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

511–520 of 562 posts

Re: Changes at YC

#511

Post by roflyear »

devmor wrote: post #179
epicureanideal wrote: post #156

I’m surprised that even an innovative, creative organization like YC wasn’t able to create other positions for these folks. I guess that just shows how hard business is even for people who are good at it.

Creating a position for employees that aren't needed is generally not a business priority. Besides, it's likely that this is primarily a cost-cutting measure given similar industry trends at the moment.

Think of it this way:

- Hiring is really hard, even tho there are probably plenty of people who want to work at YC

- If you fire people you know are good employees (maybe they were all shit employees?) you're making that harder

- If you're making like 10-20M or more per-employee (seems to be the case for YC) why do you care about having 20 people who you're paying for a bit.

Re: Changes at YC

#512

Post by subarctic »

tempsy wrote: post #102
halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #12

PG and crew have been very proud of the way they've been able to scale YC. This seems to be one of the first times where YC has failed to scale?

I’m not sure why YC is an example of something that has scaled well. There’s so many companies now in each batch with 95%+ never amounting to much success. It’s not clear how the scale is helping anyone.

Did YC used to have a better record when they were smaller?

Re: Changes at YC

#513

Post by deetsb »

kortilla wrote: post #504
mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That’s about the worst possible kickback scheme I can think of. Deposits drive so little of a bank’s profit that you would have to be the dumbest grifter in the world to setup such an expensive referral program with only the hope of stock appreciation.

*citation needed

Per SVB’s recent K, Net Interest Income: 4.065bn (after provisions) Non interest income: 1.728bn

Deposits fund the net interest income

Re: Changes at YC

#514

Post by jq-r »

PathOfEclipse wrote: post #492
nirui wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

the U.S. government works the same way. According to one web site, there are over 4 million federal employees. When is the last time any have been laid off? What I find most disturbing is that you think this is somehow a good thing. A government takes money by force and then spends it to "take care of its own", meaning provide cushy jobs to people regardless of their productivity, output, or necessity? This is the ve…

Or if instead of Nigeria you want more “civilized” examples, look no further than Eastern European governments. Here in Croatia some years ago a statistic came out that we have 4 times more government employees than Germany. Just for comparison: Germany has 83M people, Croatia little less than 4M. I shudder to think about that metric now as I’m sure its even worse.

Re: Changes at YC

#515

Post by lowmagnet »

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"

If they're so successful, how are they then not moving people into new roles in the company's front end investment group?

Re: Changes at YC

#516

Post by [deleted] »

lowmagnet wrote: post #515
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"

If they're so successful, how are they then not moving people into new roles in the company's front end investment group?

[deleted]

Re: Changes at YC

#517

Post by latchkey »

astrange wrote: post #479
rftyuikdjhgvcf wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they knew about SVB beforehand.

You can't know about a bank run beforehand. It dies when it dies, it's kind of a surprise that way. (Being insolvent isn't actually enough to kill a bank as long as the run doesn't start. Of course, here the bank dies when the regulator decides it dies anyway.)

> You can't know about a bank run beforehand.

Explain the selling of stock by the executives then.

Re: Changes at YC

#518

Post by dang »

rftyuikdjhgvcf wrote: post #440
dang wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

See what I mean?

Re: Changes at YC

#519

Post by dang »

ajross wrote: post #508
dang wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

With all respect, those interpretations differ only in spin. "Let's refocus on our roots" and "Oh shit, the gravy train dried up so we can't run our late stage cyclic money printer anymore; at least we still dominate the seed landscape" describe the same actions. And as for assuming good faith that this was a fait accompli already in progress... I'm sorry, but I can't get past "We're doing this on the first business…

I see both of your points and I get how compelling the second one is, but what can I tell you? It was definitely already in progress and it has to do with long-term leadership changes inside the organization and thinking about what YC is really supposed to be. Keep in mind that Garry's previous years at YC were before the late-stage business got started. Why they made the announcement yesterday, I have no idea—perhaps someone enjoys Hacker News drama!

FWIW I don't think the difference is spin, I think it's the opposite—from my perspective (I'm not privy to the inside discussions) this change is not a reaction to short-term business climate, it's a vision thing. Most people underestimate the power of having just one thing to focus on and knowing exactly what it is. It's a cliché everyone pays lip service to but almost no one actually does. It was a huge insight for me that running HN is all about focusing on one thing*—it's a kind of superpower that turns a surprising number of hard calls into easy calls.

* https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

Re: Changes at YC

#520

Post by margalabargala »

ThatGeoGuy wrote: post #355
margalabargala wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not quite the same, those two terms have taken on different meanings. "Fired" has come to mean "for cause", and "laid off" has come to mean "not for cause".

I still retain a similar model to patio11: https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1532509304846135296?s=20 Regardless of how you want to word it, or how you perceive it to play out socially, it does not diminish the act.

It depends on the listener's relationship with the person in question.

If you're on the receiving end, then that model and the act done to you are irrelevant.

If someone is applying for a job and they tell you "I was fired from my last job" vs "I was laid off from my last job", that changes your perspective on them.

Having terms that distinguish whether or not it's "for cause" are a useful language feature.

Post reply on HN