5 ms·

Completely agree with the OP of the twitter thread. pg once coined the phrase .. ramen profitable. I deeply agree with that concept. Cover bills but all those

by s_dev 6y ago

Completely agree with the OP of the twitter thread. pg once coined the phrase .. ramen profitable. I deeply agree with that concept. Cover bills but all those frills and cushy "living wage" nonense needs to go while the startup is finding its feet.

eloff 6y ago
Depends on what stage of life you're in. Ramen profitable works for a 20-something just out of college. It does not work for a married middle-aged person potentially with kids. It's a lot harder to start a startup once you get to that stage of life because of this and other reasons.
- s_dev 6y ago
  Those 20 somethings as potential founders was what other investment companies overlooked and partly made YC new and different. That was one of their innovations. Before YC investment companies were always looking at uni professors and execs dropping out of corporations. Changing this focus -- to focus on older more experienced invidividuals is changing YC imo. Less social justice more hackery/building stuff people might like would be a positive move for YC and the audience. I don't think we're in such a climate to discuss this though.
- FalconSensei 6y ago
  Or anyone that has to buy insulin...
  - whymauri 6y ago
    No, you need to be ready to die for your YC-backed startup according to some fascinating takes in this thread. Funny this gets flagged but not the comments insinuating that life-ruining risk should be acceptable* for founders who aren't wealthy. * Not just acceptable, preferred! Amazing!
- softawre 6y ago
  Is making it easier for a middle-aged person to start a startup something that YC has to care about? There could be a separate organization that focused on that.
  - eloff 6y ago
    I believe the average age of successful startup founders is mid thirties. I don't remember the source, might have been one of the YC partners. So yeah, it's in their best interest to care.
hire_charts 6y ago
It's far easier to live off of ramen when the worst that can happen is that you fall back on your savings, or your family (for a home), or your MBA network (for a job), etc, when your business bottoms out. This means that it's naturally a filtering function for people who have such safety nets already. It means that there are people who would be putting their lives and the lives of their dependents at risk in order to make the YC gamble. It might be a filter that "works," but it will inherently be an uneven filter, doing very little to filter founders who already have the means, while effectively barring many potential founders from being able to participate at all, at least not without dire personal consequences.
solumos 6y ago
I'd be willing to bet that a clear majority of the most successful startups from the past 20 years were founded by people who were otherwise independently financially stable. It's very hard to focus on building a successful business when the cost of failure is potentially life-ruining.
- s_dev 6y ago
  Then don't start one if you can't consume the risk. I'm not sure what your point is -- that people who have kids should be given special exemption where they make more money from sales and inventment oportunties to compensate for choices they made?
  - adpirz 6y ago
    This comment assumes a.) we're talking exclusively about parents and b.) about forces within a person's control. There are a lot of late-teens / early-20 year olds out there who have familial obligations to their parents, siblings, etc.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    > Then don't start one if you can't consume the risk. Corollary: startups can only be started by people in a position to consume [sic] the risk. Do we, as a society, or even just an economy, really want that? And the point was not a "special exemption for people with kids". It was that "consuming the risk" when you have no safety net (e.g. move back in with family etc.) is a much bigger issue than if you do.
    - s_dev 6y ago
      > It was that "consuming the risk" when you have no safety net (e.g. move back in with family etc.) is a much bigger issue than if you do. My point is these are the same. One individual has a different risk profile because (s)he made different choices and thats fine. If you have kids -- it will negatively affect your capacity to start a company. >Corollary: startups can only be started by people in a position to consume [sic] the risk. >Do we, as a society, or even just an economy, really want that? That Corollary is fine with me. Startups are inherently risky.

by s_dev 6y ago

eloff 6y ago

Depends on what stage of life you're in. Ramen profitable works for a 20-something just out of college. It does not work for a married middle-aged person potentially with kids. It's a lot harder to start a startup once you get to that stage of life because of this and other reasons.

s_dev 6y ago
Those 20 somethings as potential founders was what other investment companies overlooked and partly made YC new and different. That was one of their innovations. Before YC investment companies were always looking at uni professors and execs dropping out of corporations. Changing this focus -- to focus on older more experienced invidividuals is changing YC imo. Less social justice more hackery/building stuff people might like would be a positive move for YC and the audience. I don't think we're in such a climate to discuss this though.
FalconSensei 6y ago
Or anyone that has to buy insulin...
- whymauri 6y ago
  No, you need to be ready to die for your YC-backed startup according to some fascinating takes in this thread. Funny this gets flagged but not the comments insinuating that life-ruining risk should be acceptable* for founders who aren't wealthy. * Not just acceptable, preferred! Amazing!
softawre 6y ago
Is making it easier for a middle-aged person to start a startup something that YC has to care about? There could be a separate organization that focused on that.
- eloff 6y ago
  I believe the average age of successful startup founders is mid thirties. I don't remember the source, might have been one of the YC partners. So yeah, it's in their best interest to care.

hire_charts 6y ago

It's far easier to live off of ramen when the worst that can happen is that you fall back on your savings, or your family (for a home), or your MBA network (for a job), etc, when your business bottoms out. This means that it's naturally a filtering function for people who have such safety nets already. It means that there are people who would be putting their lives and the lives of their dependents at risk in order to make the YC gamble. It might be a filter that "works," but it will inherently be an uneven filter, doing very little to filter founders who already have the means, while effectively barring many potential founders from being able to participate at all, at least not without dire personal consequences.

solumos 6y ago

I'd be willing to bet that a clear majority of the most successful startups from the past 20 years were founded by people who were otherwise independently financially stable. It's very hard to focus on building a successful business when the cost of failure is potentially life-ruining.

s_dev 6y ago
Then don't start one if you can't consume the risk. I'm not sure what your point is -- that people who have kids should be given special exemption where they make more money from sales and inventment oportunties to compensate for choices they made?
- adpirz 6y ago
  This comment assumes a.) we're talking exclusively about parents and b.) about forces within a person's control. There are a lot of late-teens / early-20 year olds out there who have familial obligations to their parents, siblings, etc.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  > Then don't start one if you can't consume the risk. Corollary: startups can only be started by people in a position to consume [sic] the risk. Do we, as a society, or even just an economy, really want that? And the point was not a "special exemption for people with kids". It was that "consuming the risk" when you have no safety net (e.g. move back in with family etc.) is a much bigger issue than if you do.
  - s_dev 6y ago
    > It was that "consuming the risk" when you have no safety net (e.g. move back in with family etc.) is a much bigger issue than if you do. My point is these are the same. One individual has a different risk profile because (s)he made different choices and thats fine. If you have kids -- it will negatively affect your capacity to start a company. >Corollary: startups can only be started by people in a position to consume [sic] the risk. >Do we, as a society, or even just an economy, really want that? That Corollary is fine with me. Startups are inherently risky.