4 ms·

You can say that, but people gain a lot from working there. There are many pluses to working at these companies. Pay/benefits/relocation packages, provided on-t

You can say that, but people gain a lot from working there. There are many pluses to working at these companies. Pay/benefits/relocation packages, provided on-the-job training and free access to a lot of technical courses, relatively-effective engineering practices (ethics are a separate issue), little-to-no dress code, free food, technical managers (not nontechnical ones) and a nice name on the resume when you leave, to name a few. I'm not saying they are unique to these co's, just that these co's tend to offer all of the above. Plus, oftentimes the job app requirements are pretty general and loose, as opposed to all those shitty firms that want entry-level engineers to have graduated in the past 6 mos, and have experience with 10 different Javascript frameworks. (And then underpay them and work the hell out of them.) I know I saw a lot of those when I was leaving college in 2017/18.

ssklash 6y ago
> ethics are a separate issue They're kinda the main thing I'm talking about here. Everyone knows perfectly well you can gain huge amounts by working at FAANG companies, that's not in doubt. The question is at what cost, do the people doing it see their companies for what they are, and why do people continue to work there if they do. I'm sure being CEO of Phillip Morris or Palantir or Exxon-Mobile is quite lucrative, but I'll pass. Many people just need a job, and I don't begrudge anyone taking a job they need to support themselves or their families. But the kind of talent FAANG companies hire can likely work anywhere and are higher up the socioeconomic ladder. They have choices most others don't. And too many, in my opinion, work to get people to click ads and sell people's data.
- oneepic 6y ago
  My point is that it's irresponsible to reduce these companies to their ads and data practices, because they also tend to be great places to work and tend to offer a positive culture and benefits. You should consider everything before deciding to work there.
  - ssklash 6y ago
    I'm not sure I see how having a great work environment and culture and compensation package justifies helping a company perform its primary function, if that primary function is harmful. I'm not reducing companies like Facebook and Google to their data and ad practices, those practices are their core business model. It's literally why they exist, despite what they may say. GM makes cars, Facebook and Google collect personal information to better sell ads. The awesome benefits and coworkers and cool problems and neat tech don't change why those companies exist. I'm simply questioning why people still work there, assuming they know what they're helping build. Ad tech. That no one wants or needs.

ssklash 6y ago

> ethics are a separate issue They're kinda the main thing I'm talking about here. Everyone knows perfectly well you can gain huge amounts by working at FAANG companies, that's not in doubt. The question is at what cost, do the people doing it see their companies for what they are, and why do people continue to work there if they do. I'm sure being CEO of Phillip Morris or Palantir or Exxon-Mobile is quite lucrative, but I'll pass. Many people just need a job, and I don't begrudge anyone taking a job they need to support themselves or their families. But the kind of talent FAANG companies hire can likely work anywhere and are higher up the socioeconomic ladder. They have choices most others don't. And too many, in my opinion, work to get people to click ads and sell people's data.

oneepic 6y ago
My point is that it's irresponsible to reduce these companies to their ads and data practices, because they also tend to be great places to work and tend to offer a positive culture and benefits. You should consider everything before deciding to work there.
- ssklash 6y ago
  I'm not sure I see how having a great work environment and culture and compensation package justifies helping a company perform its primary function, if that primary function is harmful. I'm not reducing companies like Facebook and Google to their data and ad practices, those practices are their core business model. It's literally why they exist, despite what they may say. GM makes cars, Facebook and Google collect personal information to better sell ads. The awesome benefits and coworkers and cool problems and neat tech don't change why those companies exist. I'm simply questioning why people still work there, assuming they know what they're helping build. Ad tech. That no one wants or needs.