4 ms·

Why is my family less important than your product? This kind of micro thinking, writ large, is how we end up with busted policy at a macro level.

pc86 12y ago
The other side of that coin: Why should a business owner give you 30% of their runway to raise your child when it could be used to achieve market fit and reach profitability? What if it takes that last 30% to do so?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- kchoudhu 12y ago
  Ah yes, the ticking time bomb. In this one hyperspecific scenario (startups with a limited runway|ticking nuclear bomb), this policy of (giving parental leave|not having access to torture) could prove to be bad because (the startup could fail|a nuclear bomb could destroy us all). Therefore, we should abandon (paid parental leave|our policy against torture) in the general case. If the cost of carrying an employee -- not a cofounder! -- for three months (how much is that? 50K? 60K?) is going to kill the startup, you a) probably shouldn't have hired the person to begin with and b) don't have much of an startup to begin with. It's continually amazing to me how, in a capital environment awash with cheap funds and outrageous valuations, this kind of cheapness pervades everyone's thought processes. Stop thinking like broke college students, and start thinking like the people of substantial affairs you claim to be.
sokoloff 12y ago
It isn't to you, nor should it be. It is to your colleagues, to the founders, and to the investors, all of whom have a significant vested interest (no pun intended) in seeing the company succeed and have all taken various kinds of risks to invest in the company and product. Simply put: the product/company will be feeding my family in the success case.
railsdude 12y ago
If the company folds, everyone else loses their job. So, why is your family more important than everyone else's?

pc86 12y ago

The other side of that coin: Why should a business owner give you 30% of their runway to raise your child when it could be used to achieve market fit and reach profitability? What if it takes that last 30% to do so?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
kchoudhu 12y ago
Ah yes, the ticking time bomb. In this one hyperspecific scenario (startups with a limited runway|ticking nuclear bomb), this policy of (giving parental leave|not having access to torture) could prove to be bad because (the startup could fail|a nuclear bomb could destroy us all). Therefore, we should abandon (paid parental leave|our policy against torture) in the general case. If the cost of carrying an employee -- not a cofounder! -- for three months (how much is that? 50K? 60K?) is going to kill the startup, you a) probably shouldn't have hired the person to begin with and b) don't have much of an startup to begin with. It's continually amazing to me how, in a capital environment awash with cheap funds and outrageous valuations, this kind of cheapness pervades everyone's thought processes. Stop thinking like broke college students, and start thinking like the people of substantial affairs you claim to be.

sokoloff 12y ago

It isn't to you, nor should it be. It is to your colleagues, to the founders, and to the investors, all of whom have a significant vested interest (no pun intended) in seeing the company succeed and have all taken various kinds of risks to invest in the company and product. Simply put: the product/company will be feeding my family in the success case.

railsdude 12y ago

If the company folds, everyone else loses their job. So, why is your family more important than everyone else's?