4 ms·
> One thing it obviously does not address is the human element of who you cut and whether they will be “default alive” unemployed in a recession. An individual
by vmception 4y ago
> One thing it obviously does not address is the human element of who you cut and whether they will be “default alive” unemployed in a recession.
An individual's personal financial circumstance is not a factor though. There are many people that have fixed their personal finance issue adequately. And for those who really don't have easy choice of employers or personal runway, then they're fucked. Did that really need to be said? That's what is going to happen.
- lumost 4y agoIt’s not a bad decision for a founder to protect the company above all, it’s their job. However, at the same time - cutting people who took a bet on you should be difficult. When you cut 70%, it’ll make future hiring difficult, it’ll make existing employees recognize where they stand (no where). Getting laid off is one of the worst events that can happen to a person, and you really have no way of knowing what the impact on them is. Which is to say, If a founder decided to cut exactly 70% of their staff based solely on an email from YC - I’d be very certain to dissuade anyone in my network from working with them in any capacity.