No, I don't.

We try to be up front that they have a high chance of failure. But I truly believe that there is nothing better for their career, technical, and personal growth than doing a startup they're passionate about (we try to filter out the people that want to do a startup for a resume item).

Also, one of the advantage of YC is that if the startup doesn't work out, founders have made a lot of connections in the network and can usually find something interesting to do next.

As I've said before, I think the actual risky path is not pursuing what you really want to do and then spending the rest of your life regretting it.

I had an idea 5 years ago for a company. When I had built the right experience and the legal environment changed to support the business I left my job and pursued it relentlessly.

We added a few people (part-time) raised a little money, but ultimately we couldn't get the product market fit we needed to feel comfortable that we could grow and keep our integrity (we were a financial product). A few weeks ago I shut down the business and I'm about to find something new.

The fact that I lost a year of income is completely irrelevant vs the regret I would have faced had I never made the leap. Even without YC my network has strengthened considerably and I learned more in a year than I thought possible.

I have read a ton, watched all the startup school videos, talked to a lot of founders and tried to understand how to do this well. The fake work problem is real and even while paying extreme attention to it, often times I would waste a few hours doing something that would not increase the probability of success.

Code and talk to customers. It's so, so crucial.

Starting a fast growth company is not for everyone, but for those that want to do it, YC's information is gold. Thanks for everything you guys have put out.

My impression of YC's marketing is an appeal to hubris (and often, the hubris of youth). Most will fail, but none believe it will be them, and in the process, they position themselves outside of an environment in which they'd otherwise have access to people with technical and sustainable business experience from which they can learn what (and what not) to do.

I'm a lot happier having spent 10 years building a sustainable company doing what I really want to do, than I ever was at exciting startups during the v1 .com bubble.

Getting to that point, however, required putting in a lot more than 3 months -- or 3 years -- of backbreaking effort.

sama's response is correct. There's no real downside to doing YC when you're young. If you succeed, you get rich. If you don't, you can probably find work at another YC company that is succeeding. If you can't, then having YC on your resume will probably help you land a job at another startup. No YC founder will ever go hungry.

There's a long, long road between not "going hungry" and maximizing your individual potential, and anyone that survived the first .com bubble unscathed knows that the latter has far more lasting power.

I don't think it's fair to use the term slacking here. At worst they're people who focus on the wrong things and don't prioritize their resources optimally. Considering the number who burnout, they're likely working very hard, just not on the things that will matter in the end.

I also think it's real and sometimes hard work, like migrating from Angular to React which could make a company grow immensely, especially if even more time is invested in blogging about the process.

I don't think migrating from Angular to React is real work. If it takes a long time, it's probably best to stay with Angular. A failed company using Angular is the same as a failed company using React. Better to spend your time iterating on the product and acquiring customers. If you succeed you can always migrate later. It will cost more, but you will have more resources too. Doing something like that in an early stage startup just has too high of an opportunity cost. It's exactly the kind of fake work Altman is talking about.

I was trying to be sarcastic but in hindsight it was a bit too plausible around here heh.

I was hoping you were being sarcastic. The trouble with sarcasm is it's indistinguishable from foolish sincerity, which abounds on the interwebs. Without facial or voice cues, there's no way to know. That's why you have to use the /sarcasm tag.

The median age of YC founders is 30. These aren't the pliable, simple-minded children of your caricature. Many of them are accomplished entrepreneurs who understand power law dynamics perfectly.

Further, I think nearly every founder who has gone through YC would report that, succeed or fail, they are net-benefited by the experience. Rather than stunting an individual, the exercise of founding a startup is probably one of the best ways to rapidly increase your skill-set over a short time frame.

I would agree with you that attempting a startup is a net positive career, and even life, experience.

I would disagree that you should grind away for it on years. If YC is confident that hustle/effort is the problem, they should be hiring engineers directly, pay them market rate, and keep all of the equity in their projects to themselves instead of having founders shoulder the risk.

I think a lot of your replies and central argument is very thoughtful, but the one thing to consider is that successful startups are the result of unreasonable exertions of will, unreasonable amounts of luck, and an unreasonable amount of risk.

If it were reasonable, I don't think the value created would be so great.

While I don't disagree with your points on a macro, startups are very specific entities, and their success is contingent upon founders (and team members) who are willing to do unreasonable things. And also be extremely lucky.

Thank you. I agree with your points as well.

The people he's telling to grind are those that have millions in funding. So you work hard, pay yourself, and if it fails you had a great job and a great experience, and you can go get a better job than you could have when you started.

Sure, you worked harder than someone who has a boring 9-5, but you're not turning yourself an indentured servant until the end of time. Your only risk is the additional time/effort.

I'd posit that very few who go through YC stunt their career growth even when failing.

Isn't it easier to take risks when you are younger? So even if it's not sustainable, wouldn't it be better advised to do something with fewer chances of success early one in life ?

It's easier to take risks, and it's also cheaper for YC.

Your chances of success, however, are much higher with more experience and resources at your disposal.