Hacker News Reader

Comment by samtheDamned | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

If you were getting paid for 2 years working on a project that doesn't pan out, that's you not taking the risk.

"Getting laid off" is not a risk. Wasting 2 years for nothing while bleeding income _is_ risk.

If you don't agree, then why would you work for an employer when you could take your own risk?

If you have the luxury of a safety net or in-demand skillset, then yes, getting laid off is not a risk. If you have less means, and the costs (both monetary and social/emotional) of needing to relocate to find another job turn into something much more daunting. In that kind of situation, loss of a job is a very negative event, much more than, say, a 10% decline of a wealthy person's portfolio would be.

re why work for an employer when you could take your own risk: generally speaking the odds of losing a job due to layoff are still less bad than the odds of a bootstrapped business failing, even if attempting to start a business was a realistic option, which it is not for many people.

Losing a job is a negative event, the parent is not disputing that. The parent is disputing that there is minimal risk for an employee, they are getting paid month to month for their work.

California has very generous unemployment benefits. I also strongly doubt any former YC-employee will have a very hard time finding a next job.

Except it's not upper management bleeding income, it's the company. They still get their golden parachutes and massive bonuses, then they downsize other parts of the company in order to claw back the costs. They don't have to worry about losing their healthcare or having to survive. Hell they don't even have to care about keeping the company alive, they can just straight up kill it and still reap the benefits like we've seen with Sears and the scumbag Eddie Lampert.

That's the risk. They destroy the bonuses and benefits of their workers to fuel their own rat race.

Employees also usually get bonuses, and stock options. Your point is possibly true for companies as big as FAANG ones, but for a startup invested in by YC, it's highly unlikely the founders are getting any real bonuses. They might get some money about in series B or C, but that's already less than 99.9% of startups that get to that stage probably.

You are simplying the situation by thinking about everyone as successful unicorns. Most companies and founders are not.

The employee working under someone and doing work according to their requirements. The employee should not bear the risks of the decisions.

(naturally this is all meant for F500 companies which post a lot of profits, start ups need a different mindset.)

If it were “for nothing” you might have a point.

So are you saying that, in the multi-million VC-fuelled start-up climate of the last couple decades, founders haven't made sure to pay themselves at least the same salary as their employees?

If you are, I'm not buying it. And if you're not, i.e. if you admit that they did, your point falls to pieces.

> the people who make the decisions

Which includes the employees. They want the cool tech, the stock options, the prestige of working at FAANG or some new startup, the all-you-can-eat cafeterias... the price of working in a fast-moving, always-changing industry is that you're likely to be on the receiving end of some of those changes.

Want to be protected from layoffs? Take a salary cut and work for the government. Or be the most incredible software engineer at a boring as hell credit union or community college.

I certainly don't wish for anyone to be laid off and I know, from personal experience, that it can be tough. But by choosing the startup or FAANG world and enjoying all the benefits, you're practicing guaranteeing that you'll be affected by some adverse outcome, somewhere along the line. Accept it and move on.

You have a point.

It also seems the job wouldn't have existed without someone willing to take the risk? I myself weigh risk in my decisions frequently. I am full aware that a layoff (or firing) is possible every time I accept a job. I'm also fully aware of what my employers obligations are to me. I'm not sure I've ever felt that my employer 'owed' me more than that. Maybe my life would be better if I did?

I think the thing that makes the recent layoffs so controversial is their context.

Layoffs on this scale are understandable, maybe even justifiable, in the case of a 2008 style market crash.

Layoffs on this scale do not feel understandable or justifiable given that many of the companies are extremely profitable, were hiring during, and have continued to hire afterwards. Add to that the prevalence of stock buybacks and the sheer scale of recent hiring and the question becomes why should the employees be the ones to feel the consequence of this behaviour?

The often billionaire CEO tearing up over how hard it was for him to fire thousands of people but "is using it as an opportunity to take responsibility for his mistakes" is simply the cherry on the cake.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

I don't have to; where I live, we already have one. So yeah, sure, easy for me to post snarky comments. But at least not quite as useless as posting comments that are not only snarky but also idiotic, like comments to the effect that one shouldn't have a union. So what are you doing to start one?

Funny how you use these words beginning with Uni... On the whole, they remind me of something, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

> Expenses are passed down on the employees, and the ruling class reaps the reward

Employees get paid a salary to work. That's it. That's the agreement. There are no expenses passed down to employees - you're just making that up.

The misery gets passed down. The abuse and shitty situations and complete lack of power -- that gets passed down.

Sometimes the expenses get passed down, but I'll agree that's rare. However I have had employers bill me for my uniforms, and I ain't talkin about the military.

Employees get paid to work, but are abused. Sure they can leave, but things aren't always that simple. Things are normalized.

Just like you can "just leave" an abusive relationship, but instead much of the system is abusive to their employees.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com