4 ms·

I find many of these companies the opposite of prestigious. They are shameful. It's a symptom of how screwed up this world is that people would actually want

I find many of these companies the opposite of prestigious. They are shameful. It's a symptom of how screwed up this world is that people would actually want to work for them and consider it an honor to do so.

emteycz 6y ago
Because they have control of the money. How do we cut them out?
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Legislation and regulation.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    Meh, I absolutely don't believe that's the way. That's how we get the market to halt. I was thinking more of teaching business and management skills to engineers.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      So “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”?
    - tolbish 6y ago
      That is called the MBA.
config_yml 6y ago
As Steve Blank said, in 5 years, having FB on your resume will be like Enron. I hope he’s right.
- samfisher83 6y ago
  I think most people did ok. Enron had a lot of really smart people. Morally bankrupt, but very smart. No different than any of these big tech companies. People like money, smart people will be attracted to it. Companies like smart people so I don't think they will have a hard time getting another job.
  - ryanmarsh 6y ago
    As with many corrupt organizations Enron was full of good people who had no power and never did anything morally wrong. A select few held the power or agency to act selfishly and did so. It didn’t become apparent to many employees that something was amiss until shortly before the FBI raided them.
    - dasil003 6y ago
      Of course we can't paint all employees of any company with one brush, but I don't think we should let the majority of Enron employees off the hook so easily. That kind of systemic fraud requires cooperation or at least a large number of individuals to look the other way. I realize some innocent people's reputation will be hurt, but there needs to be some social pressure for whistle blowers otherwise the risk reward is always such that "a few bad apples" will take the risk enabled by the silent majority "just doing their jobs".
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    I've interviewed several smart people from Palantir and naturally I did not hire them. They might as well wear a scarlet letter.
    - shostack 6y ago
      So you made a biased decision about a candidate based on where they worked rather than evaluate them on their ability to perform in the role relative to other candidates?
      - jeffbee 6y ago
- tudelo 6y ago
  For the qualities that you consider a negative, some may consider it a positive.
- esoterica 6y ago
  Unless you were part of the small group of people committing accounting fraud, I don't think the rest of Enron had serious trouble finding new jobs elsewhere because of the name on their resume.
notacoward 6y ago
> I find many of these companies the opposite of prestigious. I agree, but perhaps not for the reasons you'd think. The "moral stain" of having worked for these companies only matters if hiring managers elsewhere make it matter. They don't. Throughout the industry, they're looking at potential return on investment and little else. Having worked at Facebook might matter if you want to go work for the White House or New York Times, but not for another tech company. The reason I think working at those companies is anti-prestigious is that they're such unique self-contained worlds. If I see that somebody only has experience at FAANG since college, I know that they've become accustomed to having a vast array of systems and libraries and experts and other kinds of support available to them that aren't so available anywhere else. Maybe they'll learn to adjust to how computing is in the rest of the world. Maybe they'll be absolutely helpless, functioning at a one- or two-year level despite five or seven years among "the best engineers in the world" or whatever they're saying nowadays. I don't attach a premium to that experience. I attach a discount.
jnwatson 6y ago
In my social group, working for Facebook in particular is definitely shunned.

emteycz 6y ago

Because they have control of the money. How do we cut them out?

toomuchtodo 6y ago
Legislation and regulation.
- emteycz 6y ago
  Meh, I absolutely don't believe that's the way. That's how we get the market to halt. I was thinking more of teaching business and management skills to engineers.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    So “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”?
  - tolbish 6y ago
    That is called the MBA.

config_yml 6y ago

As Steve Blank said, in 5 years, having FB on your resume will be like Enron. I hope he’s right.

samfisher83 6y ago
I think most people did ok. Enron had a lot of really smart people. Morally bankrupt, but very smart. No different than any of these big tech companies. People like money, smart people will be attracted to it. Companies like smart people so I don't think they will have a hard time getting another job.
- ryanmarsh 6y ago
  As with many corrupt organizations Enron was full of good people who had no power and never did anything morally wrong. A select few held the power or agency to act selfishly and did so. It didn’t become apparent to many employees that something was amiss until shortly before the FBI raided them.
  - dasil003 6y ago
    Of course we can't paint all employees of any company with one brush, but I don't think we should let the majority of Enron employees off the hook so easily. That kind of systemic fraud requires cooperation or at least a large number of individuals to look the other way. I realize some innocent people's reputation will be hurt, but there needs to be some social pressure for whistle blowers otherwise the risk reward is always such that "a few bad apples" will take the risk enabled by the silent majority "just doing their jobs".
- jeffbee 6y ago
  I've interviewed several smart people from Palantir and naturally I did not hire them. They might as well wear a scarlet letter.
  - shostack 6y ago
    So you made a biased decision about a candidate based on where they worked rather than evaluate them on their ability to perform in the role relative to other candidates?
    - jeffbee 6y ago
tudelo 6y ago
For the qualities that you consider a negative, some may consider it a positive.
esoterica 6y ago
Unless you were part of the small group of people committing accounting fraud, I don't think the rest of Enron had serious trouble finding new jobs elsewhere because of the name on their resume.

notacoward 6y ago

> I find many of these companies the opposite of prestigious. I agree, but perhaps not for the reasons you'd think. The "moral stain" of having worked for these companies only matters if hiring managers elsewhere make it matter. They don't. Throughout the industry, they're looking at potential return on investment and little else. Having worked at Facebook might matter if you want to go work for the White House or New York Times, but not for another tech company. The reason I think working at those companies is anti-prestigious is that they're such unique self-contained worlds. If I see that somebody only has experience at FAANG since college, I know that they've become accustomed to having a vast array of systems and libraries and experts and other kinds of support available to them that aren't so available anywhere else. Maybe they'll learn to adjust to how computing is in the rest of the world. Maybe they'll be absolutely helpless, functioning at a one- or two-year level despite five or seven years among "the best engineers in the world" or whatever they're saying nowadays. I don't attach a premium to that experience. I attach a discount.

jnwatson 6y ago

In my social group, working for Facebook in particular is definitely shunned.