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

531–540 of 562 posts

Re: Changes at YC

#531

Post by tick_tock_tick »

mlyle wrote: post #530
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not a bailout. I guess they are just wrong?

Depositors received a benefit beyond previously promised insurance and benefits. Calling it a bailout or not is based on one's personal biases or semantics.

> Depositors received a benefit beyond previously promised insurance and benefits.

?? The FDIC has always made all depositors whole. They have never stuck to the 250k I don't know why people have the impression they are doing something different then they have always done in this case; I just it's just extreme ignorance?

Re: Changes at YC

#532

Post by hsn915 »

Draiken wrote: post #473
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 ??

It always astonishes me seeing how ingrained this individualistic capitalistic mindset is on so many. People have been brainwashed. These are people. This could be you, or your friend, espouse, mother, sister... And just because you can bounce back, it doesn't mean this is okay. Even if they have money saved and can use that to find a (hopefully) better next job, that's not easy or guaranteed. It seems that this "cri…

There's no hate. There's no paternal love either, nor a need for one. It's a completely neutral event that requires no emotional reaction.

Imagine it happened to my sister. So what? Are you expecting me to get emotional or angry at her employers? I wouldn't. What is there to be angry about?

Re: Changes at YC

#533

Post by mlyle »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #531
mlyle wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depositors received a benefit beyond previously promised insurance and benefits. Calling it a bailout or not is based on one's personal biases or semantics.

> Depositors received a benefit beyond previously promised insurance and benefits. ?? The FDIC has always made all depositors whole. They have never stuck to the 250k I don't know why people have the impression they are doing something different then they have always done in this case; I just it's just extreme ignorance?

> The FDIC has always made all depositors whole.

As I have already pointed out to you elsewhere, this is a falsehood. The FDIC is not permitted to pay out beyond the $250,000 except if a "systemic risk exception" is made.

If you click on random banks in receivership, you can see the dividend payments made to depositors above $250,000.

E.g. https://closedbanks.fdic.gov/dividends/bankfind/Dividendinde...

Sunrise Bank of Arizona depositors received 91.747% of their uninsured amounts. This is a typical outcome.

Then you can find other banks, like Enloe State Bank

https://closedbanks.fdic.gov/dividends/bankfind/Dividendinde...

where the total paid was 39.662%.

> I just it's just extreme ignorance?

You should really educate yourself before you claim others are exhibiting "extreme ignorance."

Re: Changes at YC

#534

Post by dragonwriter »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #531
mlyle wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depositors received a benefit beyond previously promised insurance and benefits. Calling it a bailout or not is based on one's personal biases or semantics.

> Depositors received a benefit beyond previously promised insurance and benefits. ?? The FDIC has always made all depositors whole. They have never stuck to the 250k I don't know why people have the impression they are doing something different then they have always done in this case; I just it's just extreme ignorance?

> The FDIC has always made all depositors whole.

They usually manage to facilitate a bank takeover which does that, or sacrifices only some portion of uninsured brokered deposits, but there are certainly plenty of cases where that is not the case.

Re: Changes at YC

#535

Post by throwwwaway69 »

terminalcommand wrote: post #483

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.

> YC is sitting on top so much money and profits

This is true of every big tech company doing layoffs. They can all easily afford to keep everyone. They choose not because capitalism has no room for humanity.

Re: Changes at YC

#536

Post by lfc07 »

I believe it is the right move. You can make better impact funding a large number of startups with small amounts and guidance than focusing on few late stage startups. Even though 6% make it big in their first attempt the rest 96% do benefit from YC's role in their subsequent attempts. So the impact is huge when it comes to early stage funding.

Re: Changes at YC

#537

Post by AlchemistCamp »

lmm wrote: post #529
aaa_aaa wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I acted accordingly by moving to a country with decent labour laws.

Whatever country you moved to, odds are there's more of a brain drain from there to the US than vice versa. When places heavily regulate laying employees off, they just make employers much more apprehensive and conservative about hiring.

Re: Changes at YC

#538

Post by AlchemistCamp »

terminalcommand wrote: post #483

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.

That's a really bad take. YC has a responsibility to the startups they fund to maintain the best team for the kind of work they're focused on. It's also not necessarily the best thing for employees to "be utilized on other roles" within their current company when their roles cease to exist due to business changes. Often the best roles for those individuals is at other companies or in founding their own companies. In truth, most people I've known who have stayed at the same job for a decade were worse off for it, not better.

I'm not advocating for reshuffling your workforce for very short-term needs, but if the longer-term goals change, the team often has to as well.

Re: Changes at YC

#539

Post by AlchemistCamp »

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…

California has very generous unemployment benefits. I also strongly doubt any former YC-employee will have a very hard time finding a next job.

Re: Changes at YC

#540

Post by terminalcommand »

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #538
terminalcommand wrote: post #483

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.

That's a really bad take. YC has a responsibility to the startups they fund to maintain the best team for the kind of work they're focused on. It's also not necessarily the best thing for employees to "be utilized on other roles" within their current company when their roles cease to exist due to business changes. Often the best roles for those individuals is at other companies or in founding their own companies. In…

I imagine the people laid off are highly skilled investment bankers. I think YC laid them off because early stage seed funds do not require the same level of sophistication as late-stage investment.

I believe the employees laid off would be perfectly capable to assist in early-stage seed rounds as well. That way YC could have vetted more projects and invested more.

Imagine that the people laid off were tasked to find and seed environment friendly startups etc. Deep work requires a stable paycheck and job safety. If YC really wanted to make things better, they'd know better.

With these lay-offs, I won't be surprised if all the remaining employees would be yes-sayers lacking any individual incentive.

Post reply on HN