4 ms·

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 m

by 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.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    There are many people (the vast majority of people, in fact) who could not deal with risk for reasons entirely unrelated to having kids. A person's risk profile (particularly if they are young) has much more to with their family background than choices they made (or didn't make). I'd rather not have new ideas for businesses filtered through "can afford zero income for N months".
    - sinker 6y ago
      This all makes sense, but at some point you have to consider that startups are a privilege, not a right. Those that tailor their lives to be able to consume risk make tradeoffs like moving to a remote location, living single, minimizing expenses, forgoing healthcare, choosing to spend less time with friends, not getting that dog you always wanted, not having children, not getting married, not buying a house, etc. Narrowing your life for success takes tremendous sacrifices. It sounds like you want the benefits of having made those sacrifices without incurring any of their costs. There's nothing wrong with choosing to have a family and raising kids, but that is a choice. No matter what conditions are set, the person who makes the necessary tradeoffs is going to be in a better position to succeed and YC as a business entity can do nothing to level the field for people who are willing to go all-in versus people who prioritize a comfortable home life. Again, startups are privilege that form out of the security of societal infrastructure and excess of wealth. Nowhere in society is it prescribed that everyone should be able to forego having a job and drain their savings to gamble at a chance at massive wealth. How is it reasonable that we've come to expect this as some sort of entitlement? The top comment makes a dismissive remark about "rich white men," and YC being against inclusivity and diversity. The natural response to this is that YC is not racially exclusive, but that they exclude based on those who can assume risk. Yes, but white people are rich so they can consume risk and black people are poor, therefore YC is in reality discriminative against blacks. The simplification of this kind of argument and its decontextualization from reality should be self-evident. Unfortunately, it's emblematic of the kind of emotionally reflexive and broadly appealing arguments we see thrown around instead of practicing any form of intellectual sophistication or nuance. It's far easier to make a glib side-remark suggestive of racial privilege. It's even easier when this is politically and socially trendy, even expected, and the individual making the remarks is protected from backlash by the insulation of a particular ideology.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
        This is not (for me) about having kids+family vs startup. It's about number of people who can take risk of having zero income for N months. That is such a small group of people, and this narrows the pool of people who might found a startup that could change the world (or part of it). It means that all the ideas for startups are coming from people who have (at least) one thing in common. Maybe it's not the optimal thing to have in common? ps. I did the startup thing with a wife and a daughter. These days you know it as Amazon.
vikramkr 6y ago
This is about YC as an investor. If you've got a profitable startup in you, they want you to start it. Lowering the risk gets them more founders and makes them more money.
whymauri 6y ago
>Then don't start one if you can't consume the risk. Absolutely mind-boggling when YC literally exists to support and incubate startups so founders don't have to take on life-ruining risks.
- mrep 6y ago
  Maybe not life-ruining risk, but YC offers a measly 120k in funding for your entire startup and G/FB/NFLX will pay you 350k per person per year for a senior engineer. Founding and joining startups entails a massive opportunity cost from what you can make at the top paying public companies.
Raidion 6y ago
I think the point is that the amount of support does impact the amount of success after. If you offered $1 dollar of support, you'd have fewer % of startups succeed. If you offered a million dollars, you'd have more succeed. I think it is worth pointing out that the lower levels of support mean there will be fewer successful startups, and those startups will be founded and started by people that have a safety net of some kind. If the goal is efficiency of investment, this is fine, if there are other goals, it's worth noting how this policy impacts the other goals.

by s_dev 6y ago

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.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  There are many people (the vast majority of people, in fact) who could not deal with risk for reasons entirely unrelated to having kids. A person's risk profile (particularly if they are young) has much more to with their family background than choices they made (or didn't make). I'd rather not have new ideas for businesses filtered through "can afford zero income for N months".
  - sinker 6y ago
    This all makes sense, but at some point you have to consider that startups are a privilege, not a right. Those that tailor their lives to be able to consume risk make tradeoffs like moving to a remote location, living single, minimizing expenses, forgoing healthcare, choosing to spend less time with friends, not getting that dog you always wanted, not having children, not getting married, not buying a house, etc. Narrowing your life for success takes tremendous sacrifices. It sounds like you want the benefits of having made those sacrifices without incurring any of their costs. There's nothing wrong with choosing to have a family and raising kids, but that is a choice. No matter what conditions are set, the person who makes the necessary tradeoffs is going to be in a better position to succeed and YC as a business entity can do nothing to level the field for people who are willing to go all-in versus people who prioritize a comfortable home life. Again, startups are privilege that form out of the security of societal infrastructure and excess of wealth. Nowhere in society is it prescribed that everyone should be able to forego having a job and drain their savings to gamble at a chance at massive wealth. How is it reasonable that we've come to expect this as some sort of entitlement? The top comment makes a dismissive remark about "rich white men," and YC being against inclusivity and diversity. The natural response to this is that YC is not racially exclusive, but that they exclude based on those who can assume risk. Yes, but white people are rich so they can consume risk and black people are poor, therefore YC is in reality discriminative against blacks. The simplification of this kind of argument and its decontextualization from reality should be self-evident. Unfortunately, it's emblematic of the kind of emotionally reflexive and broadly appealing arguments we see thrown around instead of practicing any form of intellectual sophistication or nuance. It's far easier to make a glib side-remark suggestive of racial privilege. It's even easier when this is politically and socially trendy, even expected, and the individual making the remarks is protected from backlash by the insulation of a particular ideology.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      This is not (for me) about having kids+family vs startup. It's about number of people who can take risk of having zero income for N months. That is such a small group of people, and this narrows the pool of people who might found a startup that could change the world (or part of it). It means that all the ideas for startups are coming from people who have (at least) one thing in common. Maybe it's not the optimal thing to have in common? ps. I did the startup thing with a wife and a daughter. These days you know it as Amazon.

vikramkr 6y ago

This is about YC as an investor. If you've got a profitable startup in you, they want you to start it. Lowering the risk gets them more founders and makes them more money.

whymauri 6y ago

>Then don't start one if you can't consume the risk. Absolutely mind-boggling when YC literally exists to support and incubate startups so founders don't have to take on life-ruining risks.

mrep 6y ago
Maybe not life-ruining risk, but YC offers a measly 120k in funding for your entire startup and G/FB/NFLX will pay you 350k per person per year for a senior engineer. Founding and joining startups entails a massive opportunity cost from what you can make at the top paying public companies.

Raidion 6y ago

I think the point is that the amount of support does impact the amount of success after. If you offered $1 dollar of support, you'd have fewer % of startups succeed. If you offered a million dollars, you'd have more succeed. I think it is worth pointing out that the lower levels of support mean there will be fewer successful startups, and those startups will be founded and started by people that have a safety net of some kind. If the goal is efficiency of investment, this is fine, if there are other goals, it's worth noting how this policy impacts the other goals.