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

481–490 of 562 posts

Re: Changes at YC

#481

Post by jongjong »

lmm wrote: post #416
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 ??

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.

I actually see elegance and justice in the cold, ruthless capitalist approach; I tend to think of it as tough love... But I don't believe that the system we have today is capitalism and so this cold, ruthless approach is actually unfair.

The difference is that in a capitalist system (with a constrained money supply; an even monetary playing field), when you get tossed out, you can get back up and you still have a chance to compete. In this system, when you get tossed out, it's game over (feels like slow withering away, a constant struggle to stay afloat).

The winners' wealth compounds infinitely beyond the point when it becomes impossible to compete against them. Billionaires are earning enough passive yield on their diversified portfolios that some of their businesses become useless appendages and they can afford to run them as a hobby, at a loss... Yet nobody can compete against those businesses; they're essentially subsidized by the money printer which serves as a compounding interest machine for the billionaire.

No real business which relies on profits from its economic activities can compete against a business which is funded by an infinitely compounding source of wealth.

Given that money is taxed by governments each time it hops between economic participants, it can barely hold onto a tiny fraction of its original face value after just 10 hops (at that point, almost all of it will be back in the hands of government)... It can't stray too far from the government money printer. But that's not a concern for billionaires who earn their yields almost straight out of reserve banks.

Re: Changes at YC

#482

Post by Ralfp »

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.

Its called HR because you are a resource.

Re: Changes at YC

#483

Post by terminalcommand »

Shame on YC :(. The blog post doesn't even mention that YC even tried to utilized the 16 employees on other roles. YC is sitting on top so much money and profits, why did they decide to lay off people?

There are good times and bad times. If my company is not with me during bad times, I wouldn't want to work with them.

YC's reputation took a big hit in my head.

Re: Changes at YC

#484

Post by carlitossway »

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.

What about demanding a salary no less than 50% of the value you add to the company? How many industries would stop being viable if their whole workforce would demand to be compensated for the worst case scenario Every single paycheck? A couple years ago this would have sounded like hyperbole, but then the Great Resignation happened, so there's that...

From that point of view, severance payments are not noble handouts but compensation strategies to reduce the overall payroll cost.

Re: Changes at YC

#485

Post by nirui »

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.

If I would guess, this kind of wording reflects a view which is quite common in Silicon Valley companies: an employee is an (human) asset for the company to utilize. Once the skill of the employee is no longer needed, they can be dispose of. If I may guess it further, this view might be shared across many high-paying industries.

Tech companies in China had similar mass layoffs in the past few years, which prompted many highly skilled tech workers to seek formal opportunities in state controlled companies/entities. Why state controlled companies you might ask, well, because those companies rarely perform this type of layoffs. Once you're one of their formal employees (not employee of contract), you're set safe for life. And even if some "difficult change" has to happen, those state companies will try to compensate the effected workers with other (often equal, sometimes better) opportunities.

I know Chinese state controlled companies are heavily criticized by western view points, but you have to admit, they treats their own people fine.

Re: Changes at YC

#486

Post by chemmail »

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.

This is a good playbook. When we have to sell the house and move to a trailer, i will be using it. "There will be some exciting changes around here."

Re: Changes at YC

#487

Post by input_sh »

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.

This has nothing to do with "wokeness" or inclusivity, this is known as past exonerative.

It's a way of distancing yourself from the blame. "Mistakes were made" instead of "we made mistakes". Or "a suspect was killed in an officer-involved shooting" instead of "a policeman killed the suspect". "Teammates were impacted" instead of "we laid people off".

It's like saying "shit happens, who knows who's to blame" when we all know who's to blame.

Re: Changes at YC

#488

Post by [deleted] »

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

[deleted]

Re: Changes at YC

#489

Post by Rapzid »

iepathos wrote: post #369
dmix wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my experience these things are an after thought, the people writing this stuff are disconnected from the people making the actual decisions and I guess the typical audience that reads it. The people who do the marketing, HR, or "run socials" tend to be from the demographic that over values safe corporate speak. CEOs occasionally write these but usually it's some pre-written stuff that gets signed off on. We all…

On ycombinator they tend to use the author "Y Combinator" if it's just a general announcement coming from the company that is likely written by HR or marketing. Garry Tan, CEO, wrote this particular announcement. i.e author https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/author/garry versus https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/author/yc

I'll start to believe that if Garry Tan publicly states it.

Re: Changes at YC

#490

Post by mattbrewsbytes »

kortilla wrote: post #386
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…

If you’re going to hint at elaborate kick-back schemes, at least spend the effort to think through how that would work and spell it out.

It doesn't need to be that elaborate. Funding a startup and strongly suggesting they bank at SVB and then YC invests in SVB, telling other VC's to invest in SVB is all the kick back you need. Stock goes up you sell off some or leverage that for loans to invest in more startups. Stock goes down, your loan leverage/assets are down and can't invest any more. I don't know if that's the case here, just saying this example isn't very complicated.

Also its not a coincidence that investors in SVB aren't getting money back from FDIC, only depositors, YC was an investor (and prob a depositor), they lost money and now have to lay people off. I would imagine other VC firms might be in the same scenario.

Later on, will this period of time be thought of as dot com bust 2.0?

Post reply on HN