11 ms·

Wow. First time I've seen a layoff post that starts with boasting success. Summary: "6% of the companies we invest in are worth a billion dollars. We're laying

• hsn915 4y ago
  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 ??
  • spir 4y ago
    Finally some sense-talking. The growing culture of paternalism in the employer-employee relationship is toxic to the foundations of our societal wealth. Personal responsibility and equal opportunity are how we got to iPhones, toothpaste in every corner store, and a store on every corner.
    • TheLonelyGecko 4y ago
      > The growing culture of paternalism in the employer-employee relationship is toxic to the foundations of our societal wealth. ???
    • InCityDreams 4y ago
      What? As in, could you explain....
    • vanviegen 4y ago
      It's also how we got rid of a store on every corner.
      • cpursley 4y ago
        Only in America. In most developed places, there are still corner stores (in addition to big box stores).
        • coev 4y ago
          there's still a store on every corner in America, it's just one of (CVS/Walgreens/Starbucks)
          • red-iron-pine 4y ago
            Every year it feels like Snow Crash gets more and more closer to being real.
  • samtheDamned 4y ago
    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't have your cake and eat it too.
    • roflyear 4y ago
      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.
      • jachee 4y ago
        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.
        • listenallyall 4y ago
          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!
          • CRConrad 4y ago
            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!
            • listenallyall 4y ago
              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.
  • lmm 4y ago
    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.
    • aaa_aaa 4y ago
      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.
      • dgb23 4y ago
        That last sentence is true. But it doesn’t imply that people shouldn’t treat each other with basic respect.
      • Timon3 4y ago
        Counterpoint: it should be much more bizarre, and should track social consequences for those responsible.
      • Nevermark 4y ago
        All that can be good advice and yet helping layed off workers still be win-win for employers and employees. A reputation for sticking with employees, even through a layoff, makes a company more attractive. It increases trust between employer & employees. Trust increases the efficiency of any collaboration.
      • carlitossway 4y ago
        What about demanding a salary no less than 50% of the value you add to the company? How many industries would stop being viable if their whole workforce would demand to be compensated for the worst case scenario Every single paycheck? A couple years ago this would have sounded like hyperbole, but then the Great Resignation happened, so there's that... From that point of view, severance payments are not noble handouts but compensation strategies to reduce the overall payroll cost.
  • bayindirh 4y ago
    From what I know from an old friend of my dad, helping coworkers who lost their jobs to land somewhere else is a well rooted custom in US. Said friend told me numerous stories about how he gave positive references or call his friends in other companies for positions for coworkers who were laid off, during his tenure in IBM. Helping people who lost their jobs because of reasons which they can't control is being a good person, for once, too.
  • Draiken 4y ago
    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 "criticism" is more like jealousy than anything else. If they were not earning a bit more than others then we can feel bad for them. Otherwise let's pretend it's fine and yell "screw them". Meanwhile the rich fucks are still getting richer even with the "risk" they take. Not sure how that can even count as risk, given these VCs are all multi-millionaires that can afford to fail multiple times over in the first place. But it's somehow easier to hate the person that makes a few more bucks than you, than it is to hate the money hoarders that control the lives of so many of us.
    • benjaminsuch 4y ago
      This has nothing to do with being brainwashed. Couldn't we say the same about your stance? Yes they are people, but a company is NOT responsible for them. Where does this come from? An employee has an employment relationship and not a friendship and while it certainly sucks to be let go, it's not the company who is the bad guy. From what I see, you can't take off your personal morale views from business decisions. > Meanwhile the rich fucks are still getting richer even with the "risk" they take. What even has that anything to do with what parent is saying? Or the topic we are discussing? Is in your opinion no company is allowed to let go people, except if they pamper them with a big severance package? Sorry, but your post reads very childish and naive.
      • throwawayhello1 4y ago
        >Where does this come from? Have you talked to anyone from HR in the past decade???? It's all "we're one big family" this, "bring your whole self to work" that. The company trying to brand itself as a good guy and not as a money making vehicle goes both ways.
        • benjaminsuch 4y ago
  • TheHappyOddish 4y ago
    Seems to be a weird American tech thing. In the real world, people lose their jobs, do their notice period (if any) and take steps towards securing a new one. For whatever reason, American tech workers appear to think they should get 5-10x the median income or more, also get stock in the company, also have flexible work/life hours and also be "looked after" (what does this mean? More money?) after they're fired. They're clearly in a bubble.
• 7e 4y ago
  It’s not even a great boast. Their success is due to the Federal Reserve. Oh, sweet summer child.
  • spir 4y ago
    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 climate.
    • User23 4y ago
      YC's success is due to a combination of luck, skill, and yes, the most juiced bull market in a century. That last one is less of a factor than one might think though. Everyone has benefitted from easy money. So if were a primary factor then every early stage investor would have a 6% unicorn hit rate and that's clearly not true. I'm not an insider and I don't personally know any of their principals. But I have followed their work and read what they write, and I am absolutely certain they are considerably above the mean when it comes to intellect and operational ability. I also suspect they have benefitted to some greater or lesser extent that is unknown to me from connections in government. But like it or not thats part of how the game works, so if you want to be at the top of the game you have to play ball.
      • HervalFreire 4y ago
        Connections in the government? Care to elaborate? How would a government connection increase your success in terms of investing in the right start up?
        • greatwave1 4y ago
          There are countless ways that government connections could be very useful if you're trying to ensure the success of portfolio companies, especially if they're operating on regulatory frontiers. Nudging policymakers in a favorable direction on legislation that could effect your portfolio is the most obvious, but there are tons of other examples as well. I'm not arguing that this is a primary driver of YC's success (I don't know the extent, if any, of their government influence), but you'd be silly to think that political connections can't benefit an investor.
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
  It seems like it is taboo to even discuss the collapse of the so-called "tech" industry. The people invested in it appear to police the dialogue online, which is not something I remember before the dot-com collapse. (Of course, in the early 00's we did not have the same level of manipulation through data collection, tracking, re-ordering of results, comment voting systems, etc.). The attempts of the "tech" believers to "argue" with simple questions or the presentation of facts is hilarious. Too many years of "zero" interest rates has resulted in some warped thinking.
  • mmahemoff 4y ago
    However, calling it a “collapse” is taking it to the other extreme. We’re not going back to the cave age.
    • carlitossway 4y ago
      It is disingenuous, at best, to equate collapse to "going back to the cave age". If your house's roof collapses you do not end up in a cave. You either pay a small fortune to have it fixed or, if you lack the wealth to do so, sell it at a loss to someone who can. Tech/IT is too valuable to be ditched altogether, so we are not going back even to the 80s or 90s. But collapse is appropriate for the kind of lean times ahead: companies getting bought on the cheap, investments evaporating, projects shelved, jobs (or even careers) lost.
  • cpursley 4y ago
    It’s not just the cheap money, it’s across the board woke language policing. While we should all strive to be more inclusive, it shouldn’t be at the expense of honest and clear communication.
    • cpursley 4y ago
      Just a random example, but Delta airline now calls turbulence “rough air” as if that’s more reassuring… I’d rather be spoken to like an adult.
• voytec 4y ago
  > Wow. First time I've seen a layoff post that starts with boasting success. Something similar with IBM recently: "IBM posts biggest annual sales increase in more than a decade, announces 3,900 layoffs" [1] [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ibm-posts-biggest-annual-sales-increase-in-more-than-a-decade-announces-layoffs-11674682960 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ibm-posts-biggest-annual-s...
• joosters 4y ago
  They can't even bring themselves to say the words 'laying off', 'redundancies' or even the milder 'letting go'. The staff are merely 'impacted' by this change in focus! Execs just feel like they need to retreat to the safety of euphemisms in these kind of announcements, after first boasting about how well the company is doing, of course.
  • synu 4y ago
    Changes happened somewhere as a result of something happening and, presumably, someone somewhere was impacted in some sense.
  • jongjong 4y ago
    Well at least they didn't use the word 'inconvenienced'.
  • chemmail 4y ago
    This is a good playbook. When we have to sell the house and move to a trailer, i will be using it. "There will be some exciting changes around here."
    • joosters 4y ago
      You could also use the cliché favoured by startups, 'Our incredible journey', normally used in a blogpost when they fold or get bought out.
  • Ralfp 4y ago
    Its called HR because you are a resource.
  • nirui 4y ago
    If I would guess, this kind of wording reflects a view which is quite common in Silicon Valley companies: an employee is an (human) asset for the company to utilize. Once the skill of the employee is no longer needed, they can be dispose of. If I may guess it further, this view might be shared across many high-paying industries. Tech companies in China had similar mass layoffs in the past few years, which prompted many highly skilled tech workers to seek formal opportunities in state controlled companies/entities. Why state controlled companies you might ask, well, because those companies rarely perform this type of layoffs. Once you're one of their formal employees (not employee of contract), you're set safe for life. And even if some "difficult change" has to happen, those state companies will try to compensate the effected workers with other (often equal, sometimes better) opportunities. I know Chinese state controlled companies are heavily criticized by western view points, but you have to admit, they treats their own people fine.
• tasuki 4y ago
  It is not boasting, it is part of the explanation that YC is good at early stage investing. They did not say how their late-stage investing turned out, but supposedly not as well, and that's why they won't do it anymore.
  • jillesvangurp 4y ago
    Early stage investing is the right mix of low cost and high yield. Most of the their startups are failures and duds but it doesn't matter because they don't cost that much and there are enough that do work out. Later stage investments are still quite risky but now you are losing millions when they fail. So you are more dependent on the handful that don't. Also, late stage investment in Silicon Valley means dumping money in real estate, very expensive executives, engineers, etc. Who then take the money and job hop to the next startup as soon as things start failing. Now that interest rates are going up, the financial risks have increased and the follow up rounds are drying up a bit (less IPOs, series B, C, etc.). Meaning the cost is higher and exits are becoming a bit more rare and less lucrative. And also, there is less chance of offloading not quite profitable late stage investments to more conservative investors. A lot of these unicorns still fail. They just fail a bit later after early investors cash in. Somebody pays for that. Usually not the early investors.
  • newaccount2023 4y ago
    > it is part of the explanation that YC is good at early stage investing. no, they are good at giving money to people investing implies ROI
• lowmagnet 4y ago
  If they're so successful, how are they then not moving people into new roles in the company's front end investment group?
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• kensai 4y ago
  They have "graduated"... :-/