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

451–460 of 562 posts

Re: Changes at YC

#451

Post by darthrupert »

ivalm wrote: post #431
darthrupert wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He got a $20K investment from his dad for his first company, Zip2, in 1995. That's about $40K in today's dollars. X.com/paypal success seems to have happened in spite of him, not due to him. He got billions from it because he had been lucky enough to be one of the early investors.

I'm not actually saying that he's not a great business tycoon, he clearly is based on track record. Plenty of people have the kind of base resources he had without amounting to anything. Either they don't bother to even try or are too stupid or too unlucky too succeed. His parents wealth is still the catapult that launched him to his current success.

There are plenty of people who could have done what he's done but did not because of lack of resources.

Re: Changes at YC

#452

Post by vanviegen »

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.

It's also how we got rid of a store on every corner.

Re: Changes at YC

#453

Post by rusticpenn »

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?

The employee working under someone and doing work according to their requirements. The employee should not bear the risks of the decisions.

(naturally this is all meant for F500 companies which post a lot of profits, start ups need a different mindset.)

Re: Changes at YC

#454

Post by haspok »

Kwpolska wrote: post #437
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…

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.

He also did not invent reusable rockets. (And that's beside the fact that these don't exist yet - it is but a dream at the moment.) He funneled a large amount of taxpayer money into SpaceX, while not really improving much on anything (he _promised_ costs savings, but did this really happen?).

What he did invent is the snake oil salesman pitch. Oh wait, actually... he did not invent that either.

Re: Changes at YC

#455

Post by komali2 »

gspetr wrote: post #448
ScoobleDoodle wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a necessary but not sufficient condition.

Necessary? This statement does not hold any water. Jeff Bezos used to work as a cook at McDonalds in his teenage years.

Sure but he grew up in river oaks, the local rich neighborhood to me, and his family had a massive ranch. So his rich parents made him work for spending money, dude grew up in a rich family. Didn't his family also invest a couple hundred thousand in Amazon's early days?

Ugh, I'll be honest, I'm kinda tired of this "debate." We're really going to keep peddling the myth that any hard working joe can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become a billionaire? That's the tale we're telling with a straight face in 2023?

Re: Changes at YC

#456

Post by zpeti »

yuliyp wrote: post #436
hsn915 wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

Losing a job is a negative event, the parent is not disputing that. The parent is disputing that there is minimal risk for an employee, they are getting paid month to month for their work.

Re: Changes at YC

#457

Post by cpursley »

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…

It’s not just the cheap money, it’s across the board woke language policing. While we should all strive to be more inclusive, it shouldn’t be at the expense of honest and clear communication.

Re: Changes at YC

#458

Post by zpeti »

fzeroracer wrote: post #444
hsn915 wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Except it's not upper management bleeding income, it's the company. They still get their golden parachutes and massive bonuses, then they downsize other parts of the company in order to claw back the costs. They don't have to worry about losing their healthcare or having to survive. Hell they don't even have to care about keeping the company alive, they can just straight up kill it and still reap the benefits like we…

Employees also usually get bonuses, and stock options. Your point is possibly true for companies as big as FAANG ones, but for a startup invested in by YC, it's highly unlikely the founders are getting any real bonuses. They might get some money about in series B or C, but that's already less than 99.9% of startups that get to that stage probably.

You are simplying the situation by thinking about everyone as successful unicorns. Most companies and founders are not.

Re: Changes at YC

#459

Post by cpursley »

vanviegen wrote: post #452
spir wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's also how we got rid of a store on every corner.

Only in America. In most developed places, there are still corner stores (in addition to big box stores).

Re: Changes at YC

#460

Post by fooker »

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…

How is this surprising?

The tech industry culture around the Bay Area has been extremely hostile towards debate and diversity of opinion for the last two decades.

Post reply on HN