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

411–420 of 562 posts

Re: Changes at YC

#411

Post by hsn915 »

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…

If you were getting paid for 2 years working on a project that doesn't pan out, that's you not taking the risk.

"Getting laid off" is not a risk. Wasting 2 years for nothing while bleeding income _is_ risk.

If you don't agree, then why would you work for an employer when you could take your own risk?

Re: Changes at YC

#412

Post by voytec »

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"

> Wow. First time I've seen a layoff post that starts with boasting success.

Something similar with IBM recently: "IBM posts biggest annual sales increase in more than a decade, announces 3,900 layoffs" [1]

[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ibm-posts-biggest-annual-s...

Re: Changes at YC

#413

Post by jachee »

roflyear wrote: post #405
samtheDamned wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If only there were some way to, say, unify the—to use your word—employees as some sort of collective unit, so that the—again, your word—ruling class has a little less power to reap all the reward.

Re: Changes at YC

#414

Post by greatwave1 »

HervalFreire wrote: post #410
User23 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There are countless ways that government connections could be very useful if you're trying to ensure the success of portfolio companies, especially if they're operating on regulatory frontiers.

Nudging policymakers in a favorable direction on legislation that could effect your portfolio is the most obvious, but there are tons of other examples as well.

I'm not arguing that this is a primary driver of YC's success (I don't know the extent, if any, of their government influence), but you'd be silly to think that political connections can't benefit an investor.

Re: Changes at YC

#415

Post by andsoitis »

roflyear wrote: post #405
samtheDamned wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Expenses are passed down on the employees, and the ruling class reaps the reward

Employees get paid a salary to work. That's it. That's the agreement. There are no expenses passed down to employees - you're just making that up.

Re: Changes at YC

#416

Post by lmm »

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 ??

The idea that you can just throw away an employee is bizzarre to most of the developed world. You have a responsibility to them (usually a legal one); the employee-employer relationship is an unbalanced one in many ways, and relies on that for fairness. If you want people you can get rid of at the drop of a hat you should be hiring contractors and paying the associated premium.

Re: Changes at YC

#417

Post by andsoitis »

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…

> 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.

There are many brilliant people in South Africa who are born into wealth and none of them have reached the same heights as Elon Musk.

Even if it were the case, wouldn't your argument then predict that there would be many people MUCH wealthier than him because they were born into the vast riches and privilege that is America and Europe?

Re: Changes at YC

#418

Post by lmm »

HervalFreire wrote: post #410
User23 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Palantir is one of their big successes because the government has chosen to pay them for big contracts; a government who thought differently might have not only declined to do that but shut down their whole operation as fundamentally harmful to regular citizens. Likewise Uber and AirBnB built their whole business pretty knowingly on open violations of the law; a government faithfully representing its citizens' interests might easily have decided to shut that down (as e.g. the government of Japan did; both companies barely operate here). Those are just the biggest names that come to mind; I'm sure there are similar things at every level in their portfolio (e.g. not so long ago there have been stories about YC funding a malware distribution company and a company that makes illegally usurious[1] loans; at the time dang claimed pretty vigorously that YC didn't and wouldn't fund companies that do that, but the evidence that they did fund the company and the company was doing that seemed pretty irrefutable).

[1] when lending to veterans, which the company in question did

Re: Changes at YC

#419

Post by lmm »

hsn915 wrote: post #371
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…

> 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.

You shouldn't do X if you don't have the balls to admit that X is what you're doing. Either fire someone or don't, but don't fire someone and try to pretend it's not a firing.

Re: Changes at YC

#420

Post by dancemethis »

> YC is known primarily as a place where very early founders create something from nothing by simply applying online and joining the world’s best founder community.

Uhh... no. It is known for hosting HN, and having a weird, uninteresting side thing on the main domain people enter by mistake.

Post reply on HN