Google is "fun" for two reasons. They provide lots of perks since, once their salary reaches a certain level, the top of the talent spectrum prefers these impro

Google is "fun" for two reasons. They provide lots of perks since, once their salary reaches a certain level, the top of the talent spectrum prefers these improvements to their work environment rather than an incrementally higher salary. They give people their 20% time since their core business involves a lot of speculative investments, and the 20% time is the best way to do that in-house. Average companies generally don't have the resources/incentive to hire the best, so they don't need to provide the same perks. They're also less likely to invest their time speculatively, so no 20% time. I'm sure there's a happy medium where the right amount of perks and fun culture improves company productivity more than it costs up front, much like decreased taxation can sometimes increase tax revenue. I don't think many companies feel confident enough to determine the line appropriately, and I imagine it's more comfortable as a manager to err on the conservative side.