1. The risk is you've wasted your time being underpaid at a shitty organization run by people who you can't really learn anything from.
2. It's not close to competitive, YC backed companies are cash starved before they raise their first real round.
3. It's more fun if things go well (1/10 chance even after you are YC backed)
4. Odds of this are astronomically low and even lower outside the Fed's ZIRP.
I've worked at multiple size organizations too except for pre seed/seed companies because it seems awful - the Founders are just some random Berkeley kids without product market fit. All the people who I know who are in the same space would never take that deal. What percentage of VCs or Founders do you think take that deal?
Nope, the best way to learn to start your own thing is to start your own thing - I know several successful YC founders who would never join a random YC startup to be an early employee since the risk/return is so bad. A lot of YC founders are random 20 something who may not even have a network, or very often they are terrible mentors.
These same successful YC founders hired a bunch of people saying the same stuff you are saying even though they would never take that deal. It's stuff you say to the plebs (to hire them for cheap) but the social proof/networks are better at late stage startups and FAANG.
Early employees have to work like crazy and get very little upside for the risk they take. It's literally the worst deal you can take, and in this economy it's just a bad idea - I imagine most of the candidates at WaaS right now are college grads who couldn't find a job.
Why would Indian media be anti Hindu when the almost all of the 1. Electorate, 2. Government, 3. Corporations, 4. Media houses, 5. Rich are Hindu? I'd love to hear your explanation for that one. I don't disagree with your first point.
It's pretty funny to me how quickly all the comments are saying this is a conspiracy against WFH. Maybe at least entertain the thought that on aggregate people are less productive w/ WFH?
IMO there are a still a ton of benefits outside productivity such as life satisfaction, housing costs and maybe this can cure the fertility decline that make it worth the productivity decline.
India and China are awful examples for your case, they aren't homogenous and have quotas for minorities that make affirmative action look like a joke. America is much more laissez faire about racial equality (which is a bad thing imo)
Bloomberg and Reuters for financial stories that are relevant to the markets. They have a major financial incentive to not mess it up i.e. their customers will cancel their 10,20k/yr/person subscriptions.
Sure, but clearly a lot of people are taking it. For me personally it means 25k in more discretionary spend, a lot of which I'm using to travel the world w/ my remote job. Also if this exodus continues taxes are just going to go up (they already are on the payroll side in NYC to fund the MTA) to make up the deficit.
The value proposition for living in those places isn't very good for high earners, if you make enough money the taxes alone are enough to live in TX, FL and get your fix of NY, CA from traveling.
Well, you are being Xenophobic but it's not thought provoking. Violent crime has been higher in the US than most third world countries my whole life, we are actually trending safer since the 80s. This is not an immigration/3rd world country thing, it's an American thing. 3rd world countries are just poorer but most of them are really safe.
We need a new Federal agency to regulate virtual romantic partners (VRPs) - we can also use this platform to educate citizens on ideal behavior such as reducing their carbon emissions and becoming vegan. We can make individual's VRPs reward them for these improved social practices. This is a great opportunity to s̵u̵b̵j̵u̵g̵a̵t̵e̵ improve society!
To be fair Zuckerberg has changed his messaging from "Metaverse not matter how much it costs" to "Year of Efficiency". He also has complete control of Meta so shareholders are need to take everything he says seriously.
The US government is competent but really, really slow, this nativism/anti-immigrant trend will disappear when we actually start falling behind China but that's not for several years.
Looks like there is a price - otherwise people wouldn't be moving here in droves. Also Houston being full of close minded bigots is hilarious to me, it's far more racially integrated than NYC. You seem to be the one that's a bigot
Starting a company in India is hellish - what the h1b backlog really does is push migration to UK, Australia, UAE, Canada etc. Emigration from India is just going to go up over time - higher education in India in aggregate is awful too (IITs represent <0.01% of students), demand for studying abroad is exploding.
Yikes? That's what has definitely happened - these companies don't want EEOC complaints. The layoffs were audited to not be racially biased - which is a good thing.
My point is that both ideas are absurd and racist - you claiming that a countries' situation is because of low IQ. You do realize that if you IQ tested people in Europe 100 years ago the results would be godawful right? Believing in genetic superiority/inferiority is extremely low IQ - how do you isolate the million other factors?
I could argue European's have very low IQs relative to access to resources/wealth - it would be equally stupid and racist but I would have better evidence than you to back it up just by looking at how much they get outcompeted by their Indian origin fellow citizens.
You are stretching the word often, most people in the ICU are close to the end of their life. A lot of people don't realize but most of the time if you needed to spend weeks in an ICU you are probably not "living" in a dignified way. Almost all ICU doctors/nurses I've talked to would rather have a DNR in their old age than live like that.
I disagree, spending on these things is growing at 2x GDP growth so yes more of the pie is going to this. What I'm suggesting is that at some point the pie isn't big enough for this. No matter what happens eventually standard of care will roll back/fewer people will be covered etc. Ideally we can innovate out of this situation but after spending 8 years working in healthcare I've gotten cynical about it.
Because of demographics this is a problem we will have to confront regardless - do you think medicare/medicaid spending will become 80% of government spending?
It's politically toxic to discuss but a ton of money goes to keeping people not dead (not really alive either). You could give a lot more people medicare/medicaid if we let a 90 yr old with dementia/diatebetes/etc. pass with dignity.