4 ms·

Right. Nothing against this company and all the best to them, but what is the larger narrative this story is building? Its really exploitative to tell young peo

Right. Nothing against this company and all the best to them, but what is the larger narrative this story is building? Its really exploitative to tell young people that they should come to one of the most expensive places in the world and sleep in their cars so they can have the privilege of giving equity to Y Combinator. It's something really dark in California's culture (I have lived my entire life here). From '49 to Hollywood to now Silicon Valley, its a reverberating call for people to come here and get rich quick. And in any gold rush, its always better to be the ones selling the pics and shovels than the ones buying them.

birken 12y ago
This is what the press does. The median or average case isn't interesting, so they find interesting stories that are outliers and write about them. Is it illustrative of what normal people can and should expect? No. Is it useful in any way for somebody who wants to start a business? No. Is it interesting? Yes. The press' job doesn't involve building a useful narrative for people, it is just to write interesting stories. Changing the press is not going to happen, but if you disagree with this story, I highly recommend flagging it and if enough people agree that will drop it off the HN homepage.
- tatterdemalion 12y ago
  I think the only reason to flag it would be the title, which is bad clickbait. The narrative problem goes deeper than the press's interest in rags-to-riches stories; journalists are not the only ones telling people that if they too would give up their comfort and security, they could be uplifted by the grace of VC investments.
  - dang 12y ago
    Have you guys not noticed that the article was not written by a journalist?
coralreef 12y ago
I think a lot of the time people miss the positive side of these stories. It's not just a story of impoverishment, its also story of adventure. If you were going to backpack around the world, you're certainly going to be sleeping somewhere dumpy, eating poorly, dealing with crazy situations, etc. But thats okay, because you've accepted that you're trading off comfort for some unique experience. When I was a teenager, my friend would crash at my house and we'd just hack on our websites, play computer games, and occasionally step outside. For weeks at a time, that's all we'd do. And honestly it was some of the most fun and fulfillment I've ever had. You don't really get to do that as an adult, except in extreme cases like when you try to build a startup. Life isn't about necessarily optimizing for comfort or salary. Sometimes its more fulfilling to do what you want to do, where you want to do it, on your terms.
- tatterdemalion 12y ago
  I absolutely agree, but people need an honest appraisal of the situation. You should be making these sorts of decisions because this - in the moment - is the lifestyle you want, not because you believe it will make you a founder of the next WhatsApp.
  - coralreef 12y ago
    I'm a bit more laissez-faire about the messaging behind these stories. Your assumption is that young, naive founders are being suckered and exploited by the perpetuation of these stories, because they don't need to live such extreme lifestyles to be successful. This is partially true. But we already know that we all can't be winners, and most ideas will be losers anyway. In our subgroup of grinders, I don't know that there is a significant statistical difference in the outcome vs the normal population of startups. But heuristically, we know that people willing to put themselves through more pain are objectively tougher, and harder to kill. Traits that probably are pretty good to have for a startup entrepreneur. Thus, I don't think its such a bad thing for entrepreneurs to do, even if its for the wrong reason. We don't need to protect anyone from themselves, startups are such an extreme experience that they'll quickly know whether or not they're happy with their decision.
jeffdavis 12y ago
I could just as easily say that you are building a narrative wherein people should become dependent on modern material goods (many of which did not exist decades ago and most of which would be considered frivolous luxuries 100 years ago), and therefore always forced to work on someone else's idea. It might be more clear if you would describe utopia for us. If someone wants to try a zillion ideas without answering to anyone, who should pay them in the meantime? And would that money be enough to live comfortably in one of the most sought-after areas in the world?
- walshemj 12y ago
  100 years ago frivolous appliances like washing machines where unesercery because you had a maid to do the heavy work
  - jeffdavis 12y ago
    What's your point? The author who was sleeping in tight quarters also had access to washing machines at a laundromat, and did not require a servant. So what fundamental, basic aspect of life are the authors giving up by temporarily lowering their cost of living? Is whatever they are giving up so important that it undermines the freedom that they gain? Does it make it impossible to join the "normal" life later?
    - walshemj 12y ago
      that the so called "material" goods allow us a better quality if life than our grandparents and great grandparents.

birken 12y ago

This is what the press does. The median or average case isn't interesting, so they find interesting stories that are outliers and write about them. Is it illustrative of what normal people can and should expect? No. Is it useful in any way for somebody who wants to start a business? No. Is it interesting? Yes. The press' job doesn't involve building a useful narrative for people, it is just to write interesting stories. Changing the press is not going to happen, but if you disagree with this story, I highly recommend flagging it and if enough people agree that will drop it off the HN homepage.

tatterdemalion 12y ago
I think the only reason to flag it would be the title, which is bad clickbait. The narrative problem goes deeper than the press's interest in rags-to-riches stories; journalists are not the only ones telling people that if they too would give up their comfort and security, they could be uplifted by the grace of VC investments.
- dang 12y ago
  Have you guys not noticed that the article was not written by a journalist?

coralreef 12y ago

I think a lot of the time people miss the positive side of these stories. It's not just a story of impoverishment, its also story of adventure. If you were going to backpack around the world, you're certainly going to be sleeping somewhere dumpy, eating poorly, dealing with crazy situations, etc. But thats okay, because you've accepted that you're trading off comfort for some unique experience. When I was a teenager, my friend would crash at my house and we'd just hack on our websites, play computer games, and occasionally step outside. For weeks at a time, that's all we'd do. And honestly it was some of the most fun and fulfillment I've ever had. You don't really get to do that as an adult, except in extreme cases like when you try to build a startup. Life isn't about necessarily optimizing for comfort or salary. Sometimes its more fulfilling to do what you want to do, where you want to do it, on your terms.

tatterdemalion 12y ago
I absolutely agree, but people need an honest appraisal of the situation. You should be making these sorts of decisions because this - in the moment - is the lifestyle you want, not because you believe it will make you a founder of the next WhatsApp.
- coralreef 12y ago
  I'm a bit more laissez-faire about the messaging behind these stories. Your assumption is that young, naive founders are being suckered and exploited by the perpetuation of these stories, because they don't need to live such extreme lifestyles to be successful. This is partially true. But we already know that we all can't be winners, and most ideas will be losers anyway. In our subgroup of grinders, I don't know that there is a significant statistical difference in the outcome vs the normal population of startups. But heuristically, we know that people willing to put themselves through more pain are objectively tougher, and harder to kill. Traits that probably are pretty good to have for a startup entrepreneur. Thus, I don't think its such a bad thing for entrepreneurs to do, even if its for the wrong reason. We don't need to protect anyone from themselves, startups are such an extreme experience that they'll quickly know whether or not they're happy with their decision.

jeffdavis 12y ago

I could just as easily say that you are building a narrative wherein people should become dependent on modern material goods (many of which did not exist decades ago and most of which would be considered frivolous luxuries 100 years ago), and therefore always forced to work on someone else's idea. It might be more clear if you would describe utopia for us. If someone wants to try a zillion ideas without answering to anyone, who should pay them in the meantime? And would that money be enough to live comfortably in one of the most sought-after areas in the world?

walshemj 12y ago
100 years ago frivolous appliances like washing machines where unesercery because you had a maid to do the heavy work
- jeffdavis 12y ago
  What's your point? The author who was sleeping in tight quarters also had access to washing machines at a laundromat, and did not require a servant. So what fundamental, basic aspect of life are the authors giving up by temporarily lowering their cost of living? Is whatever they are giving up so important that it undermines the freedom that they gain? Does it make it impossible to join the "normal" life later?
  - walshemj 12y ago
    that the so called "material" goods allow us a better quality if life than our grandparents and great grandparents.