5 ms·

Comfortable money + marketing hype keep it that way unfortunately. If governments really wanted to prioritise innovation, they should consider giving a banker'

by osrec 5y ago

Comfortable money + marketing hype keep it that way unfortunately. If governments really wanted to prioritise innovation, they should consider giving a banker's salary to a research scientist.

b112 5y ago
Governments do, if they work on bombs. Or spying. Or on figuring out the other guy's bombs.
- vostok 5y ago
  Do you have a source for this? Spying sounds like a pretty interesting job if you can make something similar to FANG.
  - b112 5y ago
    Algo coders, predictive analysis of publicly available data, large societal trends prediction, using social media data to detect malign intent prior to action, analyzing the same to look for foreign activity, hacking foreign infrastructure, etc etc, CIA/NSA and other agencies hire these types right from University typically. They also fund startups which may be used for national interests and so on. Much of the time, they contact you, not the other way around.
    - reasonabl_human 5y ago
      Source? Lived and worked in D.C. and have a TS/SCI, sat for FSP…. The IC doesn’t pay even close to big tech rates. There is also no mystery around someone contacting you, just apply to the NSA / CIA / etc. if those paths pique your interest. Startups working on IC-relevant tech getting funding via non-traditional means is absolutely true but not guaranteed.
    - TigeriusKirk 5y ago
      I looked at NSA/CIA when I was graduating college and the compensation was notably below market and with very rigid structures. I was given to understand a common path was to put in some time at the actual agencies and then go over to a contractor where you could make good money. That was 30 years ago, though. Could be completely different now.
      - rdtwo 5y ago
        Same deal when I graduated. They told me there was no big paycheck and no glory and I just noped out mid interview.
  - tigerlily 5y ago
    There's that fantasy crystal ball company...
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  Then why are the NSA and NRO postings always so uncompetitive? DoE research postings are even worse.
mysterydip 5y ago
At least in the US, they're generally limited to salaries on the "general schedule", and management gets paid more than technical people, because "it wouldn't be fair" to have subordinates that make more than you. So there's a built-in glass ceiling for tech careers. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/22Tables/html/GS.aspx https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries...
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  “They” (political leaders) choose to limit salaries, and if a problem is urgent enough, they can somehow find a way pay more. It is just politics. Paying more today increases cash spend today, and that looks bad for them come election time.
- halpert 5y ago
  Maybe “it’s not fair to have subordinates earn more” was the justification given to you, but businesses rarely make decisions based on what’s fair. Engineers are valuable, but individual engineers are largely replaceable. Being able to coordinate a large group successfully also has a lot of value.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Think it has a lot more to do with proximity to those controlling the purse-strings. Intra-firm compensation is not nearly as "rational" as you are making it out to be.
    - halpert 5y ago
      Is it really proximity to the purse string? Because even large, profitable founder-led tech companies, where founders have full control and motive to run the company efficiently, adopt middle management. And what evidence is there that middle management is unnecessary? The only evidence presented is theoretical critiques from engineers who feel they stand to gain from the removal of management.
  - 5y ago
sseagull 5y ago
The annual budget of the entire NSF is $8.28B. The NIH is $42B Google's net profit was $40B in 2020. Apple's was $94.6B in 2021. (all according to wikipedia). Edit: The above is net income, so AFTER paying all the exorbitant salaries. Apple alone makes enough money that it could fund pretty much all current publicly-funded science happening in the US at the current rate. That is a ridiculous amount of money, and publicly-funded science just cannot compete at that level. (Currently on publicly-funded grants. Underpaid relative to what I could make elsewhere, but happy to be contributing to the greater good rather than helping some advertising company).
amoorthy 5y ago
I'm torn on this. No doubt money is important but how much is needed? I've been thinking about this for a while [1] and I think more important to drive innovation is to change our culture to admire people who dedicate themselves to solving big problems over a long period of time. And a close second would be a culture that prizes modesty and eschews material wealth. I realize this may be a pipe-dream but it feels like a better long-term strategy than "pay researchers more than FAANG". [1] https://www.curiousjuice.com/blog-0/bid/89407/How-much-salary-is-enough-Apparently-75-000-year https://www.curiousjuice.com/blog-0/bid/89407/How-much-salar...
- osrec 5y ago
  If you want to stop the brain drain from more worthwhile areas to less worthwhile areas, you need to at least pay better starting salaries in the more worthwhile fields. Otherwise, you'll end up with potential Einsteins playing with spreadsheets in investment banks rather than discovering relativity, simply because they wanted a bit of disposable income. Stupid, yes, but that's the situation we're in.

by osrec 5y ago

Comfortable money + marketing hype keep it that way unfortunately. If governments really wanted to prioritise innovation, they should consider giving a banker's salary to a research scientist.

b112 5y ago

Governments do, if they work on bombs. Or spying. Or on figuring out the other guy's bombs.

vostok 5y ago
Do you have a source for this? Spying sounds like a pretty interesting job if you can make something similar to FANG.
- b112 5y ago
  Algo coders, predictive analysis of publicly available data, large societal trends prediction, using social media data to detect malign intent prior to action, analyzing the same to look for foreign activity, hacking foreign infrastructure, etc etc, CIA/NSA and other agencies hire these types right from University typically. They also fund startups which may be used for national interests and so on. Much of the time, they contact you, not the other way around.
  - reasonabl_human 5y ago
    Source? Lived and worked in D.C. and have a TS/SCI, sat for FSP…. The IC doesn’t pay even close to big tech rates. There is also no mystery around someone contacting you, just apply to the NSA / CIA / etc. if those paths pique your interest. Startups working on IC-relevant tech getting funding via non-traditional means is absolutely true but not guaranteed.
  - TigeriusKirk 5y ago
    I looked at NSA/CIA when I was graduating college and the compensation was notably below market and with very rigid structures. I was given to understand a common path was to put in some time at the actual agencies and then go over to a contractor where you could make good money. That was 30 years ago, though. Could be completely different now.
    - rdtwo 5y ago
      Same deal when I graduated. They told me there was no big paycheck and no glory and I just noped out mid interview.
- tigerlily 5y ago
  There's that fantasy crystal ball company...
jjoonathan 5y ago
Then why are the NSA and NRO postings always so uncompetitive? DoE research postings are even worse.

mysterydip 5y ago

At least in the US, they're generally limited to salaries on the "general schedule", and management gets paid more than technical people, because "it wouldn't be fair" to have subordinates that make more than you. So there's a built-in glass ceiling for tech careers. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/22Tables/html/GS.aspx https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries...

lotsofpulp 5y ago
“They” (political leaders) choose to limit salaries, and if a problem is urgent enough, they can somehow find a way pay more. It is just politics. Paying more today increases cash spend today, and that looks bad for them come election time.
halpert 5y ago
Maybe “it’s not fair to have subordinates earn more” was the justification given to you, but businesses rarely make decisions based on what’s fair. Engineers are valuable, but individual engineers are largely replaceable. Being able to coordinate a large group successfully also has a lot of value.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Think it has a lot more to do with proximity to those controlling the purse-strings. Intra-firm compensation is not nearly as "rational" as you are making it out to be.
  - halpert 5y ago
    Is it really proximity to the purse string? Because even large, profitable founder-led tech companies, where founders have full control and motive to run the company efficiently, adopt middle management. And what evidence is there that middle management is unnecessary? The only evidence presented is theoretical critiques from engineers who feel they stand to gain from the removal of management.
- 5y ago

sseagull 5y ago

The annual budget of the entire NSF is $8.28B. The NIH is $42B Google's net profit was $40B in 2020. Apple's was $94.6B in 2021. (all according to wikipedia). Edit: The above is net income, so AFTER paying all the exorbitant salaries. Apple alone makes enough money that it could fund pretty much all current publicly-funded science happening in the US at the current rate. That is a ridiculous amount of money, and publicly-funded science just cannot compete at that level. (Currently on publicly-funded grants. Underpaid relative to what I could make elsewhere, but happy to be contributing to the greater good rather than helping some advertising company).

amoorthy 5y ago

I'm torn on this. No doubt money is important but how much is needed? I've been thinking about this for a while [1] and I think more important to drive innovation is to change our culture to admire people who dedicate themselves to solving big problems over a long period of time. And a close second would be a culture that prizes modesty and eschews material wealth. I realize this may be a pipe-dream but it feels like a better long-term strategy than "pay researchers more than FAANG". [1] https://www.curiousjuice.com/blog-0/bid/89407/How-much-salary-is-enough-Apparently-75-000-year https://www.curiousjuice.com/blog-0/bid/89407/How-much-salar...

osrec 5y ago
If you want to stop the brain drain from more worthwhile areas to less worthwhile areas, you need to at least pay better starting salaries in the more worthwhile fields. Otherwise, you'll end up with potential Einsteins playing with spreadsheets in investment banks rather than discovering relativity, simply because they wanted a bit of disposable income. Stupid, yes, but that's the situation we're in.