Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 229 posts

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#31

Post by BinaryIdiot »

MattBearman wrote: post #2

Having just read The Website Obesity Crisis[0] I was instantly intrigued by the video loop at the top of this article, so fired up Chrome's network inspector. Not only is it 6.7Mb, but it's sent using streaming (Status: 206 Partial Content), and for me at least, every time the video reaches the end, it's loaded again, and not from cache. I didn't actually read the article, but according to Read-o-meter[1] it would ta…

> Edit: Ha, caught out by my own dev setup, ie: disable cache when dev tools is open. My bad, feel free to ignore everything I said :)

I wouldn't feel too bad. Our homepage at Immuta originally had a background video near the top and when I was debugging something I looked at it and noticed it had downloaded 200MB from the server because it just kept looping over and over and re-downloading over and over while I had the web page open for a really long time. I practically freaked out, thought we were killing our bandwidth, etc. It took me probably at least an hour to realize that I had disable cache ticked =/

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#32

Post by msandford »

icebraining wrote: post #27
tsunamifury wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a stage where a genuine innovation is in a regulatory grey state because society simply hasn't processed its effects yet. That wasn't the case here... but it is in many other situations. Sometimes ex-post-facto the innovation is ruled against regulation and sometimes not. Take Tesla as an example -- a company who has tried to sell cars online. Since many states hadn't seen that before, they tried to…

Since many states hadn't seen that before, they tried to rule that it was illegal due to dealer-sales regulation. I don't see what being online has anything to do with it; the spirit of the rule - preventing the manufacturers from competing with dealerships - is valid anyway. I personally disagree with this rule, but the "online" part is just Tesla trying to get off on a technicality.

I'm all for manufacturers being prevented from going back on the deals they struck with dealers; the capital they raised from selling dealership franchises was very important for the growth of the manufacturers.

But if a manufacturer never setup a dealer program? Fair game to them, IMO.

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#33

Post by BinaryIdiot »

GavinB wrote: post #3

So a company that blatantly cheated will pay some fines and still be worth billions. The founders and early employees will all be rich, or richer than they were when they started. The investors will get a very healthy return. The lesson: break the rules and grow so fast that by the time regulators catch up, you can put on a show of reforming and still keep most of the value that you created. Admirable disruption or h…

You sir are correct. I'm curious though; are there any really good solutions to this type of problem? You can't rewind time and go back and taking away all assets gained in such a manner, while doable, would pretty much put the company out of business even if they're willing to comply. Seems like there isn't really a good way to prevent companies from breaking the law. Well unless you do some sort of regular inspection / auditing but that is time consuming and insanely expensive.

So it seems advantageous to me that, as long as you're not directly putting someone into harm's way or trying to screw with the IRS, you should always break the law to get ahead.

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#34

Post by humanrebar »

icebraining wrote: post #29
Kurtz79 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, being 11th (of 178) in the ranking of the "Economic Freedom" you list below makes the American regulatory environment "oppressive" ? From the viewpoint of most countries in Europe it would be considered "very liberal". (EDIT: Also the source you mention is clearly politically biased. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation )

All sources are politically biased. Some are just more honest about it.

Right. See the recent news about Facebook's curation 'algorithm'.

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#35

Post by badloginagain »

smokeyj wrote: post #23
GavinB wrote: post #3

So a company that blatantly cheated will pay some fines and still be worth billions. The founders and early employees will all be rich, or richer than they were when they started. The investors will get a very healthy return. The lesson: break the rules and grow so fast that by the time regulators catch up, you can put on a show of reforming and still keep most of the value that you created. Admirable disruption or h…

Anyone afraid of breaking a few rules isn't a founder. The lesson: create something people want. The rest will work itself out.

And anyone afraid of breaking a few laws isn't a criminal. The lesson: take as much as you can get. Enough money and the lawyers will work it out for you.

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#36

Post by aeorgnoieang »

tsunamifury wrote: post #25
pkaye wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually this how many successful people do it. It is better to break the rules and profit from it and if caught, pay a small fine and keep your ill gotten gains. I've learned this long time ago (watching coworkers, family, etc) but will probably never do it myself because I'm just not that kind of person.

I think there is a stage where a genuine innovation is in a regulatory grey state because society simply hasn't processed its effects yet. That wasn't the case here... but it is in many other situations. Sometimes ex-post-facto the innovation is ruled against regulation and sometimes not. Take Tesla as an example -- a company who has tried to sell cars online. Since many states hadn't seen that before, they tried to…

> In some cases its considered hero's work, and in other's villainous greed.

Or both simultaneously, sometimes even by the same people!

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#37

Post by untog »

pkaye wrote: post #20
GavinB wrote: post #3

So a company that blatantly cheated will pay some fines and still be worth billions. The founders and early employees will all be rich, or richer than they were when they started. The investors will get a very healthy return. The lesson: break the rules and grow so fast that by the time regulators catch up, you can put on a show of reforming and still keep most of the value that you created. Admirable disruption or h…

Actually this how many successful people do it. It is better to break the rules and profit from it and if caught, pay a small fine and keep your ill gotten gains. I've learned this long time ago (watching coworkers, family, etc) but will probably never do it myself because I'm just not that kind of person.

> It is better to break the rules and profit from it and if caught

I think the point the OP was making is that it might be better for you to do so, it's unclear whether it is better for everyone else.

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#38

Post by humanrebar »

eudox wrote: post #13
mc32 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oppressive regulatory environment? Relative to where, countries which have limited resources and can't enforce regulations to protect consumers?

Compared to the first ten countries here: http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

It's worth noting that the index there accounts for "business freedom" and "labor freedom" but doesn't really account for what is on topic here: "startup freedom".

Occupational licensing has some overlap, but regulations are often very good for very big businesses since they impede competition from small challengers. Anyway, I'm mostly sympathetic to your points, but it's important to distinguish between being 'business friendly' and being 'friendly to status quo corporations'.

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#39

Post by maxerickson »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #33
GavinB wrote: post #3

So a company that blatantly cheated will pay some fines and still be worth billions. The founders and early employees will all be rich, or richer than they were when they started. The investors will get a very healthy return. The lesson: break the rules and grow so fast that by the time regulators catch up, you can put on a show of reforming and still keep most of the value that you created. Admirable disruption or h…

You sir are correct. I'm curious though; are there any really good solutions to this type of problem? You can't rewind time and go back and taking away all assets gained in such a manner, while doable, would pretty much put the company out of business even if they're willing to comply. Seems like there isn't really a good way to prevent companies from breaking the law. Well unless you do some sort of regular inspecti…

What's wrong with putting companies out of business?

I understand that it ends up having impacts on people that aren't necessarily involved in the misbehavior, but it provides officers and investors a significant incentive to avoid wrongdoing.

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#40

Post by jsprogrammer »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #33
GavinB wrote: post #3

So a company that blatantly cheated will pay some fines and still be worth billions. The founders and early employees will all be rich, or richer than they were when they started. The investors will get a very healthy return. The lesson: break the rules and grow so fast that by the time regulators catch up, you can put on a show of reforming and still keep most of the value that you created. Admirable disruption or h…

You sir are correct. I'm curious though; are there any really good solutions to this type of problem? You can't rewind time and go back and taking away all assets gained in such a manner, while doable, would pretty much put the company out of business even if they're willing to comply. Seems like there isn't really a good way to prevent companies from breaking the law. Well unless you do some sort of regular inspecti…

Why should a company that shouldn't have been in business be protected from being put out of business?

You can't really prevent people from breaking the law (why have the law if it's impossible for anyone to break it?), but predetermined consequences could be played out when the law is intentionally broken.

It seems that RICO would apply to this situation. Multiple individuals and companies/funds conspired to commit fraud.

Post reply on HN