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

431–440 of 562 posts

Re: Changes at YC

#431

Post by ivalm »

darthrupert wrote: post #427
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…

I don't know why you are falsely implying that Musk's money is not due to great initial capital. If that was true, it would mean that capital for investment doesn't matter, which in turn would mean that we could just as well place a 100% tax on all wealth above a certain level without any detriment. It doesn't though, since your claim is bullshit. Elon's wealth is absolutely based on his parents' success.

His X.com/paypal was not based on his previous wealth and corresponds to the thing that propelled him to later successes.

Re: Changes at YC

#432

Post by mmahemoff »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #409
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…

However, calling it a “collapse” is taking it to the other extreme. We’re not going back to the cave age.

Re: Changes at YC

#433

Post by dvt »

Zetice wrote: post #334
dvt wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> real people who are not billionaires are directly and immediately effected Hard disagree on this. Startups die literally every day, not to mention that we just had tens of thousands of layoffs by big tech companies. In my view, this was a targeted bailout, meant to primarily protect the investment (into startups) of many Silicon Valley investment firms. > only then will investors be given a chance to recoup some of…

These aren't "startups that die" they're "businesses that did absolutely nothing wrong that die". Americans do not want to live in a world where a business can die through picking the wrong bank, full stop. Just because the investors in those startups don't get fleeced by a bank doesn't mean they're "bailed out". And "startup" here is not "craps shoot on if it exists in a week" it's "a substantial percentage of busin…

> because you don't understand that a bailout is exclusive to investors in the direct company receiving financial support

Yeah, it's clear at this point that not only are you trying to play an annoying little semantic game, but to make things worse, you also have no material domain knowledge. For reference, a bailout explicitly does not serve investors, but rather immediate business counterparties.

From the second source: "A bailout occurs when the government makes payments (including loans, loan guarantees, cash, and other types of consideration) to a liquidity-constrained private agent in order to enable that agent to pay its creditors and counterparties, when the agent is not entitled to those payments under a statutory scheme."

Further reading: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bailout and https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...

Re: Changes at YC

#434

Post by tasuki »

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 is not boasting, it is part of the explanation that YC is good at early stage investing.

They did not say how their late-stage investing turned out, but supposedly not as well, and that's why they won't do it anymore.

Re: Changes at YC

#435

Post by EFreethought »

loeg wrote: post #95
voz_ wrote: post #46

> Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today. Never allow corporations to speak in passive, weak, blameless terms. Use direct, honest, language, and force them to do the same. "Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today." - > "We laid off 17 employees today" "I was impacted by layoffs" -> "Google laid me off" etc

"Exonerative tense," "mistakes were made," etc. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/past_exonerative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/...

Calling it "exonerative" is like turning passive voice up to 11.

According to some people.

Re: Changes at YC

#436

Post by yuliyp »

hsn915 wrote: post #411
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…

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?

If you have the luxury of a safety net or in-demand skillset, then yes, getting laid off is not a risk. If you have less means, and the costs (both monetary and social/emotional) of needing to relocate to find another job turn into something much more daunting. In that kind of situation, loss of a job is a very negative event, much more than, say, a 10% decline of a wealthy person's portfolio would be.

re why work for an employer when you could take your own risk: generally speaking the odds of losing a job due to layoff are still less bad than the odds of a bootstrapped business failing, even if attempting to start a business was a realistic option, which it is not for many people.

Re: Changes at YC

#437

Post by Kwpolska »

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…

Elon did not invent electric cars. Elon also did not found Tesla. He was an early investor, ousted the real founders, and started calling himself a founder.

Re: Changes at YC

#439

Post by jillesvangurp »

tasuki wrote: post #434
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 is not boasting, it is part of the explanation that YC is good at early stage investing. They did not say how their late-stage investing turned out, but supposedly not as well, and that's why they won't do it anymore.

Early stage investing is the right mix of low cost and high yield. Most of the their startups are failures and duds but it doesn't matter because they don't cost that much and there are enough that do work out. Later stage investments are still quite risky but now you are losing millions when they fail. So you are more dependent on the handful that don't. Also, late stage investment in Silicon Valley means dumping money in real estate, very expensive executives, engineers, etc. Who then take the money and job hop to the next startup as soon as things start failing.

Now that interest rates are going up, the financial risks have increased and the follow up rounds are drying up a bit (less IPOs, series B, C, etc.). Meaning the cost is higher and exits are becoming a bit more rare and less lucrative. And also, there is less chance of offloading not quite profitable late stage investments to more conservative investors. A lot of these unicorns still fail. They just fail a bit later after early investors cash in. Somebody pays for that. Usually not the early investors.

Re: Changes at YC

#440

Post by rftyuikdjhgvcf »

dang wrote: post #389
ajross wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fa…

That works in internet logic but it's not true. At least, it's not what I've been told inside YC and I don't believe anyone was lying. What it's actually related to is Garry taking over YC and deciding to refocus YC on its original roots. (I specifically asked about that today during an all-hands btw.) At a minimum, it takes longer than 3 days to make a big change like this. I realize that's not a persuasive argument…

they knew about SVB beforehand.
Post reply on HN