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

Done with YC: Age Discrimination

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 140 posts

Re: Done with YC: Age Discrimination

#91

Post by brudgers »

caddemon wrote: post #61
blagie wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's precisely why being an older person helps. You have experience under your belt. If you're 55 and have never done anything, that's a strong signal to not invest in you, since you're unlikely to do something now. 20-year-olds are risks. 55-year-old have track records.

A 55 year old who is new to entrepreneurship should be viewed as analogous to a 20 year old, not worse. Track record should be evaluated without reference to age, there's nothing wrong with pivoting in your career. I thought maybe OP was reading into things too much (and maybe he is with respect to YC), but you're proving his point.

A fifty five year old has more track record upon which to form a judgement.

A twenty year old who can't find cofounders is more likely to be a positive outlier than a fifty five year old who can't. There are another thirty-five years of adult people skills there. If a person knows a cofounder would help but eschews finding one, it's not a strong positive signal.

Re: Done with YC: Age Discrimination

#92

Post by etaioinshrdlu »

Tarucho wrote: post #52

Technology startups have a mandatory narrative of "someone young, cool, smart and with a great idea...". Anyone past 38 (if I remember correctly PG wrote 38 is the cut off date for founders) is too old for said narrative. (BTW: I´m 43) Maybe you should game the system and match with a young and cool co-founder that does the PR part.

Shoot - I've never been very good at the "cool" part. Wish they taught a class on coolness in school. Would have helped a lot.

Re: Done with YC: Age Discrimination

#93

Post by whitepaint »

over50 wrote: post #88
dang wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's getting upvotes because indignation + sensationalism always gets the most upvotes (this is the weakness of the upvoting system [1]), plus the meta aspect is a force multiplier. Also age discrimination is a perennially hot topic here. It's also getting a lot of flags, which is why the post is not on HN's front page. Just in case anyone is wondering, there's no moderation penalty on it. The tug of war between upvo…

Pretty interesting that a YC person would come out and label this "indignation + sensationalism". It is neither. It's someone (me) sharing an experience and a personal decision while --if you actually read my post-- praising YC for all the good they do. My only intent is to perhaps shed some light on the plight of older engineers in the technology ecosystem. Change the subject if you want. I could not care less. How…

Just a reminder. The title of your post is: "Done with YC: Age Discrimination"

Re: Done with YC: Age Discrimination

#94

Post by whitepaint »

void_mint wrote: post #85
whitepaint wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If equal amounts of over 35 and under 35 applicants, and consistently YoY you're taking 90% under 35 ... Could this scenario happen because of anything else besides discrimination from YC?

It's like any stats question. Depends entirely on your sample. With a reasonably sized sample, no, it really couldn't. Also this is more sealioning.

Let's both stop spamming this board. I will leave you with this.

Assume we have a huge sample data.

And assume "Equal amounts of over 35 and under 35 applicants, and consistently YoY you're taking 90% under 35"

Would you bet everything that you have on YC being discriminatory (I assume you would because you said "With a reasonably sized sample, no, it really couldn't.")?

Could it be, maybe, just maybe, that people under 35 are more likely to produce more value on average and that's why investors choose them?

Have a good day.

Re: Done with YC: Age Discrimination

#95

Post by over50 »

newbamboo wrote: post #9
paulsutter wrote: post #4

You've got YC one-itis. There are a zillion other places to raise money. Any one funding source says no 98% of the time, it has nothing to do with you. -a 55 year old founder who just raised a $20M Series A

I think that might be the point op was making. “Done with YC” == “Done thinking YC is the only way.” I’m not sure though.

That's it, kind of.

I would say "Done thinking YC is the right fit for me" could be more accurate.

Of course, now they've flagged the thread, so not sure if any of this discussion matters. Instead of cancelling the discussion, it should be actively promoted.

I am not accusing of YC doing anything explicitly. I think they make the right decisions when it comes to what you need in a young team in order to succeed. An example of this is the multiple founder bias. Right on point. Young people are just not equipped for the brutality entrepreneurship can deliver.

I also think that some of their process results in unintentional age bias. Asking for age is one example. Older founders might not need or want co-founders. And relocation is something might be impossible as well. As an example, in my case, I have full industrial-class manufacturing capabilities where I live. Moving to YC for three months, quite literally, means I would be far less efficient and likely get very little done. Or, I would have to abandon work on hardware and focus solely on software.

Re: Done with YC: Age Discrimination

#96

Post by skmurphy »

over50 wrote: post #80
skmurphy wrote: post #2

You should put your contact info in your profile or as a comment in this thread. Others, like myself, would like to contact you.

I just did. I will only reply to messages if it seems a conversation is warranted. I've had the experience on HN and other groups of someone contacting you with something that looks interesting only to identify you and then go away. Not interested in that at all. I hope you understand.

I think you used the email field which is not actually visible to non-moderators.

Please take a look at my profile and reach out if you are interested in a conversation.

Re: Done with YC: Age Discrimination

#97

Post by over50 »

tptacek wrote: post #63
blagie wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an older founder, it's easier to raise $20M Series A than as a younger founder. I'm pretty confident I have a much better chance of raising money than I did a decade or two ago. To be specific, I think I would have had almost no chance way back when, and I think I'd probably have better-than-even-odds today, if I tried (which I wouldn't; I'm committed to what I'm doing). However, that doesn't mean places don't age…

The move to SFBA is a real issue, and an obstacle for anyone with family commitments. I'm not sure what they can realistically do about it, since part of the premise of the program is that you're benefiting from being physically proximate to them. The rest of this, I think you're wrong about. I'm at a YC company right now (Fly.io) --- technically, I'm a YC founder at Fly.io --- and I've spent the last several years w…

To jump in for a second as the OP. What is also interesting about me is that I do not need a single dime from YC. I value their input enough that I would easily give 7% for a $1 investment. Part of being where I am is that I have secured myself financially to the extent that my thinking about YC as an option wasn't at all related to startup money. I don't need it. I own a quarter million dollar industrial-grade shop perfectly capable of manufacturing just about anything I need. What I can't manufacture directly I can get made through myriad industry relationships for almost nothing.

The primary value I saw in trying to enter YC was about driving the inflection point through a larger investment after self-funding everything up to and including getting product in front of prospective customers, booking some sales and demonstrating traction. At that point, I wanted to have both the financial horsepower and network available to push hard on the accelerator.

My prior experience taught me that being starved of cash is the single most difficult hurdle to jump over. I put over $300K of my own money into my last serious startup. That money went a long way because I was able to wear so many hats (and I was working from my garage).

The problem surfaced when I had to grow. I was starved for cash. It was as twice as painful as anyone could possibly imagined. The slope of your growth curve, at some point, becomes a function of financial horsepower. I mortgaged my home and pulled out another $250K. That helped, but it wasn't enough. Hardware is hard for a reason. You need cash, lots of it.

The inflection point started to appear in 2008, it took an indescribably effort and unimaginable personal sacrifice to get there from starting in my garage in 2001. At the peak I closed a five million dollar sale that was going to provide enough money to truly put the business on the map and displace multi-billion dollar market-leader companies from the segment we were in.

And then the economic implosion happened. Our five million dollar client defaulted on the contract. The company went from having an acquisition offer to the tune of tens of millions dollars on the table to being as close to bankruptcy as you can get by mid 2009. I almost closed another multi-million dollar sale that would have saved the business in 2010. In the end, the tail end of the financial crisis ended-up imploding that potential sale, and that was the end of it.

Life can be an interesting ride for entrepreneurs.

Re: Done with YC: Age Discrimination

#98

Post by void_mint »

whitepaint wrote: post #94
void_mint wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like any stats question. Depends entirely on your sample. With a reasonably sized sample, no, it really couldn't. Also this is more sealioning.

Let's both stop spamming this board. I will leave you with this. Assume we have a huge sample data. And assume "Equal amounts of over 35 and under 35 applicants, and consistently YoY you're taking 90% under 35" Would you bet everything that you have on YC being discriminatory (I assume you would because you said "With a reasonably sized sample, no, it really couldn't.")? Could it be, maybe, just maybe, that people un…

The original question:

> What evidence would convince you?

Your post history definitely brings to light that, for you, no amount of evidence would convince you, because you refuse to acknowledge discrimination as a possibility.

> Would you bet everything that you have on YC being discriminatory (I assume you would because you said "With a reasonably sized sample, no, it really couldn't.")?

Definitely, it wouldn't even be a question.

> Could it be, maybe, just maybe, that people under 35 are more likely to produce more value on average and that's why investors choose them?

The sealion strikes again! "It can't be discrimination if I can think of any other possibility". That's the value in large datasets.

Re: Done with YC: Age Discrimination

#99

Post by tptacek »

over50 wrote: post #95
newbamboo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that might be the point op was making. “Done with YC” == “Done thinking YC is the only way.” I’m not sure though.

That's it, kind of. I would say "Done thinking YC is the right fit for me" could be more accurate. Of course, now they've flagged the thread, so not sure if any of this discussion matters. Instead of cancelling the discussion, it should be actively promoted. I am not accusing of YC doing anything explicitly. I think they make the right decisions when it comes to what you need in a young team in order to succeed. An e…

They didn't cancel the discussion; users did. I didn't flag this thread, but thought about it. It's got nothing to do with the validity of your argument. I'm in my 40s, am alert to ageism, and tend to think it's a real thing. But threads like this, where there's barely even circumstantial evidence in the story as presented (the whole story might be much clearer!) tend to be total shitshows as threads.

I think the bias towards founder teams is especially problematic. If I was trying to marshal a case that YC pattern-matches on 25-year-old top-school grads, I'd leave the solo-founder thing out. They're right about solo founders, and they're right along multiple dimensions. We can have a healthy debate about that, but all it'll do is muddy the waters about the ageism thing.

It sounds to me, given all the circumstances you've rattled off, the YC just isn't a fit for what you want to do. It wasn't at all a fit for my last couple businesses, either, and they did (/are doing) great.

Re: Done with YC: Age Discrimination

#100

Post by caddemon »

brudgers wrote: post #91
caddemon wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 55 year old who is new to entrepreneurship should be viewed as analogous to a 20 year old, not worse. Track record should be evaluated without reference to age, there's nothing wrong with pivoting in your career. I thought maybe OP was reading into things too much (and maybe he is with respect to YC), but you're proving his point.

A fifty five year old has more track record upon which to form a judgement. A twenty year old who can't find cofounders is more likely to be a positive outlier than a fifty five year old who can't. There are another thirty-five years of adult people skills there. If a person knows a cofounder would help but eschews finding one, it's not a strong positive signal.

I'm not sure that's true, a 20 year old is among their peers when trying to find a cofounder. I would expect it to be harder for a 55 year old to find a cofounder. I understand judging on not having a cofounder period, but age shouldn't come into it directly.

It's true an older person has more past, but if they were in a different line of work before there is only so much info that can be gained from it. It shouldn't be treated as a negative, at least not any more so than a fresh out of college kid is viewed.

At the end of the day it is quite literally age discrimination when you start making different judgements about the same measures (like presence of cofounder for example) just because of someone's age. To me that is clearly wrong. I don't have a problem with judging on factors that happen to relate to age (again like presence of cofounder), but however a particular person scores on that metric has to be taken at face value, not with reference to age.

Post reply on HN