39 ms·

Amazon was terribly run a decade ago, in 2006. At the time my manager had training to be a prison guard- that was his intended career. He didn't know how to ru

Amazon was terribly run a decade ago, in 2006. At the time my manager had training to be a prison guard- that was his intended career. He didn't know how to run a spreadsheet well, and he was managing programmers. His boss was an ex-DMV employee, literally, and had carried the same sort of passive hostility over. Amazon is a retailer that thinks it is a tech company and so its management is the kind of management you want at Walmart to keep the "associates" from pilfering the goods. At least in 2006 it was that way. I think the really interesting thing is, how can a company that is so notoriously terrible still be able to hire as many employees as they want? How is it that so many young (eg: 19-24 year old) engineers think that getting Amazon on their resume (or Facebook, Google, etc.) is somehow a big feather? Are further employees really that impressed by the name of the companies on the resume? When I was that age I certainly did think that a big name meant something but after I got to the other side- where I'm interviewing people- I realized that it's a huge mistake to try and judge whether you should hire someone with these kinds of correlations (including college and GPA). Amazon was the most terrible work experience of my career. I strongly urge everyone I meet who is considering them to avoid them.

andrest 10y ago
> getting Amazon on their resume (or Facebook, Google, etc.) is somehow a big feather? Because it is. Everybody knows these companies get to skim the cream and they vet their candidates thoroughly. As a start-up with no HR and poor hiring processes it, more often than should, gets the interview/job.
- 20yrs_no_equity 10y ago
  I don't know why so many people believe it, and I know for a fact that "Everybody knows" is false. Amazon does not skim the cream and they do not vet their candidates thoroughly. I don't know where these ideas come from, though I would guess marketing done by the companies themselves. Amazon engineers are lower than average. I'd say "the cream" is the top %10 of engineers I've worked with. (I'd put myself at %80). The average Amazon engineer is %40. Engineering managers are %20. I think the average Google engineer is maybe %60. Apple %80-%90. Facebook I have less visibility into but the impression from their attempts to recruit me is that they are probably getting pretty average engineers. Note that I would work for Apple and I will not work for google, because google is not high enough quality to meet my standards. (And I personally saw Mark Zuckerberg say "never hire anyone over 30 years old.. they just don't get it" at a YC Startup School in 2007 or 2008, so I'm of the impression they probably are close to as bad as google at being able to tell who is good and who is not. Being able to hire good engineers is not an easy task, because you have to be an excellent engineer to be able to tell who is good and who isn't. I have the distinct impression that people in their 20s do not realize that these companies names on their resumes are only feathers when presented to lower quality hiring departments. If you want to work with the best of the best, you're not going to rely on the fallacy of correlation.
  - discodave 10y ago
    Firstly, you cite no actual data about who is "the cream" vs not. Secondly, you have no data to back up this claim: > (I'd put myself at %80). The average Amazon engineer is %40. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

andrest 10y ago

> getting Amazon on their resume (or Facebook, Google, etc.) is somehow a big feather? Because it is. Everybody knows these companies get to skim the cream and they vet their candidates thoroughly. As a start-up with no HR and poor hiring processes it, more often than should, gets the interview/job.

20yrs_no_equity 10y ago
I don't know why so many people believe it, and I know for a fact that "Everybody knows" is false. Amazon does not skim the cream and they do not vet their candidates thoroughly. I don't know where these ideas come from, though I would guess marketing done by the companies themselves. Amazon engineers are lower than average. I'd say "the cream" is the top %10 of engineers I've worked with. (I'd put myself at %80). The average Amazon engineer is %40. Engineering managers are %20. I think the average Google engineer is maybe %60. Apple %80-%90. Facebook I have less visibility into but the impression from their attempts to recruit me is that they are probably getting pretty average engineers. Note that I would work for Apple and I will not work for google, because google is not high enough quality to meet my standards. (And I personally saw Mark Zuckerberg say "never hire anyone over 30 years old.. they just don't get it" at a YC Startup School in 2007 or 2008, so I'm of the impression they probably are close to as bad as google at being able to tell who is good and who is not. Being able to hire good engineers is not an easy task, because you have to be an excellent engineer to be able to tell who is good and who isn't. I have the distinct impression that people in their 20s do not realize that these companies names on their resumes are only feathers when presented to lower quality hiring departments. If you want to work with the best of the best, you're not going to rely on the fallacy of correlation.
- discodave 10y ago
  Firstly, you cite no actual data about who is "the cream" vs not. Secondly, you have no data to back up this claim: > (I'd put myself at %80). The average Amazon engineer is %40. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect