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

541–550 of 562 posts

Re: Changes at YC

#541

Post by CRConrad »

jq-r wrote: post #514
PathOfEclipse wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The respective population numbers are irrelevant, because those “four time more” government employees must already be in terms relative to population size – so that's already taken into account.

(Just think about it: Surely Germany has more than a million government employees? If Croatia had over four times that in absolute terms, more than its entire population would work for the government.)

Re: Changes at YC

#542

Post by CRConrad »

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?

If it were “for nothing” you might have a point.

So are you saying that, in the multi-million VC-fuelled start-up climate of the last couple decades, founders haven't made sure to pay themselves at least the same salary as their employees?

If you are, I'm not buying it. And if you're not, i.e. if you admit that they did, your point falls to pieces.

Re: Changes at YC

#543

Post by CRConrad »

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.

Funny how you use these words beginning with Uni... On the whole, they remind me of something, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Re: Changes at YC

#544

Post by CRConrad »

listenallyall wrote: post #463
jachee wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

A) Why should any profession lack a union?

B) If the problem is that one profession lacks a union, wouldn't the more natural solution be to start one? Problem solved!

Re: Changes at YC

#545

Post by spir »

darthrupert wrote: post #427
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…

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.

You seem to be conflating "necessary" vs. "sufficient".

Elon's inherited wealth and excellent upbringing were necessary for his Tesla and SpaceX success, but far from sufficient.

If a good rich childhood was all that's necessary to commercialize electric cars, reusable rockets, and fast satellite internet, then we'd have a lot more of these kinds of amazing products as millions of people have good rich childhoods.

Re: Changes at YC

#546

Post by spir »

darthrupert wrote: post #451
ivalm wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If a rich great childhood was sufficient to build great businesses, then shouldn't we expect a middle-class childhood to be sufficient to build a decent business?

But a lot of middle-class people try and fail to create any kind of business.

The reason is that it takes more than money and education to build a business.

Money and education are necessary to build a great business, like electricity is for your home, but insufficient, as your home also needs good construction, running water, etc.

Re: Changes at YC

#547

Post by Jochim »

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.

I find this take kind of odd to be honest.

From a capitalist perspective, the paternal employer-employee relationship is one of mutual benefit. Ensuring that the the employee's incentives align more closely with their employer's. At the same time it acts as (an arguably weak) justification for corporate profit, a comfortable and loyal employee is one who does not concern themselves too much with where the rest of the money is going.

The idea of the relationship as transient and adversarial directly opposes this. When companies force their workers into precarity, while at the same time making record profits, there ceases to be a justification for accepting that profit in the eyes of the worker. Eventually leading to some kind of societal response.

Re: Changes at YC

#548

Post by listenallyall »

CRConrad wrote: post #544
listenallyall wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

A) Why should any profession lack a union? B) If the problem is that one profession lacks a union, wouldn't the more natural solution be to start one? Problem solved!

Sure, you're welcome to start one. My hat is off to you and/or 'jachee' if it comes to fruition. That takes a lot of real work, however, as opposed to posting a few snarky internet comments and calling it a day.

Re: Changes at YC

#549

Post by HervalFreire »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #507
HervalFreire wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Connections in the government? Care to elaborate? How would a government connection increase your success in terms of investing in the right start up?

One way is getting a 8 or 9 figure government contract from said government connection.

Sounds like the only way. And it sounds rare. Most startups in yc or anywhere never get these contracts.

Re: Changes at YC

#550

Post by Jochim »

jongjong wrote: post #481
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.

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 cha…

> 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.

I'm curious as to how the hypothetical Capitalism would avoid quickly collapsing into a much more extreme version of the current state of affairs. Capital producing more capital seems built into the system, without strict controls on capital accumulation I don't see how the end result could be anything other than monopoly.

Post reply on HN