[HN Gopher] Y Combinator's Message to Founders ___________________________________________________________________ Y Combinator's Message to Founders Author : thesausageking Score : 370 points Date : 2022-05-19 14:50 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | gz5 wrote: | Also an opportunity: | | 1. Good people will be more available (there will be public | company cuts and private cuts, as well as resignations, | especially people working for companies in the Series B to Series | D range (who raised those rounds at the old multiples) who will | need massive growth/patience for their options to grow into the | new multiples). | | 2. As businesses cut costs, those are opportunities for products | and services which enable efficiency. | axlee wrote: | > As businesses cut costs, those are opportunities for products | and services which enable efficiency. | | This is key. Innovation aside, if you can simply provide | comparable services at a lower price point, the downturn just | increased your customer base tenfolds: nobody is looking too | much at cutting costs when things are looking up. Find niches | that got too greedy over the past few years, and undercut them. | daniel-cussen wrote: | That's happening to me, I'm peddling the exact same thing at | half the cost, and it's verifiable. You can just check that | it's correct in a second with a laptop, after computing it | for several hours on thousands of machines. | | https://www.fgemm.com, coming soon. | gls2ro wrote: | I think this sounds good when you think about a very small | nieche, but if you think about global market, then in a | recession as many companies go bankrupt, then there are few | chances to find cheap providers so that what you offer will | stay at lower cost. | | I hope to be wrong about this as I would like very much to | see some lower prices in some areas. | thecleaner wrote: | Is it possible to raise a series A before reaching product market | fit ? I thought it's more like you raise a Series A to scale up ? | Why would someone give you 20M dollars to just do research ? | Never did this myself btw do maybe all these questions are tosh. | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | In the fundraising environment of the past few years, well- | connected companies could raise a series A before even having a | commercial product. | (https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/17/anyscale-ray-project- | distr... is the example I remember most clearly) | dredmorbius wrote: | https://nitter.kavin.rocks/refsrc/status/1527238287471292417 | | OCR'd text: | | 4:11 | | Greetings YC Founders, | | During this week we've done office hours with a large number of | YC companies. They reached out to ask whether they should change | their plans around spending, runway, hiring, and funding rounds | based on the current state of public markets. What we've told | them is that economic downturns often become huge opportunities | for the founders who quickly change their mindset, plan ahead, | and make sure their company survives. Here are some thoughts to | consider when making your plans: | | 1. No one cannot predict how bad the economy will get, but things | don't look good. | | 2. The safe move is to plan for the worst. If the current | situation is as bad as the last two economic downturns, the best | way to prepare is to cut costs and extend your runway within the | next 30 days. Your goal should be to get to Default Alive.[1] | | 3. If you don't have the runway to reach default alive and your | existing investors or new investors are willing to give you more | money right now (even on the same terms as your last round) you | should strongly consider taking it. | | 4. Regardless of your ability to fundraise, it's your | responsibility to ensure your company will survive if you cannot | raise money for the next 24 months. | | 5. Understand that the poor public market performance of tech | companies significantly impacts VC investing. VCs will have a | much harder time raising money and their LPs will expect more | investment discipline. As a result, during economic downturns | even the top tier VC funds with a lot of money slow down their | deployment of capital (lesser funds often stop investing or die). | This causes less competition between funds for deals which | results in lower valuations, lower round sizes, and many fewer | deals completed. In these situations, investors also reserve more | capital to backstop their best performing companies, which | further reduces the number of new financings. | | This slow down will have a disproportionate impact on | international companies, asset heavy companies, low margin | companies, hardtech, and other companies with high burn long time | to revenue. | | _Note that the numbers of meetings investors take don 't | decrease in proportion to the reduction in total investment. It's | easy to be fooled into thinking a fund is actively investing when | it is not._ | | 6. For those of you who have started your company within the last | 5 years, question what you believe to be the normal fundraising | environment. Your fundraising experience was most likely not | normal and future fundraises will be much more difficult. | | 7. If you are post Series A and pre-product market fit,[2] don't | expect another round to happen at all until you have obviously | hit product market fit. The Series A Milestones[3] we publish | here might even turn out to be a bit too low. | | 8. If your plan is to raise money in the next 6-12 months, you | might be raising at the peak of the downturn. Remember that your | chances of success are extremely low even if your company is | doing well. We recommend you change your plan. | | 9. Remember, that many of your competitors will not plan well, | maintain high burn, and only figure out they are screwed when | they try to raise their next round. You can often pick up | significant market share in an economic downturn by just staying | alive. | | 10. For more thoughts watch this video we've created: Save Your | Startup during an Economic Downturn.[4] | | Best, | | YC | | ________________________________ | | Notes: | | Presumed links (I do not have a copy of the original message). | See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31436244 | | 1. Default Alive: http://www.paulgraham.com/aord.html | | 2. Pre-product market fit: See: | https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/ycs-essential-startup-advic... | "do things that don't scale: remain small/nimble" | | 3. Series A Milestones: Presumably private. | | 4. Save Your Startup during an Economic Downturn: | https://yewtu.be/watch?v=0OVSTWozvfY?vq=hd720 | ilamont wrote: | > This slow down will have a disproportionate impact on | international companies, asset heavy companies, low margin | companies, hardtech, and other companies with high burn long | time to revenue. | | Wonder how things will shake out for biotech. I know biotech | investors have long timeline, but surely they are feeling | pressure too ("LPs will expect more investment discipline") | dredmorbius wrote: | Much of that depends on how long and deep the recession goes | on, and the extent to which investors are forced to sell even | high-quality assets to meet cash obligations. | | Bad investments driving down good is one of the perverse | dynamics of panics that J.K. Galbraith notes in _The Great | Crash: 1929_ : | | _The great investment trust boom had ended in a unique | manifestation of Gresham 's Law in which the bad stocks were | driving out the good._ | | (Chapter VI) | quadcore wrote: | Layperson here, I didn't know we were in an economic crisis that | bad, is it global? What are the reasons? | rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: | Inflation and interest rates are rising (for lots of reasons), | which means money is getting much more expensive. This means | that high-growth companies and unprofitable companies are going | to get burned hard in the near future, because their very | existence relies on access to cheap money. | | The wider economy isn't terrible. Inflation is rising and GDP | is pulling back a little bit, but unemployment is low, and | wages are mostly flat. | | But the NASDAQ (comprised of mostly tech stocks) is down 26%+ | year-to-date and falling. People on this forum mostly work in | software, and this downturn will almost certainly shift the | balance of power from unprofitable high-growth companies | (especially crypto, Web3, etc.) to companies that actually make | real money. | gen220 wrote: | There's a trend of global economic inflation, caused by supply | issues in energy (oil, gas in all forms) related to the war in | Ukraine, supply issues more broadly related to a hangover from | COVID's supply/demand shocks. | | Interest rates are rising, to appease inflation. | | As the interest rate goes up, allocators of capital have less | appetite for risky allocations. This makes access to capital | for VC firms becomes more competitive. This makes access to | capital for "startups" becomes more competitive. | | There's also a bigger macrotrend, which is another hangover | from COVID: investment poured into the tech sector, which was | booming during COVID. Investors over-bullishly priced-in the | idea that this boom was, in fact, a new baseline or indicative | of future exponential growth. As we recover from COVID, these | pricings are increasingly revealed to be wrong as companies | generally report post-COVID numbers that are closer to pre- | COVID numbers. | | This is bad for investors leveraged on tech. Therefore, it's | bad for VCs that raised LP capital on the basis of COVID | performance. Therefore, it's bad for companies that raised >20x | ARR multiples on the basis of COVID performance. | | Basically, it's a single or double whammy for most of the | economy, but a double or triple whammy for unprofitable | startups. | MaxHoppersGhost wrote: | Energy prices being high are only a small part of it. | Unfettered stimulus, even when we didn't need it (eg rent | payment moratoriums and stimmy checks while at full | employment), is what's driving it. | mikeg8 wrote: | The largest portion of "unfettered stimulus" went to | private companies in PPP loans... but that's rarely brought | up, which I always find interesting. | pyb wrote: | The stock market is down and inflation is up, but are we really | in an economic crisis just yet, or just predicting one in the | future ? | somewhereoutth wrote: | Zero Interest Rate Policy. | | Encourages resource mis-allocation, which means there is less | stuff we actually need to go around. | | We should have used fiscal policy more aggressively to fix the | Great Recession, but that would entail taking money from rich | people and giving it to poor people, and we can't have that can | we? | rkagerer wrote: | Can anyone post a copy with intact links? | hoofhearted wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31433221 | petesmithy wrote: | "Default Alive" - http://www.paulgraham.com/aord.html | | "pre-product market fit" - links to a list of resources: - The | only thing that matters by Marc Andreessen | https://pmarchive.com/guide_to_startups_part4.html - What is | "product/market fit" by Emmett Shear: | https://twitter.com/eshear/status/1155180521485242368?lang=e... | - Andy Rachleff on "How to Know If You've Got Product Market | Fit" https://greatness.floodgate.com/episodes/andy-rachleff-on- | ho... - How Superhuman Built an Engine to Find Product/Market | Fit by Rahul Vohra https://firstround.com/review/how- | superhuman-built-an-engine... - The real product market fit by | Michael Seibel https://www.ycombinator.com/library/5z-the-real- | product-mark... - Jeff Chang's blog - specifically his take on | retention as measure of PMF https://www.growthengblog.com/ - | Sequoia's Doug Leone discusses PMF | https://streamable.com/rm7pr7 - Dalton Caldwell & Michael | Seibel discuss PMF https://youtu.be/UqKzpLqXuI0 | | "Series A Milestones" - links to a private resource available | only to YC founders | | "Save your startup during an economic downturn" - | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OVSTWozvfY | upupandup wrote: | can somebody share the Series A Milestones resources? | om42 wrote: | Is the internal Series A Milestones different than the | Series A Guide: | https://www.ycombinator.com/library/14-series-a-guide | adamqureshi wrote: | THANK YOU! | babelfish wrote: | Thanks for sharing. Would be cool if you could share some of | the Series A Milestones. | farzatv wrote: | lvl102 wrote: | There were so many unicorns that were pulled forward to go public | that I don't even think there's this gigantic fluff remaining (a | la dotcom). They already busted and it doesn't even feel like we | crashed. | irthomasthomas wrote: | Bleak. | | "No one cannot predict how bad the economy will get, but things | don't look good." | | Clif notes: | | - Plan for the worst ... cut costs within 30 days... get to | Default Alive[0] | | - Get money if you need it, and if you can | | - With or without money you must survive 24 months | | - VCs are people too, and subject to the same downturn. Adjust | your fund raising expectations in the same direction. Expect | lower valuations, lower rounds and many fewer deals. | | - Disproportionate impact on international, asset heavy, low | margin, hardtech, high burn, long road to revenue companies | | - If you get a meeting, don't take that as a good sign, we still | take a lot of meetings. | | - Future fundraises will be much more difficult than they have | been in the last 5 years. | | - Don't expect more money until you demonstrate product market | fit. | | - If you planned on raising money in the next 6-12 months, we | recommend changing that plan, or you may be tryng to raise at the | peak of the downturn | | - If you survive, and your competitor does not, you may pick up | significant market share. | | [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/aord.html | scarface74 wrote: | The stock market is not the economy. If you are working for a | money losing VC backed company and the VCs aren't willing to | keep throwing money at you, that's because the VCs know startup | funding is a Ponzi Scheme and they will be left holding the bag | instead of being able to pawn their investment off onto the | retail market. | sbierwagen wrote: | >- If you get a meeting, don't take that as a good sign, we | still take a lot of meetings. | | They don't explicitly spell this out, but this is because being | a VC is still a job. Even if they're not actually making any | deals, management doesn't want to see everyone sitting at a | desk scrolling twitter for 8 hours, so instead they do | pointless meetings. | | Matt Levine had a fun Great Recession story which I cannot find | right now, which is that during 2008 in the M&A department at | Goldman Sachs everyone still came to work, even though | obviously merger and acquisition activity was way down. They | would spend every day doing calls and making pitchbooks, all of | which went nowhere. Goldman didn't close a deal for a full | year. A floor full of people could have just collected a salary | and stayed home for 12 months and it would have had an | identical outcome. | [deleted] | pl0x wrote: | eqmvii wrote: | Hard to believe there isn't a storm coming at this point. | jollybean wrote: | It will be harder for startups than other companies. | | The 'storm' will be focused heavily on capital and so all that | liquidity will tighten up. | | Big waves up, big waves down. | | Healthcare won't miss a beat. | wolverine876 wrote: | Perception is reality. | throwanem wrote: | Well, I wouldn't say it's _coming._ | wolverine876 wrote: | Like inflation, it's self-fulfilling. Perception is reality. Some | people who strongly influence public perception - to whom we seem | to have ceded our power to think critically and independently - | who look for social disruption, want it. | | If businesses pull in their horns, stop supporting innovation, | the economic result is easy to predict. | liuliu wrote: | That's why it is extremely frustrating to watch this unfold. | The easiest way to kill inflation is to kill growth. But that | won't help people in need anyway. | | An empty shelf of baby formulas are not a sign of "economy is | too hot". It is a sign of supply issue. | bushbaba wrote: | Worse yet, everyone over-ordered due to the supply chain | issues to reduce future disruptions. We're going to end up in | a recession with huge surplus of inventory. | matwood wrote: | This is what I've been predicting. Right around when the | fed crushes demand, the supply chain will finally get | fixed, flooding the market with supply that no one now | wants. | ordu wrote: | _> An empty shelf of baby formulas_ | | Can I ask you why you've chosen this particular example? It | is not about I agree with you, or I'm going to contradict in | a some way, it is completely unrelated question. A complete | off-topic. | shortstuffsushi wrote: | I believe the example was likely chosen due to the recent | controversial bill in congress [0]. However, I think the | choice of baby formula shows that some "core" needs in the | economy are missing as well, and that the tech bubble | struggling. | | 0: | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-19/house- | pas... (Picked at random from a search for "baby formula | bill") | liuliu wrote: | The cause of this round is not some sudden bubble burst. | Fed raise rates because they want to signal that they are | serious about taming the inflation. That caused sharp | sentiment change in capital market. | | The cause of this round of inflation can be many things, | we've been in low-interest environment for 10+ years with | occasional QEs. It hasn't inflated the economy as much as | we hoped for that 10+ years. It is lazy thinking to | attribute back to QE for this round of inflation. | toomuchtodo wrote: | That growth would've just gone predominately to the | wealthy/shareholder class anyway. Better to destroy asset | values and growth to destroy demand, which reduces inflation. | | Baby formula is a poor example; that was Abbott having | regulatory capture and a de facto monopoly [1]. | | [1] https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/big-bottle-the-baby- | formu... | hopefullywrong wrote: | If it's a demand issue maybe companies fall in line and all | have their layoffs at the same time, reduce worker purchasing | power, and then there's fewer shortages of things. problem | solved. </armchair supply chain economist> | hopefullywrong wrote: | Agreed, some part of this feels like capital is flexing its | muscle after a period of employees having incredible gains. | guerrilla wrote: | This comment seems crazy given that we just had COVID-19, a war | causing a massive energy crisis and multiple systemic | commodities problems and then climate change... Also you're | assuming interest rate hikes have no effect? I have no idea how | you could think what's coming isn't entirely material... How | can you just ignore all that? | liuliu wrote: | We had COVID-19 for 2 years. The U.S. is surging back with | unique challenge of spending transition from goods back to | services. It is a challenge. | | "A war causing a massive energy crisis" seems to be a good | time to increase energy production with more investment in | things like fracking, which from what I heard, people are | reluctant to invest due to the economy and rates concerns | (they borrow from banks too). | | Interest rate hike certainly has impact, but that is the Fed | to decide. Remember, Trump asked Fed to not raise rate before | and JPow kowtowed to that just fine. | | China's shutdown is a Black Swan. The market apparently | haven't digested that yet (APPL "only" down 20% YTD). | TigeriusKirk wrote: | I feel like we talk ourselves into maybe half of the economic | downturns we experience. It's probably inevitable and maybe | even necessary psychologically. | SkipperCat wrote: | Companies that have a good ideas and provide needed | product/services will survive. I think the era of stupid money | chasing silly ideas are over. Same thing happened at the end of | the dot-com era. | Mimmy wrote: | I think the causation can be reversed: Companies that survive | long enough have a higher chance of eventually finding the | right idea and developing needed products / services. | [deleted] | adamsmith143 wrote: | >I think the era of stupid money chasing silly ideas are over. | Same thing happened at the end of the dot-com era. | | It's called the Business Cycle. Those days are not over, | they're merely hibernating | throwanem wrote: | Hibernating? They've been the order of the day since 1987. | Sure, there's booms and crashes, but that's why we call it a | _cycle_. | adamsmith143 wrote: | Yeah. My parent comment was insinuating that "This time is | different" which of course it won't be. | throwanem wrote: | Oh. Yeah, I apparently can't read today, that's fair. | sokoloff wrote: | > I think the era of stupid money chasing silly ideas are over | | It's quite possible that _this_ era of that is over, but I 'll | eat my hat if another era of stupid money chasing silly ideas | doesn't spring up within a decade. | paulgb wrote: | "Yeah, but this time it's different!" - Someone in 5-10 | years. | mupuff1234 wrote: | "We called it fin-tech cause it kept going under" | escapecharacter wrote: | Web 5.0: This time it's personal! | babyshake wrote: | Here we go again, again! | wpasc wrote: | Who left the fridge open. | jcuenod wrote: | "The problem with the crypto revolution is how centralized | it all was. That's why we've realized we should disrupt | that whole industry with these new rainbow farting | unicorns" | [deleted] | checker659 wrote: | > are over | | For a few years | altdataseller wrote: | Lots of startups provide needed products and services. I don't | think that's enough. They need to provide needed | products/services in a way that can be sold/marketed | profitably, and scaled profitably. | ackbar03 wrote: | Yes. I always need 1 dollar for 95 cents. | malfist wrote: | You joke, but a 5% ROI isn't bad YoY in the long run. | Especially if it's low risk. | rightbyte wrote: | With 8% inflation it is essentially better to stuff your | bed with some commodity than go for 5% ROI. | postalrat wrote: | Did he say a year? I want it immediately. Unlimited and | no delay. | daniel-cussen wrote: | You know that's my pitch? Selling a commodity for half. | Because I SUCK at selling, so that's my out, the same exact | thing anybody can do in exactly the same way, that every | company is on track to spend more than 10% of their revenue | on, but for half. | | The bottleneck of machine learning in half. | | In fact you're being quite generous with your offer of 1 | dollar for 95 cents, but I must decline. 50 might work much | better for you, you might secretly need 1 dollar for 50 | cents more than you need 1 dollar for 95 cents. But are | embarrassed to ask. Provided we're talking about matrix | multiplication. | | And like everyone's business plan is turning matrix | multiplication, better known as AI, into money, so there | could be a good synergy there. | | https://www.fgemm.com, coming soon. | seaourfreed wrote: | Good, unless inflation stays high | danielrhodes wrote: | A company that provides a needed product/service has the | minimum it needs to survive. But you also need positive cash | flow and you need to not have surprises and many other things. | So it's easy to get caught in a bad situation and the company | is forced to shut down, even though it was otherwise doing good | things. Startups are particularly vulnerable, regardless of | their PMF. | babelfish wrote: | What are the Series A Milestones linked in the email? | forgingahead wrote: | Might be this? | https://www.ycombinator.com/library/1k-benchmarks | aresant wrote: | Dagnabit. Here we go again - this is a fantastic, pragmatic | amendment to those notes -> | | https://dalton.substack.com/p/letter-to-myself-in-late-2008?... | | For a taste: | | "Doing multiple small layoffs is a form of cascading failure. Do | one layoff, but much much deeper than seems correct. Do it | decisively. Do it so that you get profitable. In your case that | is something like a 70% cut, not a 5-10% cut. Yes you read that | right: a 70% cut. Cutting once and cutting hard allows you to | reassure the people that are still here that you are truly | profitable and won't need to do it again. Doing a layoff and | remaining unprofitable and counting on fundraising to save you is | a stupid plan." | blueboo wrote: | "Race, don't chase." Find a way to profitable -- default alive | -- and grow from there. Don't lie bleeding and default dead. | Sounds like Dalton could've used this podcast at the time... | | https://www.manager-tools.com/2008/10/race-don't-chase-part-... | bachmeier wrote: | > a 70% cut...Cutting once and cutting hard allows you to | reassure the people that are still here that you are truly | profitable | | If your employees are dumb enough that they interpret a 70% cut | of the workforce as a sign that your company is stable, you're | doomed. It's hard to imagine the dumbest person in the world | interpreting that as a sign of stability. | matwood wrote: | You're too focused on the 70% used for effect. The point is | to make a single cut that puts the company profitable, so | there is a chance to survive. And even then it's going to be | hard, but gives the company a chance. | | No person should have assumed stability in a company that was | not yet turning a profit. I'm not saying they are bad | companies to take a gamble on, but understand they were/are a | gamble. VC money suddenly drying up was part of the that | gamble. | tharne wrote: | Even a 20% cut tells you that management is incompetent. If | you're a CEO and you can cut 20% of your staff without | destroying the business, why on earth did you hire all | those extra people and add all that expense in the first | place? | | Put another way, if you couldn't staff right in the good | times, why would remaining employees trust that your "one | big cut" will work now? _Hint: they won 't_ | matwood wrote: | Cuts are done because the business has changed. Some part | of the business was destroyed by external factors, and | now the company needs to adjust to the new reality. It | could be that VC money dries up or that customers stop | spending. It doesn't mean that 20% wasn't required in the | past, only that they are not required now. | | This is also why a company should cut a little more than | needed, so they have some cushion for things to get worse | before getting better again. | tharne wrote: | I think what you're saying is true in the best run | businesses, but that's not what we're seeing right now. | We're seeing cuts from business that were hiring like | crazy a few weeks ago. | imperialdrive wrote: | I mean, if there is some transparency and the numbers add up, | and 70% cut appears to do the trick, then it would be pretty | awesome being in the 30% with a real chance to shine. I | imagine there would be a big increase in stock and pay to put | things in motion too. Sounds great! | | Now if the plan is going to end in flames anyway, it still | seems like a great reason to stick around and absorb the | knowledge and experience. | | I'm a fix-it person and would love the opportunity to turn a | company around - it's like the ultimate challenge. | mcguire wrote: | In increase in pay? During a layoff where they're trying to | save money? | | And then there's the 3x increase in workload. | tshaddox wrote: | If the numbers add up to justify the layoff, then doesn't | that mean that in the time leading up to the layoffs the | numbers didn't even come close to adding up? I'm not sure | the transparency and fiscal competence the company | demonstrated to justify its layoffs would dazzle me enough | to make me miss the fact that they had overhired by 3x or | more. | endymi0n wrote: | Here's the deal: The mere mortal ,,stock package" got | pretty much worthless the day the ,,bridge financing" | (which actually was a down-round) got announced. | | Recovering from a 70% layoff only happens once in a blue | moon, and usually only when a founder led company that has | already reached revenue and product-market fit makes a well | executed hard cut that does an exceptional job at keeping | and supporting the core team amd managing emotions. | | In any other more chaotic situation, the | product/emotion/revenue death spiral ensuing is usually | impossible to stop. | mdoms wrote: | scarface74 wrote: | I took the opposite approach around 2010. I was one of the | survivors of the mass layoff and I didn't think about looking | for another job. | | I did build up my savings, actively engage my network "just | in case" and updated my resume. | | Once the final hammer hit and we got acquired for our | customer list and everyone got laid off. We went to lunch, | hung out in the office after our layoffs and from looking at | LinkedIn, everyone had a job within a month. | | At each round of layoffs, people reached out to their network | and had jobs quickly. | | I met a recruiter for lunch that following Monday and had an | offer Thursday. | | No matter how your company is doing, you should always "keep | your running shoes around your neck". | benjaminjosephw wrote: | It's a sign that you intend the company to survive. | sirius87 wrote: | As someone who has witnessed such a deep layoff and was left | in the 30%, I began job hunting and moved on soon after. | | When I eventually quit, senior management then explained how | I was part of their grand comeback plans and offered a salary | bump, and in my mind, all I could think of was how they were | trying to balance a cost equation. | | People far more talented than me had landed pink slips, | presumably because of how "expensive" they were for their | "output". | | That may be the right call for longevity of the business, but | I could easily be the one being disposed after my valuable | output is put to use and my expense-output is reconsidered. | slg wrote: | >As someone who has witnessed such a deep layoff and was | left in the 30%, I began job hunting and moved on soon | after. | | As someone who has witnessed repeated smaller rounds of | layoffs, I also began job hunting after the pattern was | evident. A layoff is an inherit signal that management made | mistakes. Sure, there are probably better ways to handle it | than others. However there is no getting over the fact that | prior mismanagement now necessitates drastic measures to | recover from it. That is going to be enough to get some | people looking for an escape regardless of your approach. | StillBored wrote: | I was at a startup during the .com bust. I survived 3 | rounds of layoffs over the space of ~18 months. I like | everyone remaining at the company, could see the writing on | the wall and I was spamming resume's to anyone who looked | like they were hiring. Zero responses, pretty much no one | was hiring except when it was an emergency. The | big/profitable companies were bolting down the hatches, and | everyone else was cutting to stay afloat. | | I was genuinely scared when my time came, and it took | another 4 months, but I consider myself lucky but am | uncomfortable with the fact that a previous manager of mine | at one of those large/profitable companies which had one of | those fishing job postings, saw my resume and swapped me | for one of his under performers (aka someone got laid off | at the end of the fiscal year, and I got hired). And I took | a ~40% pay cut for the privilege. | | Literally the only people who were getting hired in my area | where situations like that. Never assume you will get hired | during a downturn unless you have a really solid network of | people who will risk their own positions for you and/or | work at companies that treat people like cogs to be | replaced if they can get a cheaper/more effective cog. | | I was at another stable but small company during the 2008 | downturn, and I sadly had to turn away a lot of people I | would have loved to work with again, but we were on a hard | hiring freeze (the ones where upper mgmt breaths a sigh | every-time someone leaves of their own volition because it | gives them a bit more breathing room). So these times hurt | no matter which end of the table your on. | | So, don't assume the job market will remain the way it is | today. | hef19898 wrote: | Which raises the question of when to jump ship, doesn't | it? If your current employer is looking like lay offs and | bad times are a head, and the market is really good, do | you stay and wait or do you start looking _now_? You | defenitley shouldn 't wait to be last one to tirn of the | lights, because at the very least your gonna compete with | your former co-workers. | BryanBeshore wrote: | If you plan to move in the next 6-12 months, you are | probably better off moving now. | lumost wrote: | Pretty much, if you can choose the parts of the company | which are profitable and self sustaining. If given the | choice, avoid profitable businesses that rely on other | companies growth projections (aka ads) | pjmorris wrote: | "If you must panic, panic early. Be scared when you can, | not when you have to. " @nntaleb | | I was an independent consultant from a 2001 dot-bomb | layoff to the beginning of 2008. I saw hard times coming | and took a job with the most bomb-proof client I had, and | it worked out really well. | karaterobot wrote: | I was in the same boat, and this is right on. The founders | assumed everyone who got spared was going to be so happy | they stayed with the ship until it went down. In reality, | we experienced a combination of survivor's guilt for our | unemployed friends, burnout at the increased workload, and | anger at the founders for making choices that led to that | situation. The remaining people on my team just used the | reprieve to find new positions while being able to pay | their bills, and we all quit, coincidentally on almost the | same day. | | The founders did not adequately think through the | ramifications of their decisions, and it did seem (as | another commenter in this thread succinctly put it) that | they viewed everyone as very predictable NPCs in their | narrative. | corrral wrote: | I'd just assume the company's already dead and someone's | trying to suck some remaining value out of it or make a hail- | mary acquisition deal to bail out their investor pals (at no | return to employee stock holders, I'm sure) if that happened. | I'd be working on my resume on the "work" day when that's | announced, for sure. | CalChris wrote: | The CEO should be able to spreadsheet an argument at the | all hands meeting to the remaining employees that they are | now profitable and/or have 48 months of runway. Of course, | employees are always unrestricted free agents. They can | weigh this with the prevailing economic outlook and make | their own decisions. Remember, YC's letter is to founders | and not employees. | | I believe Ben Horowitz made a similar decision and a | similar pitch to his employees that he recounted in _The | Hard Thing About Hard Things._ I don 't remember Horowitz | getting into the depth of the cut but I remember | survivability being a stressed point. | lumost wrote: | If your talking to employees who care at all about the | supposed equity they were given, then you need to be | prepared to reset the employee equity pool to be | meaningful. | | In particular, many of the employees will have options | that are obviously underwater. Any belief they had in | dreams of billion dollar valuations will be gone. | barkingcat wrote: | what if they try repeated 70% cuts? | fzeroracer wrote: | A 70% cut is a great way to kill your company once the | remaining 30% start jumping ship. Either because of the | destroyed morale or because they're doing a lot more work in a | higher stress environment. | foobarian wrote: | I mean, losing money is a great way to kill your company. | What's better: cut 10%, lose money, people leave, cut 10% | more, still losing money, more people leaving, cut 10% more, | still losing money, more people leaving. Likely at 50% now | with no pivot and bad morale. Compare to cut 70% + some | people leave, but now you can hopefully do a major pivot and | do better? | mcguire wrote: | Could anyone give, say, 3 examples of that happening? | danrocks wrote: | I don't know what "that" refers to, but I was at Nokia | for a long time while they did 5,10,15% layoffs and it | did destroy the morale, people started running for the | hills as soon as they could. | | AirBNB did a 25% one-off layoff and is now doing fine. | | I don't know of any 70% layoffs but I tend to agree that | cutting once and hard is the best approach, given what I | experienced with paper-cut layoffs. | itsoktocry wrote: | > _Cutting once and cutting hard allows you to reassure the | people that are still here that you are truly profitable and | won't need to do it again._ | | Famous last words. I'm _pretty_ sure that companies always | believe this (or at least tell their staff such), whether | cutting 5%, 25% or 75%. | VirusNewbie wrote: | I cannot imagine a way I would interpret a 70% layoff as | anything other than the CEO/management team being incompetent. | I mean, if you can actually execute with 70% less, why did they | hire in the first place? | | The only way this might work is if a company was expanding into | a completely new market and pivots away from that (ie, software | startup gets a hardware division going, etc) | mason55 wrote: | > _I mean, if you can actually execute with 70% less, why did | they hire in the first place?_ | | Hiring and onboarding takes awhile. VC-funded companies are | intended to grow quickly. Those two things put together means | you need to hire for where you want to be in a year or two | and not where you are right now. | | The actual goals & constraints have changed. | | When you hired those people your goal was scaling up as | quickly as possible and your constraint was having enough | people (in this scenario, money is not one of your | constraints). | | In the new world, the goal is "stay alive" and the gating | constraint is runway. | | So, no, the fact that you can survive after large staff cuts | doesn't mean the CEO was incompetent. It might, but it might | also just be a function of the goals/constraints/execution | strategy/environment having all changed. | gadders wrote: | I called it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31422495 | thecleaner wrote: | Honestly I would just go work for FB/Google/MS/Apple and maybe | Amazon. I'll only consider a startup if I can grow with the | company and corresponding opportunities don't exist in the big | ones. If the YC theory is basically that employees are a toxic | asset, they are bound to get people who turn out that way since | the more performant and responsible folk will opt for bigger and | more stable companies. | | Edit: I don't really think all YC backed companies think that low | of employees. | drcongo wrote: | > _No one cannot predict how bad the economy will get_ | | Make an effort YC. | junon wrote: | Yeah no kidding, wow. | daniel-cussen wrote: | Predicting how bad it will get is possible, it's just | apocalyptic thinking, which is frowned upon and dangerous. Like | the whole paranoia bullshit thing about how paranoid people are | inferior, or something I can't listen to such bullshit. Ties in | nicely to making everyone buy and hold, value investors. | | Well earlier this week I myself made a prediction this week | there would two days were the market would fall, one down | -2.9%, the other down -2.2%[1]. I told this to a friend who | speculates. Telling him we should talk that day, Sunday, | instead of later in the week, because after those shitstorm | days he would have no fucking time. Just booked solid, bailing | out shit from those storms. | | I was wrong, there was one day down -4%, another down I think | down -1%. So I was wrong. No one can predict how bad a market | will get. At the same time, my speculator friend hasn't written | back. | | [1] Yeah I realize down -2.2% might be interpreted as a double | negative. In other languages like French and Spanish, and | African languages, negatives are emphasis. It's an English | thing to say even number of negations is positive. Basically so | the words in people's denials could be deformed into | admissions. Making their defection defective. Obviously the way | to express a market rise is "the stock market went up +2%." | Note also the + symbol, very rarely seen. | kilovoltaire wrote: | Fun to read the typo literally--it does often seem true that no | one can resist predicting | corrral wrote: | Maybe it's a "don't think about a pink elephant" kind of thing? | Once one considers the possibility that one might predict how | bad the economy will get, one naturally thinks up such a | prediction? | thom wrote: | Works on contingency? No[,] one cannot predict how bad the | economy will get. | drcongo wrote: | Beautiful Simpsons reference, thank you. | junon wrote: | Aha, yeah. Hadn't thought of that. Amazing the difference a | comma makes. | MontyCarloHall wrote: | Translation: as has been the case since the dawn of capitalism, | companies going forward will have to turn a real, liquid profit | from selling an actual good or service. Gone are the (highly | anomalous) days of starting a purposefully unprofitable company | whose only path towards "profitability" is a) getting acquired or | b) endless rounds of VC funding. | rchaud wrote: | >> starting a purposefully unprofitable company whose only path | towards "profitability" is a) getting acquired or b) endless | rounds of VC funding. | | and worst of all, c)pursuing a predatory pricing strategy to | monopolize the market and crowd out competitors. | MontyCarloHall wrote: | Yup. I think that fits under b), since it's only possible to | run out the clock on competitors with a predatory pricing | strategy with endless rounds of VC funding. | vagab0nd wrote: | Could someone post the date of the email? I assume it's around | the same time as the tweet? | nopenopenopeno wrote: | I am currently graduating with a CS degree and interpreting this | as a warning to not accept the offer from the exciting startup | and instead accept the offer from the big corporate fintech | company. Is there any reason I could be wrong? | aurbano wrote: | I started in the big corporate company and now work for the | exciting startup. | | You want to maximise your learning, as long as there isn't a | massive salary discrepancy try to have a lengthy chat with your | future tech lead and pick the one that seems better - | ultimately this is the person you'll be learning from the most | in the next few years. | | And also, don't be scared to quit or change teams early. Don't | stay longer than you have to. | AdamH12113 wrote: | You should definitely ask lots of questions about a startup's | operations, revenue situation, funding status, etc. before you | join, no matter what the economic circumstances. You should | also consider whether the big company might have large layoffs | soon. Which one you should choose depends very much on the | specifics of the companies, as well as your financial | situation, career goals, and personal temperament. | cheeseblubber wrote: | Choosing between a startup vs a big corporate is a separate | topic. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. In | essence you trade learning for stability. It really depends on | what you are looking for and type of environment you want to be | in. If you have done the calculus and are more interested in a | startup I would recommend asking what the run rate of the | company is and do they have any plans to hit profitability. | altdataseller wrote: | It depends. You just need to do more due diligence and ask | harder questions to that exciting startup, especially around | burn rate, and profitability goals. | tschellenbach wrote: | This issue impacts any high growth companies. It's pretty much | all of tech both public and private. You can't avoid it unless | you go work outside of tech | adamsmith143 wrote: | If you discount your stock options to be worth 0 (which is the | most likely scenario) and it still makes sense to work at the | Startup then go for it but save aggressively because while they | may tell you there won't be layoffs and they are in a strong | financial position when layoffs do come they are almost always | last in first out. | MarkMarine wrote: | There are plenty of startups that will weather this storm, and | you're going to have a lot more actual accomplishments on your | resume, and actual experience building things from a year or | two at a startup. | | Just be pragmatic about what companies you pick, the companies | I view most skeptically during the downturns are the ones that | cater to startups, like dev productivity startups, or those | startup credit card companies, and given the chaos in the | crypto markets, those don't look like safe bets to me either. | You can always ask about the company's run rate, profitability, | and war chest. They might not show you, but that is a sign | also. | fzeroracer wrote: | A simple question to ask: Are you willing and/or able to | potentially wait 6+ months for a new job if the startup goes | under? Hiring for entry level engineers is already difficult | and becomes much harder when companies institute hiring freezes | due to an economic downturn. | | Take the safer option, weather out the recession and if you | find an exciting startup you can join them with confidence that | even if they fall apart you'll have the experience to find the | next job much faster. | chernevik wrote: | Take the job where you will learn the most. If that's a startup | and it dies no one will hold it against you. If you're good | you'll probably be able to find something even in a lousy | economy. | mehphp wrote: | As others have said, now is the time to be risky. If you think | that startup will hang around for a bit (1 - 2 years) that will | be more than enough experience for you to land the next job. | I'm not telling you to job hop, but it is completely normally | to only stay at a position for 2 years (or less). | | I personally would choose the one that would help me grow more | as an engineer and IMHO, you can get pigeonholed much more | easily at a big corp than at a startup. | raviparikh wrote: | This is not necessarily true. "Bigger" does not mean "more | stable." Big companies like Netflix did layoffs just now; | meanwhile there are plenty of small companies that are | profitable and doing great. A friend of mine runs a profitable | startup (~50 people). A few months ago, a candidate turned them | down to join a 500+ person well-funded company that seemed more | stable-that company is now bankrupt, while my friend's startup | is continuing to grow. | | I wrote a blog about this topic: | https://www.airplane.dev/blog/evaluate-startup-offers-in-a-t... | wolverine876 wrote: | > I am currently graduating with a CS degree and interpreting | this as a warning to not accept the offer from the exciting | startup and instead accept the offer from the big corporate | fintech company. | | You will be the first to be laid off. When everyone is | competing to keep their jobs, you will have no influence. Also, | fintech can be cutting edge, which is not what people spend on | during downturns. | ilrwbwrkhv wrote: | This is the time for you to take the maximum possible risks. | Usually as you get older your appetite for risk decreases. | Ergo, take that startup offer. You will always have a job as a | programmer. | koolba wrote: | > This is the time for you to take the maximum possible | risks. Usually as you get older your appetite for risk | decreases. | | Taking risks for the sake of increasing risk is a combination | of naive and stupid. Increased risk taking must come with an | increasing reward. | | In an economic collapse and likely recession, having a stable | job at a large established company would give you stability | and, soon enough, capital for buying up home and basement | prices. | | Working at an unprofitable early stage startup will give you | a couple high fives from the founders, but you'll be in | constant fear of losing that paycheck. The reward must be | _substantially_ higher than a steady big-corp job in normal | times, and even more so in today 's job and economic | environment. | | > Ergo, take that startup offer. You will always have a job | as a programmer. | | Working at a startup does not magically make you a better | programmer any more than working at a large company | automatically turns you into a cog churning out Java beans. | ilrwbwrkhv wrote: | > Working at a startup does not magically make you a better | programmer any more than working at a large company | automatically turns you into a cog churning out Java beans. | | Working at a startup has a far better learning curve and | better feedback about your rate of learning compared to a | large company. | | Buying up capital for home and basement prices is not a | part of my equation at all. | S_A_P wrote: | Take the safe job when you are old and have family/dependents. | Take the long shot bets when you are young. You have the | potential to learn way more way more quickly at a startup and | if it folds you are still young and have experience. I wish I | would have taken this advice when I was 25... | scarface74 wrote: | I'm by definition "old" at 48. But my "safety" comes from | always being _employable_. Since 2008 and I was already 34 (I | stayed at my previous job before then for 9 years), I've had | six that ranged from startups to big enterprises to my latest | BigTech company that has a reputation for PIPs. | | I never worried about whether I wouldn't be able to find a | job. | micromacrofoot wrote: | I was young and poor, if you're young and poor don't take the | long shot bets. You need to build stability. Long shot bets | will burn you out if you don't have a safety net (and living | with your parents is a completely reasonable safety net, just | unfortunately one I didn't have!). I wasted my 20s thinking | if I worked 60+ hours a week for a startup I would be one of | the lucky ones, and it was foolish. | | As usual, there's no one-size fits all advice. | S_A_P wrote: | But if you are working in a startup you will hardly be poor | esp with a comp sci degree. | micromacrofoot wrote: | I'm not talking about SV startups really, more like every | rich dipshit in a podunk town that wants to abuse someone | for some "big" idea (or advertising companies). I guess | times have changed a bit though, and just about any | developer can more easily get big paychecks from | reputable companies these days. | throwawayboise wrote: | But don't spend all your money! You have very few obligations | when you are young. Basically feed yourself and pay rent. | Save the rest. You will thank yourself when you are 50, | because you can't catch up if you wait until then. | tester756 wrote: | I'd be careful taking opinion about startups vs corpo from HN, | bias as hell. | | I've been reading about how corpos are bad for years and my | experience is completely different from what people say | | My personal opinion on corpos is: | | _____________ | | pros: | | working on real and complex tech products that actually make | huge $$ instead of burning VCs cash on yet another | food/car/room/dating app | | strong execution (it definitely doesnt feel like it is moving | slowly, waiting a few weeks for simple decisions) | | good $$$ | | way stronger brand on CV | | contact with people who define industry | | you can change teams and do something different, you don't have | to change company because huge corpos probably do "everything" | (im simplifying) | | ___________ | | cons: | | your impact is small, there are hundreds or thousands of people | involved | | your exposure to whole development process (from getting | requirements, to initial architecture, development, then just | support) is small because you'll probably be thrown into | existing project | | ___________ | | As others suggested - at the beginning small company / startup? | where you are touching everything and doing various stuff may | be very helpful to learn, but it's not like corpos are bad and | you should avoid them as hard as you can | time_to_smile wrote: | If you have the choice between "exciting startup" and "big | corporate fintech company" then you don't have worry and | economic down turns at all. | | The reality is that in a turn down turn _you aren 't choosing | among great options_. In 1999 software engineers making 100k+ | in 1999 (this was a lot more money back then) working for a | cool startup ended up working in banks making boiler plate code | for ~80k. Most of them were forced out of the industry. | | If you're in a position to be making choices like you describe | than there is no meaningful down turn in your industry. | | A more likely outcome in the event of a serious is that in 5 | years you aren't doing CS related work. Talk to people that | have worked in aerospace during various periods of down turn | (or any similar industry). | rubidium wrote: | It depends on your appetite for risk. But fintech means you'll | have a job in 2 years (likely). Nothing is guaranteed. | throwanem wrote: | _Finance_ means that, probably. Fintech isn 't the same | ballgame. | | Work for a startup and you'll have an embarrassment of riches | for learning opportunities. Work in finance and you'll likely | need to take some initiative, and earn and deploy some | political capital, to make your own. | | Right now, though, it's time to be looking for a safe port | above all else. If you're young and good, you won't have | trouble ending up with a compelling story to tell about your | time with BigCo. In the meantime you want to think about how | much worrying you'd like to do about where your next check's | coming from. | jonas_kgomo wrote: | I was at Palintir, and one of the things I learned from visiting | is that they thrive in times of war, pandemics and recessions. | Why aren't companies designed to be antifragile like this | candiddevmike wrote: | Going to be interesting to see which free plans get cut, prices | skyrocket, or what companies stop having "open core" software. | Growth hacks like these have always traded revenue instead of | cash for advertising/exposure, and I think it gave well- | capitalized companies too much of an edge where they can | effectively give things away and undercut competitors who are | trying to be sustainable. | | Would've also been interesting if they had separate guidance for | crypto startups. | lumost wrote: | The guidance for crypto startups might be to fold and return | investor money. There are a few ideas which seem "interesting" | such as enterprise blockchains for bank accounting, or smart | contracts for inter-bank contracts. These help large financial | institutions prove to auditors that they met their contractual | obligations and no funny business happened. BTC will probably | stabilize as a tradeable store of value as a hedge against | "unfriendly" governments. | | But there is a huge sea of blockchain startups which are | trading alt-coins, or providing trading analytics | software/exchanges for alt-coins, or simply making coins which | have vague differentiators, or whatever web3 is supposed to be. | I suspect that any crypto company that doesn't have a specific | use case that customers pay for will struggle for the next few | years. | mcguire wrote: | " _No one cannot predict how bad the economy will get..._ " | | ??? | | I get that it's twitter, but grammar is still a thing. | somewhereoutth wrote: | To be honest 'I could care less' | [deleted] | [deleted] | UncleOxidant wrote: | I still get a couple dozen emails/week from recruiters in | addition to phone calls, linkedIn connection requests,etc. - it | seems like it's still close to the peak number. However, I | suspect that's about to stop abruptly. | ditonal wrote: | This "default alive" advice is repeatedly shared. | | One thing it obviously does not address is the human element of | who you cut and whether they will be "default alive" unemployed | in a recession. A huge amount of YC advice in general positions | founders as protagonists and employees as NPCs then are shocked | people pick Google over their startup offer. | | Funny thing is I've seen this exact advice destroy a company. In | March 2020 they did deep layoffs and cited the need to be | "default alive." Then their main market surprisingly quickly grew | in the rest of 2020 , they wanted to capitalize on that, but they | had laid off too many engineers who knew their infra and had | enough outages and slow product development that they lost to | their competitors and are now way underwater on their valuation. | | They decided to be serious and prudent and go "default alive" | which ironically killed them. Of course if 2020 had gotten worse | maybe they would look smart but the takeaway is there's no easy | answers. | | I would just like to see the human impact of layoffs at least | lightly considered in these conversations which it rarely is. And | it's bad for business to as Im sure many people are hesitant to | join companies that will have a gut reaction of doing 70% | layoffs. If you even think about doing 70% layoffs you clearly | over hired and are not making good leadership decisions leading | up to the layoff. | thecleaner wrote: | That's just bad software engineering. In general, I would | expect software to scale well as far as traffic is concerned | esp in today's environment where scaling infra is not really a | big deal. Coping with feature requests on a shoestring staff is | a different story. | tshaddox wrote: | Aren't you kinda just saying "no matter how many engineers | you currently have maintaining your infrastructure, your | infrastructure should be just fine with fewer engineers"? | ditonal wrote: | Maybe it's bad software engineering but it's a reality that | most companies have "bad engineering", there's always piles | of tech debt and even stuff out of your control. | | For example, one outage related to Google Ads API changing | their parameters. This led to ads not being run which | directly cost revenue since those ads were profitable. The | outage went on for much longer than it needed to since people | with expertise on the marketing pipelines were gone. | | Id say the "bad engineering" here is mostly Google ads who | should version their API changes. But if Google can't do good | engineering, I'm not counting on too many other companies to | do so. This idea that infra is a "set and forget" operation | because autoscaling exists is a fantasy for conference talks, | not reality. | jimhi wrote: | > If you even think about doing 70% layoffs you clearly over | hired and are not making good leadership decisions leading up | to the layoff. | | 100% agree with this part. | | Going default alive was not the cause of whatever this company | was dying. At best, it would slow or kill your growth, not your | company. It sounds like it was mismanaged and prioritized | something else over fixing their product. It is not bad for a | company to focus on profitability. | | More employees also does not mean faster product development, | every developer knows this is often the complete opposite. | tharne wrote: | > More employees also does not mean faster product | development, every developer knows this is often the complete | opposite. | | This is only true up to a point. Otherwise, every startup | would be a one man show. | timr wrote: | That's true, but the intrinsic bias of...well, pretty much | everyone...is to overhire, so that's what you need to | fight. I don't think I've met anyone who was suffering from | under-hiring, unless it was a situation forced upon them by | lack of resources. | | People feel important and "arrived" when they lead a big | organization, and also, it can _feel_ like you 're doing | the right thing, because it alleviates some stress. Even if | you're otherwise allergic to large teams, you're so busy as | a founder that any help feels like good help. | vmception wrote: | > One thing it obviously does not address is the human element | of who you cut and whether they will be "default alive" | unemployed in a recession. | | An individual's personal financial circumstance is not a factor | though. There are many people that have fixed their personal | finance issue adequately. And for those who really don't have | easy choice of employers or personal runway, then they're | fucked. Did that really need to be said? That's what is going | to happen. | lumost wrote: | It's not a bad decision for a founder to protect the company | above all, it's their job. However, at the same time - | cutting people who took a bet on you should be difficult. | | When you cut 70%, it'll make future hiring difficult, it'll | make existing employees recognize where they stand (no | where). Getting laid off is one of the worst events that can | happen to a person, and you really have no way of knowing | what the impact on them is. | | Which is to say, If a founder decided to cut exactly 70% of | their staff based solely on an email from YC - I'd be very | certain to dissuade anyone in my network from working with | them in any capacity. | kaycebasques wrote: | > Funny thing is I've seen this exact advice destroy a company. | In March 2020 they did deep layoffs and cited the need to be | "default alive." Then their main market surprisingly quickly | grew in the rest of 2020 | | I recognize that later in your comment you say "Of course if | 2020 had gotten worse maybe they would look smart" but I think | it's worthwhile to compare/contrast the pure macroeconomics of | early pandemic versus now. To the Fed the pandemic was an | exogenous shock and they unleashed all their tools to keep the | economy going. Now they are dealing with the backlash of | unleashing all their tools (inflation) and are making it very | clear that their priority is to bring down inflation and they | are very aware that they do that by bringing down employment. | So encouraging startups to go default alive is very much what | the Fed wants right now. Big difference in policy direction. | Exogenous shock versus endogenous course correction. | tru3_power wrote: | Are they just trying to reduce the amount of capital the | working class has? Are there no other ways to reduce | inflation right now than to curb demand? Wouldn't a concerted | effort to resolve supply issues have a similar effect? | slg wrote: | When all you have is a hammer... | | Part of the problem is that Congress is largely broken and | can't adequately address issues like this. That pushes most | of the responsibility onto The Fed and they have a much | smaller bag of tools than Congress. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-19 23:01 UTC)