14 ms·

Is it wrong to be glad FB's reputation has tarnished (and stock price sideways) over the past year or so? For so long they've monopolized the talent pool in the

Is it wrong to be glad FB's reputation has tarnished (and stock price sideways) over the past year or so? For so long they've monopolized the talent pool in the Bay Area. If more people decide 1) they don't want to work at FB and 2) FB employees are itching to leave then I see any stain on FB's employment brand as a net positive to the greater tech + startup ecosystem.

onychomys 8y ago
That's fine, but it would be okay with those of us who live elsewhere if maybe the tarnishing didn't come as a result of things like this.
teagee 8y ago
Based on their privacy issues, influence scandal, etc. its scary to imagine what the company looks like without the best and brightest.
- kidsnow 8y ago
  Same could be said for Google
- AlexandrB 8y ago
  I think about this a lot too. All companies eventually decline or go through rough patches. A Google that's fighting for survival and losing money would be much more open to working with the Chinese government or selling user data to the highest bidder. Trusting these entities based on their noble intentions today makes no sense to me if there's no legal agreement or regulation to restrain them tomorrow, when they get desperate.
- stickdogg 8y ago
  Lmao. Very good point.
394549 8y ago
> Is it wrong to be glad FB's reputation has tarnished (and stock price sideways) over the past year or so? No, not at all. Their positive reputation was in many ways unearned, and it's a good thing to be glad that their own actions and attitudes are finally catching up with them.
ummonk 8y ago
How have they monopolized the talent pool? By paying their employees better than everyone else?
- make3 8y ago
  there is also prestige associated to big names like Facebook (and Google, Apple, etc)
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > there is also prestige associated to big names I hate that this has happened. The Bay Area used to be a place where working for the big, shiny company that makes your parents happy wasn't prestigious. It was safe. But taking a risk and starting something new was admired. The present state of affairs reminds me of Wall Street.
    - ng12 8y ago
      It was a little different when you could afford to buy a house in the Bay Area without $2m in the bank.
      - ummonk 8y ago
        Yes, so much this. There is a very real opportunity cost to forgoing high salaries (and this opportunity cost is front-loaded as well since home prices keep appreciating).
    - vpark 8y ago
      There was always a level of prestige associated with certain companies even in the 80s and 90s, no? The tech industry, despite its shortcomings, is vastly superior to Wall Street in that regard. It's still a meritocracy above all else. Plenty of smart people break into tech after doing something else for a few years. If you want to go into investment banking, you better come from a consulting or have already been working in finance. Your only last bastion of hope is to get an MBA and then join the rat race.
tmh79 8y ago
they havent monopolized talent, they pay for talent. Facebook paying high salaries has increased all of our pay, equity etc, whether you work there or not. The only thing this may be bad for is founders who are in a zero sum competition with FB for talent and now need to spend more money and equity to get it.
- chalkandpaste 8y ago
  This is a very short-sighted view. Yes it has some immediate benefit in terms of pay, but you have to consider the long-term societal tradeoff of not developing addictive mental candy for people or developing societally useful technologies (or vice-versa, as it now stands). We can focussed on getting paid a lot now, or improving the wealth of everyone and generative the value we can all enjoy later.
  - acdanger 8y ago
    I agree with your premise, that many Facebook employeees would give society a better return on its investment if they were employed elsewhere, but that’s hardly Facebook’s fault.
    - chalkandpaste 8y ago
      I didn't pin the blame on them. I place it as a cultural issue.
    - prostoalex 8y ago
      It's tempting to think that without Facebook they would get involved in cancer research or interplanetary travel, but given the Silicon Valley's funding cycles, they would be more likely to end up building yet another food delivery startup or revolutionizing something by putting it on blockchain. Also, a bunch of recruiting venues exploited by Facebook are not that accessible to smaller startups. E.g. one of the top previous employers for Facebook employees was Google (or some other outfit within Alphabet group, like YouTube). Most likely those people would've stayed at Google. Another hiring source was university recruiting, which involves participating at job fairs at various universities, exhaustive days of back-to-back interviews, flying candidates for on-campus interviews, and eventually covering relocation costs (and potentially visas and immigration paperwork) for someone moving from Pittsburgh, Waterloo or Romania. Would a smaller startup have the financial oomph to run a similar recruiting pipeline?
akhilcacharya 8y ago
From everyone I know at top tech companies this isn't happening at all. If anything the stock dip was a good thing for new grads because they got more shares.
vmchale 8y ago
They pay like 2x more than competitors that aren't big tech companies.

onychomys 8y ago

That's fine, but it would be okay with those of us who live elsewhere if maybe the tarnishing didn't come as a result of things like this.

teagee 8y ago

Based on their privacy issues, influence scandal, etc. its scary to imagine what the company looks like without the best and brightest.

kidsnow 8y ago
Same could be said for Google
AlexandrB 8y ago
I think about this a lot too. All companies eventually decline or go through rough patches. A Google that's fighting for survival and losing money would be much more open to working with the Chinese government or selling user data to the highest bidder. Trusting these entities based on their noble intentions today makes no sense to me if there's no legal agreement or regulation to restrain them tomorrow, when they get desperate.
stickdogg 8y ago
Lmao. Very good point.

394549 8y ago

> Is it wrong to be glad FB's reputation has tarnished (and stock price sideways) over the past year or so? No, not at all. Their positive reputation was in many ways unearned, and it's a good thing to be glad that their own actions and attitudes are finally catching up with them.

ummonk 8y ago

How have they monopolized the talent pool? By paying their employees better than everyone else?

make3 8y ago
there is also prestige associated to big names like Facebook (and Google, Apple, etc)
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > there is also prestige associated to big names I hate that this has happened. The Bay Area used to be a place where working for the big, shiny company that makes your parents happy wasn't prestigious. It was safe. But taking a risk and starting something new was admired. The present state of affairs reminds me of Wall Street.
  - ng12 8y ago
    It was a little different when you could afford to buy a house in the Bay Area without $2m in the bank.
    - ummonk 8y ago
      Yes, so much this. There is a very real opportunity cost to forgoing high salaries (and this opportunity cost is front-loaded as well since home prices keep appreciating).
  - vpark 8y ago
    There was always a level of prestige associated with certain companies even in the 80s and 90s, no? The tech industry, despite its shortcomings, is vastly superior to Wall Street in that regard. It's still a meritocracy above all else. Plenty of smart people break into tech after doing something else for a few years. If you want to go into investment banking, you better come from a consulting or have already been working in finance. Your only last bastion of hope is to get an MBA and then join the rat race.

tmh79 8y ago

they havent monopolized talent, they pay for talent. Facebook paying high salaries has increased all of our pay, equity etc, whether you work there or not. The only thing this may be bad for is founders who are in a zero sum competition with FB for talent and now need to spend more money and equity to get it.

chalkandpaste 8y ago
This is a very short-sighted view. Yes it has some immediate benefit in terms of pay, but you have to consider the long-term societal tradeoff of not developing addictive mental candy for people or developing societally useful technologies (or vice-versa, as it now stands). We can focussed on getting paid a lot now, or improving the wealth of everyone and generative the value we can all enjoy later.
- acdanger 8y ago
  I agree with your premise, that many Facebook employeees would give society a better return on its investment if they were employed elsewhere, but that’s hardly Facebook’s fault.
  - chalkandpaste 8y ago
    I didn't pin the blame on them. I place it as a cultural issue.
  - prostoalex 8y ago
    It's tempting to think that without Facebook they would get involved in cancer research or interplanetary travel, but given the Silicon Valley's funding cycles, they would be more likely to end up building yet another food delivery startup or revolutionizing something by putting it on blockchain. Also, a bunch of recruiting venues exploited by Facebook are not that accessible to smaller startups. E.g. one of the top previous employers for Facebook employees was Google (or some other outfit within Alphabet group, like YouTube). Most likely those people would've stayed at Google. Another hiring source was university recruiting, which involves participating at job fairs at various universities, exhaustive days of back-to-back interviews, flying candidates for on-campus interviews, and eventually covering relocation costs (and potentially visas and immigration paperwork) for someone moving from Pittsburgh, Waterloo or Romania. Would a smaller startup have the financial oomph to run a similar recruiting pipeline?

akhilcacharya 8y ago

From everyone I know at top tech companies this isn't happening at all. If anything the stock dip was a good thing for new grads because they got more shares.

vmchale 8y ago

They pay like 2x more than competitors that aren't big tech companies.