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

Changes at YC

ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 562 posts

Re: Changes at YC

#401

Post by samtheDamned »

hsn915 wrote: post #370
fblp wrote: 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 ??

Because the risk is supposed to lie in the hands of the investors, the founders, and the people who make the decisions. When the risks taken by the people at the top succeed, they profit, when they fail, they tend to push that onto their employees through layoffs and withholding raises. Then they will turn back around saying that they deserve their lavish lifestyles because they are the ones taking the risks. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Re: Changes at YC

#402

Post by komali2 »

spir wrote: post #374
7e wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> > It reminds one of how people like to pretend that Elon's money is because his family had an emerald mine.

Well, would he be a billionaire, if he didn't inherit an emerald mind?

> Do you think that a significant percentage of wealth inheritors go on to immigrate across the world and invent electric cars and reusable rockets?

What portion of people who inherit no wealth whatsoever, do that? What portion become billionaires? Well, that can't be that hard to find out:

https://ips-dc.org/the_self-made_hallucination_of_americas_r...

Looking at forbes 400, 22% have backgrounds with inheritances up to 1 million, 11.5% over 1 million, 7% over 50 milllion, and another 21.25% earned their way onto forbes 400 through inheritance alone. So that leaves 22% of forbes 400 maybe not having inherited that much, although the category is shared with people who inherited up to 1 million.

That's just regarding inheritance, there's also the simple side effects of growing up in a wealthy family such as having the best educational (read: networking) opportunities money can buy, having the best healthcare on earth, being well fed, etc.

I think thus it's very easy to guess that Elon would not be a hundred billionaire, or billionaire at all, if he was the exact same brain born to some working class family in south africa.

Re: Changes at YC

#403

Post by ryandrake »

pcl wrote: post #343
EngManagerIsMe wrote: post #306

> 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…

I find the euphemistic use of “impacted” to be more irritating than the passive voice. “Seventeen of our teammates were laid off today” still suffers from the passive voice, but is much more up-front. (Plus, presumably many other teammates will be impacted to one degree or another by the departure of these 17.)

I cringed at the word choice, too. Teeth get impacted. Workers get laid off or fired, not "impacted".

Re: Changes at YC

#404

Post by weswilson »

bink wrote: post #69
bradleyjg wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laid off is itself a less harsh version of fired.

Fired -> Let go -> Laid off -> Impacted I'll be curious to see what comes next.

One term I've heard from HR was "Released to the industry."

I always wondered if that was focus grouped or something. It was definitely the running joke for a while.

Re: Changes at YC

#405

Post by roflyear »

samtheDamned wrote: post #401
hsn915 wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ??

Because the risk is supposed to lie in the hands of the investors, the founders, and the people who make the decisions. When the risks taken by the people at the top succeed, they profit, when they fail, they tend to push that onto their employees through layoffs and withholding raises. Then they will turn back around saying that they deserve their lavish lifestyles because they are the ones taking the risks. You can…

This is the corruption of the US system of business and capitalism (and I'm a capitalist). Expenses are passed down on the employees, and the ruling class reaps the reward.

Re: Changes at YC

#406

Post by roflyear »

grayhatter wrote: post #222
lazide wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For you, but often for others it doesn't. It depends on if someone wants to believe the truth, or believe something else. Most want to believe something else.

hackers don't though; as a rule, hackers value truth over comfortable lies.

This isn't the place for hackers.

Re: Changes at YC

#407

Post by wilg »

komali2 wrote: post #402
spir wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> > It reminds one of how people like to pretend that Elon's money is because his family had an emerald mine. Well, would he be a billionaire, if he didn't inherit an emerald mind? > Do you think that a significant percentage of wealth inheritors go on to immigrate across the world and invent electric cars and reusable rockets? What portion of people who inherit no wealth whatsoever, do that? What portion become bill…

> Well, would he be a billionaire, if he didn't inherit an emerald mind?

Yes, because he didn't inherit an emerald mine.

Re: Changes at YC

#408

Post by TheLonelyGecko »

spir wrote: post #373
hsn915 wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The growing culture of paternalism in the employer-employee relationship is toxic to the foundations of our societal wealth.

???

Re: Changes at YC

#409

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

fblp wrote: 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 seems like it is taboo to even discuss the collapse of the so-called "tech" industry. The people invested in it appear to police the dialogue online, which is not something I remember before the dot-com collapse. (Of course, in the early 00's we did not have the same level of manipulation through data collection, tracking, re-ordering of results, comment voting systems, etc.). The attempts of the "tech" believers to "argue" with simple questions or the presentation of facts is hilarious.

Too many years of "zero" interest rates has resulted in some warped thinking.

Re: Changes at YC

#410

Post by HervalFreire »

User23 wrote: post #399
spir wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

YC's success is due to a combination of luck, skill, and yes, the most juiced bull market in a century. That last one is less of a factor than one might think though. Everyone has benefitted from easy money. So if were a primary factor then every early stage investor would have a 6% unicorn hit rate and that's clearly not true. I'm not an insider and I don't personally know any of their principals. But I have followe…

Connections in the government? Care to elaborate? How would a government connection increase your success in terms of investing in the right start up?
Post reply on HN