gripe about “job theft” despite evidence that immigrants boost innovation (e.g., 55% of U.S. unicorns have immigrant founders). The thought process you describe—”we earned this, so why share easily?”—mirrors zero-sum thinking: abundance for the core group, scarcity for outsiders. It’s loyal to the tribe but shortsighted for humanity’s progress.
Contractors as a Symptom?
You mentioned “contractors,” which I read as a nod to how companies like Google and Meta increasingly use temp workers (e.g., via firms like Accenture) for core roles. This is another layer of that gatekeeping: It lets firms scale without “permanent” commitments, dodging benefits and loyalty tests. It’s efficient but erodes the very “local benefits” you highlight—stable jobs, equity shares, community ties. In a 2023 report, Upwork noted that 36% of the U.S. workforce is now freelance/contract, often at lower pay and zero security. Societies amplify this by under-regulating gig economies, turning “high bars” into revolving doors for the non-elite.
Is It “Right”?
Not entirely, but it’s human. The original builders’ ethos—reward diligence, smarts, loyalty—sounds noble (meritocracy!). It built the wonders we envy. Yet enforcing it rigidly ignores how those traits aren’t innate but cultivated, often by privilege or luck. A more “light” version might be: Set high bars with pathways up. Google tried this with apprenticeships; Singapore with skills-training visas. The USA could expand H-1B caps tied to domestic upskilling.
Ultimately, no society or company thrives forever by hoarding. The “dark thought” wins if it breeds resentment (see rising populism around immigration). But if builders remember their own scrappy starts—immigrants, outsiders, underdogs—they might lower the bar just enough to keep the engine humming for everyone.
If this resonates or you meant something specific by “contractors,” hit me with more details.
Elitism in Big Tech Hiring
Singapore’s Immigration Balancing Act
USA H-1B Visa Realities
Contract Work in Tech