6 ms·

As the adage goes, necessity is the mother of invention and Amazon seems to be at a point where it really needs to try everything under the sun to try to attrac

• ramesh31 5y ago
  Yes, that's how labor markets work.
  • throwawayboise 5y ago
    At some point, no amount of money is worth it. I can hardly imagine earning $350k a year. I've never earned a third of that anually. What I can imagine is a job that places such a demand on my time and attention that I don't have time for a life outside of it.
    • omegaworks 5y ago
      Exactly. No amount of money can buy you time. You are committing to a significant quality of life deterioration during the period you are employed at Amazon.
    • CyanLite2 5y ago
      You work there 3 years and you'll earn a million bucks. Plenty of life to live after that and a lot of money to do whatever it is you want. Many people are willing to make that tradeoff, perhaps not you though.
      • vmception 5y ago
        and you get to say "ex-Amazon or ex-FAANG" on any of your future projects to a completely non-discerning audience that will drown out any nuanced discussion from cynics.
      • vanusa 5y ago
        Plenty of life to live after that and a lot of money to do whatever it is you want. If your children hate you or you lose the love of your life -- or you ruin your health -- then what's the point of all that money and free time?
        • munk-a 5y ago
          Ruining your health is an aspect that I think gets far too little attention. If you're honestly working 16hr days your quality of life is going to absolutely tank and you'll be paying serious interest on the damage you do to your heart, back, eyes and wrists for decades to come.
        • 9530jh9054ven 5y ago
          Doesn't that kind of depend on having kids or love? There's probably a fair number of people out there skilled enough to do the work that doesn't have those things to distract from having a demanding job. Ultimately it's a decision that you'd have to make depending on what you care about. You could turn your question on it's head; what's the point of having children or a significant other if you are incapable or unwilling when you could be making money for the things you do care about in life?
          • vanusa 5y ago
            You could turn your question on it's head; what's the point of having children or a significant other if you are incapable or unwilling when you could be making money for the things you do care about in life? That's a good point, actually. Which I will bookmark as the perfect description of the kind of personality profile that is most suited to working at Amazon-- and perhaps the only personality type that can thrive there, actually.
            • reedjosh 5y ago
              I'm there and have a great life outside of work and a young family. I've yet to see the crazy culture everyone rants about. I prefer a bit tougher job that means I'll be financially free in 10 years. It also means my wife doesn't have to work and can really focus on raising our children. I've worked some long days, but not 16hrs. Plus I really dig the projects I'm on.
    • vanusa 5y ago
      At some point, no amount of money is worth it. That's the point these companies don't get, and never will get. All of their mouthed pronouncements about "wellness" and "work-life balance" notwithstanding.
    • JCM9 5y ago
      $350k is just the max base salary (cash). Comp packages have multiple components and then the actual total compensation including the value of shares awarded would typically be higher, veritably much much higher for anyone getting $350k base. For a lot of senior tech employees “cash salary” is a small minority of total comp.
    • cosmodisk 5y ago
      100%. I'm approaching the amounts that only a few years ago would have been in a fantasy land category, however there are issues with high stress levels, overtime and many others. I do understand many many people in my position would just pull through just because of money but eventually it wears out as a strong argument.
    • dan-robertson 5y ago
      It’s easy and comforting to imagine that someone getting paid more than you must also suffer more than you – certainly well paid doctors and lawyers and investment bankers seem to suffer terrible working conditions – but it isn’t really true. A software developer earning an ordinary good salary (say $80k-$120k to pick some reference point) isn’t going to be working ‘harder’ than someone with a more manual job[1] earning much less pay or indeed your equivalent software developer in a poorer country, and unlike a skilled tradesman, the programmer is unlikely to reach 40 in a terrible physical condition with his muscles shot and some kind of chronic joint pain. And warren buffet is unlikely to be working much harder than the CEO of some smaller company. Most of the reason those big companies can pay software developers so we’ll is that they are worth it, and they can be worth it because they have more leverage: if you do something that causes a small company to be 1% better, and if that same thing would make a small part of a massive company 0.5% better, the latter can be worth a lot more just because the denominator is so much bigger. It feels harder to explain why they must pay so much. The first order argument is that there is lots of demand for software developers and that pushes up the price, but these companies are active in markets where developers are paid less well (e.g. Europe) and they could adjust hiring to favour candidates who are good but less competitive (e.g. because they are bad at a particular kind of interview) so I don’t understand why market forces haven’t lead to things being more balanced.
      • vanusa 5y ago
        It’s easy and comforting to imagine that someone getting paid more than you must also suffer more than you However in the case of Amazon this isn't based on "imagining" but extremely widespread reports across multiple sources.
        • dan-robertson 5y ago
          Well all the examples I gave were from America. It’s true that at some jobs higher pay comes with worse conditions (eg hazard pay or working a night shift) but generally for programming (and many other professional jobs) higher pay comes with better conditions.
      • deleted 5y ago
    • ramesh31 5y ago
      >At some point, no amount of money is worth it. Speak for yourself, I guess. I would strap myself into the torture machine from Clockwork Orange for 8 hours a day if you paid me $350k to do it.
      • ericd 5y ago
        What if you’d been an engineer at one of these sorts of companies for a while and already banked a mill? Two? Five?
      • imwillofficial 5y ago
        Have you ever made $350k? The magic wears off fast and it doesn’t go as far as you imagine.
    • karmasimida 5y ago
      You can start imagining though, 350k is ... not that much in high cost area like Bay/NYC/Seattle Especially so if you are single income family.
      • ramesh31 5y ago
        >350k is ... not that much in high cost area like Bay/NYC/Seattle Yeah it really still is. Living in the bay area as a single 20 something making that kind of money you are approaching 1% status. Rent is a little higher sure, but what really is the difference between $2k/month and $4k/month when you're bringing home $20k+/month? And everything else in California besides housing is the same as anywhere else really in terms of cost of living.
        • karmasimida 5y ago
          For the record. You don't bring 20k+ per months, more like 9k+ after tax/401k contribution. And stock grants are liquid assets, but they are not cash, and most people I know won't exercise them right away, so they are still numbers in certain DB table
          • ericd 5y ago
            Eh for those liquidating them, most are turning most into equity in other companies/funds - ie a number in the same sort of DB table, albeit with a different ticker attached.
          • kaesar14 5y ago
            401k contributions are still savings, deduct that (at a max contribution rate that’s like 1.5k) and you’re at 10.5k a month. The bit about stock grants is meaningless, if it’s a public company that is straight cash.
      • vanusa 5y ago
        Median household income in Santa Clara County is $140k. How on earth can you say that $350k is "not that much"?
    • delackner 5y ago
      Just reiterating what some others said. The decision in your career life does not have to be a zero sum balance of low pay vs high stress/hours. There are several companies where the revenue they create per employee is so astronomical that reasonable work-life balance and high pay are on the table.
• CyanLite2 5y ago
  It's a start. Many other companies haven't gotten the weird idea that people like to be paid more money or they go elsewhere to find more money. At the end of the day, it's a job. And jobs that pay the most usually recruits the best. If they're looking at $350k base salary plus incentives, I may give them another look, especially if I can still do WFH.
  • munk-a 5y ago
    What is unimpeachable is that jobs that compensate the best can recruit the best. But that compensation isn't merely a cash amount - it also includes public perception about the ethics of the business (which will vary from person to person), expected quality of life while working (including the caliber of coworker you'll be interacting with) and expected interest - all among many other factors. Monetary compensation is certainly important and, if driven high enough, can account for extremely poor scores in other areas - but most people will tend to be pretty holistic about their job search. If I posted a job with a 700k compensation that was accompanied by constant 24/7 stress and existential dread you'd be surprised how many senior people would pass on that opportunity.
• axg11 5y ago
  N.B. I have a strong conflict of interest in this conversation, will leave the reason as an exercise for the reader to figure out. Amazon have launched more successful non-core businesses than any other big tech company. I suspect there's a belief throughout the company that qualities of the culture that lead to high attrition rates are the same qualities that breed revenue growth and success. In turn, that explains the reluctance to address those issues.
  • MattGaiser 5y ago
    Could some of that simply be because Amazon has always had non-tech competencies? Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc. Those have always been pure tech plays. Amazon started out competing with Barnes and Noble. But yes, I get what you mean. Companies are very reluctant to change the secret sauce.
    • axg11 5y ago
      This is a great point - the non-tech scaling aspect and intense customer focus contributes to the different culture.