3 ms·

You've bought into the startup porn a little too much. YC is a startup mill -- they make a TINY investment, and it doesn't matter if most of them fail. The fail

You've bought into the startup porn a little too much. YC is a startup mill -- they make a TINY investment, and it doesn't matter if most of them fail. The failed founders make a HUGE investment, and its on their head that the majority of the cost of failure sits. YC floats on a bubble of spit and polish and politics. They want people like you to buy into it, because they need to take advantage of people like you.

michaelochurch 13y ago
I don't think that's the right way to think of Y Combinator. It's Harvard++. What incubators and VCs and tech press sell, much more than money or exposure, is legitimacy. Once you're legitimized, you don't need to worry as much about money because it will seek you out. Being YC means you're already legitimate (it was the first of its kind, and is therefore highly prestigious) and require almost no further capitalization from YC itself.
btilly 13y ago
You're the one who doesn't understand what is going on here. The failed founders are adults who walk into the project with risks understood. Yes, a large percentage fail. However the ones who fail wind up with invaluable experience, an excellent item on the resume, and a network of connections to help them either try again or get a job. This is not a horrible downside if nobody is depending on you. As for me, personally, I'm a married middle aged man who has been watching this from a distance. I have plenty of friends who have entered, gone through ups and downs, and mostly wound up reasonably well off. Unfortunately I have family commitments that have made the risk profile wrong for me. I also sat out the dot com crash and watched a lot of people lose a lot there. I've also seen a lot of people think they were entering the startup world without a clue about what they were doing. They go through the motions, then painfully lose their shirts. Anyone competent develops a radar for those unfolding disasters. I feel sorry for them, but learned a long time ago the dangers of trying to rescue people from self-inflicted injuries.
- anonyfuss 13y ago
  > The failed founders are adults who walk into the project with risks understood. Most of the YC founders are barely out of college. > However the ones who fail wind up with invaluable experience, an excellent item on the resume, and a network of connections to help them either try again or get a job. I'm curious, have you looked into "where are they now" for YC startups? eg, http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/27/y-combinator-demo-day-march-2012/ http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/27/y-combinator-demo-day-marc... You're really just pushing the startup religion; that somehow inexperienced people who failed at getting traction now have a resume bullet point and a great network? If that's true, then it just lends credence to the original article's point that we've replaced quantifiable quality with politics.
  - btilly 13y ago
    Let's compare. At their age I went to graduate school in math. Which was a longer time commitment, at lower likely salaries, which left me with no real employable skills. I do not see a failed startup at that age as a worse economic choice than graduate school was for me.
    - anonyfuss 13y ago
      Losing 1-3 years of career development by working at a failed startup with other 20-somethings from whom you have nothing to learn is a very expensive career choice -- unless we do actually live in a bubble of vapid startups in which actually being good at your job (whether it's programming, business development, or otherwise) doesn't actually matter. That's not even factoring in the broader opportunity costs, actual cash outlay, etc.

michaelochurch 13y ago

I don't think that's the right way to think of Y Combinator. It's Harvard++. What incubators and VCs and tech press sell, much more than money or exposure, is legitimacy. Once you're legitimized, you don't need to worry as much about money because it will seek you out. Being YC means you're already legitimate (it was the first of its kind, and is therefore highly prestigious) and require almost no further capitalization from YC itself.

btilly 13y ago

You're the one who doesn't understand what is going on here. The failed founders are adults who walk into the project with risks understood. Yes, a large percentage fail. However the ones who fail wind up with invaluable experience, an excellent item on the resume, and a network of connections to help them either try again or get a job. This is not a horrible downside if nobody is depending on you. As for me, personally, I'm a married middle aged man who has been watching this from a distance. I have plenty of friends who have entered, gone through ups and downs, and mostly wound up reasonably well off. Unfortunately I have family commitments that have made the risk profile wrong for me. I also sat out the dot com crash and watched a lot of people lose a lot there. I've also seen a lot of people think they were entering the startup world without a clue about what they were doing. They go through the motions, then painfully lose their shirts. Anyone competent develops a radar for those unfolding disasters. I feel sorry for them, but learned a long time ago the dangers of trying to rescue people from self-inflicted injuries.

anonyfuss 13y ago
> The failed founders are adults who walk into the project with risks understood. Most of the YC founders are barely out of college. > However the ones who fail wind up with invaluable experience, an excellent item on the resume, and a network of connections to help them either try again or get a job. I'm curious, have you looked into "where are they now" for YC startups? eg, http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/27/y-combinator-demo-day-march-2012/ http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/27/y-combinator-demo-day-marc... You're really just pushing the startup religion; that somehow inexperienced people who failed at getting traction now have a resume bullet point and a great network? If that's true, then it just lends credence to the original article's point that we've replaced quantifiable quality with politics.
- btilly 13y ago
  Let's compare. At their age I went to graduate school in math. Which was a longer time commitment, at lower likely salaries, which left me with no real employable skills. I do not see a failed startup at that age as a worse economic choice than graduate school was for me.
  - anonyfuss 13y ago
    Losing 1-3 years of career development by working at a failed startup with other 20-somethings from whom you have nothing to learn is a very expensive career choice -- unless we do actually live in a bubble of vapid startups in which actually being good at your job (whether it's programming, business development, or otherwise) doesn't actually matter. That's not even factoring in the broader opportunity costs, actual cash outlay, etc.