Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by vosper » Tue, May 10, 2016, 2:28 AM UTC

crdb wrote: post #197

kafkaesq wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your stomach is tempting you to defect. Your heart is telling you not to. And then, thankfully, your brain chimes in, and reminds you that while short-term PD-like scenarios seem to reward defection, in iterative scenarios -- more comparable to PD-like situations we encounter in real life -- it is cooperation (or at least, not fucking your neighbor over for the sake of short-term gain) that is very strongly incentivi…

I wish some of my clients understood that. One just ruined all the goodwill they built up with me over the past year (which got them countless free hours, crunch time at short notice, etc.) by stiffing my company of about a grand - literally a few hours' work - on some badly structured justification, the real reason being he felt his colleague was not negotiating hard enough with me and he "showed him". Now I'm going…

It sucks about the goodwill being lost, and I'm sure it feels bad to have been stiffed by your client, but it sounds like you're going to make more money out of him now than before. And at the same time he thinks he's had a victory. In some ways this a win-win. Take your team out for a nice dinner on the extra profit and don't feel too bad about it :)

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

#202

Post by dnautics » Tue, May 10, 2016, 2:28 AM UTC

crdb wrote: post #197

kafkaesq wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your stomach is tempting you to defect. Your heart is telling you not to. And then, thankfully, your brain chimes in, and reminds you that while short-term PD-like scenarios seem to reward defection, in iterative scenarios -- more comparable to PD-like situations we encounter in real life -- it is cooperation (or at least, not fucking your neighbor over for the sake of short-term gain) that is very strongly incentivi…

I wish some of my clients understood that. One just ruined all the goodwill they built up with me over the past year (which got them countless free hours, crunch time at short notice, etc.) by stiffing my company of about a grand - literally a few hours' work - on some badly structured justification, the real reason being he felt his colleague was not negotiating hard enough with me and he "showed him". Now I'm going…

Isn't what you're doing the ipd equivalent of "retaliate"?

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

#203

Post by jacalata » Tue, May 10, 2016, 2:33 AM UTC

outericky wrote: post #187

jacalata wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The laws are intended to protect the consumer by making sure there are physical places that can repair your car in the state. The question is whether that's necessary any more.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with dealerships as a POS location. Tesla should be able to have a store, and be regulated to make sure it provides service locations for vehicles.

Sure, if you answer the first question with "yes there needs to be physical service points in the state". I believe some people think this is unnecessary altogether though, so they argue for scrapping the entire law instead of changing it to allow for new ways of meeting the same goal.

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

#204

Post by ChicagoBoy11 » Tue, May 10, 2016, 2:43 AM UTC

jgalt212 wrote: post #168

This question is a bit troll-like, but how did the law-stretching/break of AirBnB and Uber not have the huge negatives consequences for them as it did for Zenefits. One can make the argument that AirBnB has tried to finesse things more than Uber, but in any case I do think Zenefits/Uber/AirBnB would make a good B-School regulatory case study.

I think the key distinction is that for AirBnB and Uber, their law-breaking activities were a key part of their strategy, and from the get-go they strategized and positioned the company to spin a narrative that their circumvention was actually a way to enhance customer well-being.

Take Uber, for instance: In most markets where it operates, it clearly violates regulations in place for Taxi drivers. However, they were clever enough and raised sufficient money that their strategy is to grow so quickly in markets that they can establish a significant coalition of riders that can create a political force sufficient to take on the taxi lobby. They (for the most part successfully) show that the policies they are allegedly infringing really aren't there for the safety of customers, but rather are policies preventing innovation and better services to sprout up.

In the Zenefits case, however, these claims are much harder to substantiate -- or at the very least, they did a terrible job in dealing with them head-on. The perception is that the policies that existed where there to protect consumers, and by circumventing them they not only harm their own customers but create a marketplace of unfair competition.

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

#205

Post by crdb » Tue, May 10, 2016, 3:11 AM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #202

crdb wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish some of my clients understood that. One just ruined all the goodwill they built up with me over the past year (which got them countless free hours, crunch time at short notice, etc.) by stiffing my company of about a grand - literally a few hours' work - on some badly structured justification, the real reason being he felt his colleague was not negotiating hard enough with me and he "showed him". Now I'm going…

Isn't what you're doing the ipd equivalent of "retaliate"?

I guess so. Retaliation is the best strategy in iterative PD, no? (I'm rusty on this stuff).

Nash equilibrium in a regular PD would be DD, but it assumes that the other side will defect. I think from experience that the payoff grid is different in business in that instead of CC resulting in a lower payoff for C than for D in CD, it's a much higher payoff; and the D in CD is not getting much more than in DD (maybe 20% more).

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

#206

Post by baddox » Tue, May 10, 2016, 4:08 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #179

baddox wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like your "poisoning the society" claim is highly subjective, based on how you perceive their actions and what you think is the the "ideal" society. For me, and presumably a bunch of other people, AirBnB and Uber provide really services far superior to their predecessors.

I don't think it's that highly a subjective viewpoint, if you don't ignore the social aspects of their business altogether. I do agree that the level of service of Uber (and probably AirBnB) is superior; I may also agree that a lot of regulations they're working around should be revisited. But the idea that when you don't like a law, you're free to ignore it is not something acceptable in a civilized society. There a…

I fundamentally disagree with your belief that disobeying bad laws is an undesirable way to get bad laws to change. I think it is a very valid way to change bad laws, and in many cases the only remotely viable way. Do you honestly believe there was a viable way to get taxi regulations changed other than the general approach taken by Uber and Lyft? Granted, some of Uber's reported specific actions are slimy even to me, but I am convinced that their general approach (ignore the regulations and hope that the population realizes the superiority of your service faster than the government can shut you down) is the only viable way to do it. I'm tempted to go so far as to call this approach downright progressive, although I realize many self-proclaimed progressives will find that attribution repulsive.

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

#207

Post by hkhall » Tue, May 10, 2016, 4:11 AM UTC

crdb wrote: post #205

dnautics wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't what you're doing the ipd equivalent of "retaliate"?

I guess so. Retaliation is the best strategy in iterative PD, no? (I'm rusty on this stuff). Nash equilibrium in a regular PD would be DD, but it assumes that the other side will defect. I think from experience that the payoff grid is different in business in that instead of CC resulting in a lower payoff for C than for D in CD, it's a much higher payoff; and the D in CD is not getting much more than in DD (maybe 20%…

You are thinking of tit for tat, right? I remember reading about generous T4T where in ~10% of the cases they were generous [CITATION NEEDED] it performed better that pure retaliation. Now there is a new paper in Nature[1] that I just stumbled onto in trying to answer your question. It seems like extortion is at least competitive with a generous strategy, though I need to give it a closer read.

[1] http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160412/ncomms11125/full/nc...

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

#208

Post by verticalize » Tue, May 10, 2016, 4:17 AM UTC

aianus wrote: post #196

snappy173 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason you require licensing for insurance sales is because it's very difficult to track all of the individual instances of malfeasance. So, the answer to your question is, "I don't know." But just because I don't have particular instances of harm, doesn't mean this isn't an problem. If you let anybody sell health insurance, you end up with con artists selling sham insurance, and by the time you track down the co…

> The reason you require licensing for insurance sales is because it's very difficult to track all of the individual instances of malfeasance. And what's the reason for handing out these licenses based on butt-in-seat study time instead of a proctored exam and/or interview?

There is an exam. Many agents didn't pass, they still sold insurance.

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

#209

Post by gnaritas » Tue, May 10, 2016, 4:30 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #179

baddox wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like your "poisoning the society" claim is highly subjective, based on how you perceive their actions and what you think is the the "ideal" society. For me, and presumably a bunch of other people, AirBnB and Uber provide really services far superior to their predecessors.

I don't think it's that highly a subjective viewpoint, if you don't ignore the social aspects of their business altogether. I do agree that the level of service of Uber (and probably AirBnB) is superior; I may also agree that a lot of regulations they're working around should be revisited. But the idea that when you don't like a law, you're free to ignore it is not something acceptable in a civilized society. There a…

> But the idea that when you don't like a law, you're free to ignore it is not something acceptable in a civilized society.

Civil disobedience is very much a part of civilized society, your premise is flawed.

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

#210

Post by jheriko » Tue, May 10, 2016, 4:39 AM UTC

seems like a lot these companies riding the 'disrupt' bandwagon are basically just cutting corners and not doing their due diligence - then operating illegally.

its really quite sad that vcs apply pressure to do this... but then i guess thats what you get if you make your business beholden to something so manifestly interested in the bottom line at the expense of everything else.