Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

Post by stale2002 » Mon, May 09, 2016, 7:09 PM UTC

mbesto wrote: post #91

jobu wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breaking rules to set up a sham business that scams and steals is one thing (and often the reason the rules exist). Breaking rules to create a product that most people like and find better than the alternative is completely different. Unfortunately many of the laws created in the name of "consumer protection" do little to protect anything but the entrenched interests that lobbied for the laws.

How precisely do you determine which rules are breakable for a product/service that is "better than the alternative"? I'd love to stay in a hotel and not pay hotel taxes, as would Marriott, so I use AirBnb instead. I'd also like to present fake receipts for reimbursement to my employer so I can make more money. Both are "alternative products" that are better for me, but someone else suffers. EDIT: Grammar.

Post by cookiecaper » Mon, May 09, 2016, 7:12 PM UTC

jobu wrote: post #48

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…

Breaking rules to set up a sham business that scams and steals is one thing (and often the reason the rules exist). Breaking rules to create a product that most people like and find better than the alternative is completely different. Unfortunately many of the laws created in the name of "consumer protection" do little to protect anything but the entrenched interests that lobbied for the laws.

Post by rodgerd » Mon, May 09, 2016, 7:17 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #107

maxerickson wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I understand that it ends up having impacts on people that aren't necessarily involved in the misbehavior, but ... The fact that you understand this could bankrupt and destroy people's lives simply because they worked at the wrong company at the wrong time, but still seek to rationalize it, is more than a little disturbing. Having draconian penalties for line employees is not going to do anything to dissuade a C-le…

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 09, 2016, 7:21 PM UTC

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.

Post by rgbrgb » Mon, May 09, 2016, 7:26 PM UTC

foreign-inc wrote: post #127

Is yc going to return their stake in Zenefits? Sama & co always seem to be pretty big on ethics. Or, are they going stop talking about Zenefits and forget them? What Zenefits did is illegal by their own admission.