[jnardiello]

Only someone who doesn't have family could say: "A few months on a very low wage (that is what the $20k is for..), away from your friends and family, living in a tiny apartment is nothing compared to working on something you feel exceptionally passionate about."

Do you have small children? If so, can you try to imagine how difficult could be to miss the first words or first steps of your baby? Can you imagine what could mean to simply drop everything on the shoulder of your wife? Your comment is so superficial.

[argonaut]

Why do we always have to assume we're talking about small children? If that's a concern, wait until your children grow up to be teenagers before you leave for 3 months for YC.

[cookiecaper]

Do teenagers not need fathers? I understand what you're saying, but the point is that it's silly to set up a false dichotomy between entrepreneurship and family and attempt to force the entrepreneur to choose. I believe that the startup community is much poorer because of the tendency to do this, and I'm extremely suspicious of anyone who'd advocate it.

[argonaut]

Is it so hard to be away for 3 months?

Doing a startup instead of taking a stable job involves tradeoffs, like all choices. How much of a tradeoff you take depends on you. You can move your entire family to the Bay Area, with the tradeoffs that entails (uprooting family, more expensive housing). You can move to the Bay for 3-4 months with the intention of permanently setting up the startup back home, with its own tradeoffs (farther from investors, farther from mentors, 3-4 months away from family). Etc. etc. etc.

There is no false dichotomy. There is no free lunch. Stop making these narrow generalizations.

[cookiecaper]

There is a false dichotomy. Not asking for a free lunch. I think these are real concerns for entrepreneurs with dependents. Is it possible to be away for 3 months? Sure, it's possible, but almost everyone in this group, entrepreneurs with dependents, will tell you it's not worth it for the kind of terms that are being offered, and that it shouldn't be necessary to leave the family behind in order to start a business. It creates a great deal of strain to leave your family for that long, and the rewards need to be obviously worthwhile to justify it. In my estimation, and afaict, the estimation of almost all others in my peer group, the current startup programs do not make this tradeoff obviously worthwhile. And, for the third time, I think the bigger loss is on the side of the startup ecosystem when they create programs that are hostile to mature founders.

I guess it's hard to explain to someone who hasn't been in the predicament.

[argonaut]

You're right that I haven't personally been in that predicament.

But you haven't seen, as I've seen (as an employee), the huge value of YC and the meetings I've had with YC founders who had families (including one with a young child).

You haven't explained why what you said is not asking for a free lunch. Why is it that there aren't/shouldn't be tradeoffs? Either you move to YC or you don't do YC. Tradeoffs ensue. You yourself are arguing that the tradeoffs aren't worth it. Okay, they aren't worth it for you. The tradeoffs just don't make sense for your personal tolerance level.

Having children involves tradeoffs at all levels of your life. Tradeoffs in working hours. Tradeoffs in social activity. Tradeoffs in mobility. You accept those tradeoffs, for a certain time period, when you decide to start a family. The fact is those tradeoffs exist. And we don't live in an idealized world with no tradeoffs.

[cookiecaper]

I feel I've explained why it's not a free lunch throughout this thread. I didn't claim that YC had to change their program. I just suggested that it is not helpful for founders with family obligations, and that we're missing something in the startup community by neglecting this group of entrepreneurs. What does that have to do with a free lunch?

I understand there are tradeoffs, and I acknowledged this. I do not accept the popular brogrammer philosophy that rootless 20-somethings are the only people worth investing in because they are the most easy to exploit and/or manipulate. I don't think that makes them worth investing in, but I accept that most investors do. I stated my reasons throughout this thread -- I think founders with families are more likely to have true maturity, seriousness, and realism, and to have superior mental health overall. I think these attributes are beneficial to investors and that they'd have an interest in investing in familied founders for this reason, even if it costs more money to invest a company led by that type of person. You and I are free to disagree, and it still doesn't have anything to do with a free lunch, and it doesn't have anything to do with tradeoffs. It's just two people disagreeing.

I don't really get what you want here.