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

461–470 of 562 posts

Re: Changes at YC

#461

Post by listenallyall »

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…

> the people who make the decisions

Which includes the employees. They want the cool tech, the stock options, the prestige of working at FAANG or some new startup, the all-you-can-eat cafeterias... the price of working in a fast-moving, always-changing industry is that you're likely to be on the receiving end of some of those changes.

Want to be protected from layoffs? Take a salary cut and work for the government. Or be the most incredible software engineer at a boring as hell credit union or community college.

I certainly don't wish for anyone to be laid off and I know, from personal experience, that it can be tough. But by choosing the startup or FAANG world and enjoying all the benefits, you're practicing guaranteeing that you'll be affected by some adverse outcome, somewhere along the line. Accept it and move on.

Re: Changes at YC

#462

Post by cpursley »

cpursley wrote: post #457
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just a random example, but Delta airline now calls turbulence “rough air” as if that’s more reassuring… I’d rather be spoken to like an adult.

Re: Changes at YC

#463

Post by listenallyall »

jachee wrote: post #413
roflyear wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Instead of complaining that your profession lacks a union, why not pick a different career that will allow you to easily join one? Problem solved!

Re: Changes at YC

#464

Post by synu »

joosters wrote: post #426
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"

They can't even bring themselves to say the words 'laying off', 'redundancies' or even the milder 'letting go'. The staff are merely 'impacted' by this change in focus! Execs just feel like they need to retreat to the safety of euphemisms in these kind of announcements, after first boasting about how well the company is doing, of course.

Changes happened somewhere as a result of something happening and, presumably, someone somewhere was impacted in some sense.

Re: Changes at YC

#465

Post by bayindirh »

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 ??

From what I know from an old friend of my dad, helping coworkers who lost their jobs to land somewhere else is a well rooted custom in US.

Said friend told me numerous stories about how he gave positive references or call his friends in other companies for positions for coworkers who were laid off, during his tenure in IBM.

Helping people who lost their jobs because of reasons which they can't control is being a good person, for once, too.

Re: Changes at YC

#467

Post by newaccount2023 »

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.

> it is part of the explanation that YC is good at early stage investing.

no, they are good at giving money to people

investing implies ROI

Re: Changes at YC

#468

Post by Nevermark »

aaa_aaa wrote: post #441
lmm wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It should not be bizarre. Everybody should adapt and act accordingly, save money and keep your axe sharp. No job is forever, no employer is your friend or family.

All that can be good advice and yet helping layed off workers still be win-win for employers and employees.

A reputation for sticking with employees, even through a layoff, makes a company more attractive.

It increases trust between employer & employees. Trust increases the efficiency of any collaboration.

Re: Changes at YC

#470

Post by [deleted] »

listenallyall wrote: post #461
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…

> the people who make the decisions Which includes the employees. They want the cool tech, the stock options, the prestige of working at FAANG or some new startup, the all-you-can-eat cafeterias... the price of working in a fast-moving, always-changing industry is that you're likely to be on the receiving end of some of those changes. Want to be protected from layoffs? Take a salary cut and work for the government. O…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN