Live data from Hacker News

Changes at YC

ycombinator.com

371–380 of 562 posts

Re: Changes at YC

#371

> Unfortunately, this means we will no longer need some of the roles on the late stage investing team. Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today. I hate this passive voice. It implies there was nothing that could be done, that this was just a force of nature. That it wasn't an active choice by YC, but rather just some eventuality. Most of us understand the necessity of hard decisions. Own the outcomes. It's ok to…

> If you think that looks too bad, then don't do the thing

lol what?

No serisouly: lol what?

"Don't do the right thing if it looks bad" is a loser strategy.

Re: Changes at YC

#372
post #368

Wow. First time I've seen a layoff post that starts with boasting success. Summary: "6% of the companies we invest in are worth a billion dollars. We're laying of 20% of our staff. We appreciate their efforts. No comment on how we're taking care of those laid off or remaining staff"

It’s not even a great boast. Their success is due to the Federal Reserve. Oh, sweet summer child.

Re: Changes at YC

#373
post #370
post #368

Wow. First time I've seen a layoff post that starts with boasting success. Summary: "6% of the companies we invest in are worth a billion dollars. We're laying of 20% of our staff. We appreciate their efforts. No comment on how we're taking care of those laid off or remaining staff"

Why do they need "taking care" of? Are they fragile school kids? Desparate single mothers who can't make ends meet? What is with this "save our babies!" attitude towards people who are - Well off - Highly skilled ??

Finally some sense-talking. The growing culture of paternalism in the employer-employee relationship is toxic to the foundations of our societal wealth.

Personal responsibility and equal opportunity are how we got to iPhones, toothpaste in every corner store, and a store on every corner.

Re: Changes at YC

#374
post #372
post #368

Wow. First time I've seen a layoff post that starts with boasting success. Summary: "6% of the companies we invest in are worth a billion dollars. We're laying of 20% of our staff. We appreciate their efforts. No comment on how we're taking care of those laid off or remaining staff"

It’s not even a great boast. Their success is due to the Federal Reserve. Oh, sweet summer child.

Are you suggesting that YC's success is because of the long-term US monetary policy climate?

That's a very incorrect suggestion. It reminds one of how people like to pretend that Elon's money is because his family had an emerald mine. Do you think that a significant percentage of wealth inheritors go on to immigrate across the world and invent electric cars and reusable rockets? Same thing with YC and the investment climate.

Re: Changes at YC

#375
The American corporate structure is such a ridiculous mess. Corporations should be equally controlled by capital and labor, such that both interested parties have equal say in corporate decisions. Yes, this might mean that the owners take significant net worth losses while more people stay employed - boo hoo hoo. Hasn't it become clear that societies run by financial oligarchs with no constraints always end in tears?

America continues to slide towards a Third World cesspool of wealthy enclaves surrounded by miles of festering slums. I guess private security is a growth sector, in this increasingly dystopian endgame.

Re: Changes at YC

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> we will no longer need some of the roles on the late stage investing team > I hate this passive voice. It's active voice, no? How is it different than we fired, except that firing sounds more tied employee performance, no longer needed more seems like employer fault.

"Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today." vs something like "We decided to fire 17 teammates due to this."

Even "teammates" is unnecessarily euphemistic. "We laid off 17 members of our staff" works just fine.

Re: Changes at YC

#377

I can think of a few reasons why YC would make this decision without admitting so publicly: 1) Too much negative signaling risk when they don't make follow-on investments 2) Negative returns given the recent downturn 3) The increasing business need to make non-founder-friendly changes in late stage companies (e.g. replacing CEO) 4) Anu/Ali deciding to leave first to start their own fund I wonder if any of these reaso…

Oh, come on. This is three days after their favorite bank got shut down. We all know what the proximate cause is.

I think it's clear that the venture world (at least the top of it) had turned itself into an industry on its own. They didn't make money on startup exits anymore, they made it on services. They'd fund startups, get those startups into later rounds by milking less sophisicated VCs[1], push them at their favorite bank, collect fees at each stage, and then take the profits and roll them up into more startus.

Now that the favorite bank is dead, this gravy train is over immediately. And the smart VCs at the top of the heap are the ones to exit the wagon first.

Honestly, the industry has had a toxic feel for a while. But the last 72 hours have made it clear that there was just no soul left.

[1] Yes, this sounds like a pyramid scheme to me too.

Re: Changes at YC

#378

> Unfortunately, this means we will no longer need some of the roles on the late stage investing team. Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today. I hate this passive voice. It implies there was nothing that could be done, that this was just a force of nature. That it wasn't an active choice by YC, but rather just some eventuality. Most of us understand the necessity of hard decisions. Own the outcomes. It's ok to…

Not to mention that the title of the post ("Changes at YC") is a euphemism for "Layoffs at YC".

Re: Changes at YC

#379

The American corporate structure is such a ridiculous mess. Corporations should be equally controlled by capital and labor, such that both interested parties have equal say in corporate decisions. Yes, this might mean that the owners take significant net worth losses while more people stay employed - boo hoo hoo. Hasn't it become clear that societies run by financial oligarchs with no constraints always end in tears?…

Why is American corporate structure a mess? What are existing real-world examples of alternatives that outperform American corporations, and along which metric? Why should corporations be equally controlled by capital and labor? Some American cities indeed have slums, but what leads you to believe it's a consequence of American corporate structure (rather than a million other possible reasons)?

Re: Changes at YC

#380

The American corporate structure is such a ridiculous mess. Corporations should be equally controlled by capital and labor, such that both interested parties have equal say in corporate decisions. Yes, this might mean that the owners take significant net worth losses while more people stay employed - boo hoo hoo. Hasn't it become clear that societies run by financial oligarchs with no constraints always end in tears?…

Without fully entertaining the hyperbole, American society and government are fully captivated by the wrong metrics: GDP growth is an extremely narrow measure for economic well-being. Unemployment rate is biased by not counting people who want to work but gave up because they can’t find a job. Average salary is far less meaningful than median salary due to huge skews in income distribution.
Post reply on HN