11 ms·

This mirrors Netflix's old culture slide deck[0] > adequate performance gets a generous severance package > We’re a team, not a family; We’re like a pro sport

This mirrors Netflix's old culture slide deck[0] > adequate performance gets a generous severance package > We’re a team, not a family; We’re like a pro sports team, not a kid’s recreational team [0] https://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664/ https://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664/

dusted 5y ago
I'm finding that Netflix slide incredibly toxic, I'd never want to work for Netflix after reading that, no matter how skilled I was (they wouldn't want me anyway so nobody lost anything).
- adflux 5y ago
  And that is totally fine and 100% the intent of that slide. You and Netflix don't match in terms of expectations. Id give kudos to netflix for being up front about it.
  - ignoramous 5y ago
    I fear "We're not a family" at this point is an oft copied mantra (I recall seeing this in GitLab's S1), same as Amazon's "missionaries over mercenaries" that's now prevalent (Coinbase, the most recent example), as well.
    - blitzar 5y ago
      I fear "We're a family" at this point is an oft copied mantra Of course I am assuming those that use said mantra are refering to the touchy feely version of family and we are not going down the 'what does family mean anyway' rabbit hole, where rivalry even Fratricide and Parricide, they even have a word for killing a family member.
    - ravenstine 5y ago
      Ironically, "we're not a family" may end up being nearly identical to "we're a family". People distrust "we're a family" because it's an illusion, not because of the potential for an actual sort of "family" or friendship. But they may also come to distrust "we're not a family" once it becomes as cliche and they realize that every company they work for that makes such a claim will inevitably devolve into making the employee-employer relationship out to be more than it actually is or should be. I disbelieve most corporate values because companies are run by humans, and humans are pretty bad at self evaluation. Well, that and I've had enough experience to tell me that explicitly stated corporate values usually mean very little in practice. Only you can unveil a company's values, though that's no easy task beyond some basic red/green flags.
      - cestith 5y ago
        Some of my strongest lifetime friendships have been made in small startups where everyone treated everyone like family. I don't mean the Cleavers, either, but a real family with internal spats, sibling rivalry, and embarrassing stories brought out at parties. We broke bread together, suffered loss together, celebrated victories together, and protected ourselves collectively from outside threats. We were welcome in one another's homes. One of my coworkers (at three different firms) and I married sisters. I met my ex wife at his wedding. It was a wonderful life experience, but not something that I think can scale beyond a couple dozen people. Anyone who's telling you their 200-person company or 5,000-person company is like a family is lying to you to attempt to buy loyalty or is deluding themselves.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  May I ask, what you find toxic about them? I thought them to be refreshing honest and clear (but have not yet read all slides). I mean, it is also not attractive for me, because I would not put what is good for Netflix, over what is good for me - but otherwise I do not think a professional, internal competing sports team as a goal, is necessarily toxic.
  - sakarisson 5y ago
    I do agree that the honesty is refreshing. That said, I personally feel like the mentality of "We will fire you if you aren't doing an _exceptional_ job" reads as a serious red flag. The implication here is that you should expect to work overtime and prioritize your job over all else. Even then, we might still fire you. Of course I'd rather have a company being open and upfront about their unsustainable expectations, but I'd still prefer a company that values work/live balance of their employees. Would I say that Netflix's approach is toxic? Honestly, yes. But I do understand that this is just my own opinion.
    - p1esk 5y ago
      You do realize they offer top of market compensation (250k fresh grad, >500k senior SWE, etc) for what they are looking for?
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        So your argument would be, as long as the pay is right, toxic culture is allright? I mean, as long as this is a individual decision, that would be allright with me - but pay does not negate toxic. It only makes it bearable. But like stated above, I do not say that Netflix culture is toxic, as they are clear about what they expect: top performance above everything else. That this can lead to toxic situations, as we all are not only having good times - should be clear to anyone applying. But I suppose even at netflix they are aware of this and hopefully have plans to deal with temporary burn outs, other than instantly firing those underperformers.
        5y ago
- nhoughto 5y ago
  Interesting, I had the opposite reaction. Great that they are upfront and honest.
- papito 5y ago
  I think claiming that "we are a family" is actually the toxic one. It's incredibly dishonest to claim that. No one gets fired from a family because the family is "right-sizing".
  - technion 5y ago
    Even before I had a job, reading "we are like family" in advertisements just left me thinking of "well you walk out on a family at 5pm just because the event ended then".
    - aksss 5y ago
      The ol' "Irish Goodbye". Big fan.
  - petepete 5y ago
    "we're a family but if you don't do well enough gtfo"
    - nickpeterson 5y ago
      It is like a family, just more like the family from Succession…
  - ido 5y ago
    I don't think that's the part OP was speaking against.
  - rightbyte 5y ago
    It is a platitude, not toxic. Being a "pro sportsteam" on the other hand could be considered toxic. I know of no more cut throat legal business than sports. They are aggressivly signaling that they push KPI missers out.
    - logifail 5y ago
      Q: Is wanting to succeed considered a bad thing?
- _dain_ 5y ago
  It's funny how people have different reactions to it. I find it quite compelling and well thought out. "We're a pro sports team" is a much better and less toxic mindset than "we're a family".
  - hef19898 5y ago
    It is definitely more honest.
- afarrell 5y ago
  This is a signal that they have phrased their values well. A good values statement should polarize. It should disgust people whose ability to work effectively would be poisoned by the culture that leadership strives to maintain. A recruiting process which discriminates against people who do not share their values will create a more secure sense of belonging among people who do -- even among underprivileged groups who would otherwise worry they do not really fit in.
  - Wiseacre 5y ago
    Do employees from underprivileged groups stay at Netflix longer than comparable companies?
    - lostcolony 5y ago
      Who cares? Even giving credit to the point I think you're trying to make, the relevant comparison would be employees from underprivileged groups stay at Netflix as long, on average, as Netflix employees not from underprivileged groups.
      - Wiseacre 5y ago
        Is that actually the case?
        p1esk 5y ago
        Should it be?
        fdjlasdfjl 5y ago
        lostcolony 5y ago
        No idea! Certainly, their current DE&I reports are better than most tech companies ( https://about.netflix.com/en/news/netflix-inclusion-report-2021 https://about.netflix.com/en/news/netflix-inclusion-report-2...), but finding turnover by demographic is hard. My point isn't "these cultural values do/do not conflict with DE&I", but that you were asking the wrong question even to begin to measure that.
- logifail 5y ago
  > I'm finding that Netflix slide incredibly toxic I don't find anything in that deck even remotely toxic. I find it almost jaw-droppingly honest!
  - arrow7000 5y ago
    Honestly and toxicity are orthogonal. They're not opposite sides of the same spectrum. Seems to me that they are both honest and toxic.
    - logifail 5y ago
      > [Honesty] and toxicity are orthogonal Q: What's our working definition for "toxicity", specifically in the workplace? I'm not sure they're nearly as orthogonal as one might think. My experiences of toxic workplaces involved a great deal of dishonest behaviour and I'm struggling to recall much if any honesty.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        If a slide deck says “management will attempt to throw you under the bus: be prepared and keep a paper trail”, that's both honest, and exhibiting dishonest toxicity. Whether you're toxic and whether you're honest about the toxicity are orthogonal.
        1123581321 5y ago
        What's an example relevant to the slide?
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        “Most of this slide deck is lies. A survey shows that 97% of our employees think our company culture is improving, and 86% believe that this slide deck will be true in 6 months' time.”
    - dusted 5y ago
diegoperini 5y ago
This is more up to date as stated in the slides: https://jobs.netflix.com/culture https://jobs.netflix.com/culture
- sharken 5y ago
  In the financial sector people over process is just not realistic, too much regulation makes sure that will never happen. Independent decision-making is also hard to do, as soon as something requires a budget, you can forget about the independent part. And maybe you can have fewer rules, but instead they will be labelled processes and generally end up having the same effect. I do agree that highly effective people should be kept, e.g. people who are not afraid to move out of their chosen comfort zone once in a while. If I should state two core values, they would be critical thinking and curiosity.
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    >> people over process is just not realistic Invest in people understanding the reasons for something, and allow them to ensure it's upheld. A relevant domain-less software analogy is testing; you can mandate some level of testing, and it will be a burden, a morale killer, and constantly fail to be upheld, or you can work to ensure everyone understands the benefits of testing, create space for people to write tests and automate their execution, and then rely on culture to ensure testing happens. I've been in places that tried to mindlessly mandate corporate policies to ensure compliance; it resulted in delays and low morale, and extremely patchwork adherence (I left that place still not knowing if we were compliant or not). I've also been at a place that implemented SOX compliance; they didn't mandate anything, just "we're becoming part of a publicly traded company. Here is what the goal is. Here is some training to help understand what sorts of things we now need to be mindful of. Here is a person who you can talk to to help understand what that means for you. This is our highest priority right now". Morale stayed high, the results were good, and completion was -early-. >> as soon as something requires a budget Everything requires a budget. Headcount is a budget. The point is give people problems to solve, the relevant constraints, and let them work, rather than micromanage the solution. Maybe that's an industry failure, but don't confuse it for a unique constraint on that industry, rather than just a universal problem in that industry. >> And maybe you can have fewer rules, but instead they will be labelled processes Process exceptions exist. Rule breaking exists. And failure to break process/rules when you should have happens too. The point isn't to not have a sensible default, but to instead arm people with knowledge so that they pick the default when it makes sense to, and deviate when it makes sense to. It's the same distinction around "best practices"; they're not, they're just reasonable defaults. And by not dictating a process, you allow evolution in the de facto process the teams follow, to improve the process. I've seen companies attempt to revamp their internal processes from a top-down model: universally not pretty. I've also seen teams and departments retro and iterate, and see constant improvements.
0x445442 5y ago
What is adequate and what is the frame of reference? If adequate is average by some objective metrics and the frame of reference is Netflix itself then they would need to be terminating half their work force annually to make good. This sounds like braggadocio to me.
- MisterTea 5y ago
  "Completed their tasks in a timely manner when asked" sounds good enough to me.
  - lupire 5y ago
    The real problem is Netflix rally refuse to hire merely competent staff for boring work? Do they really need 10,000 major innovations every year? Even pro sports teams have paid support staff working with the "players".
    - p1esk 5y ago
      The point is that even for boring work (e.g. a janitor) it’s better to hire one really good worker than two average ones.
      - phist_mcgee 5y ago
        And good luck retaining your highly paid janitor. Someone has to be the coaster in a workplace.
        p1esk 5y ago
        Why? They are getting double the average janitor salary. Why would they want to leave?
        phist_mcgee 5y ago
        Because then you break the rule of 'everyone must be excellent'. In a room full of geniuses, do many people choose to mop the floor?
moffkalast 5y ago
If only they spent as much time expanding their catalogue as they do making slides they'd probably leave the competition in the dust.
closeparen 5y ago
I really like the culture deck, but surprisingly I find myself disagreeing most strongly with the expenses part, "travel as you would if it were your own money." When I travel with my own money, I'm going to fly basic economy and stay in a Holiday Inn Express. But I would be pretty outraged if a billion-dollar tech company wanted me to do either of those things while traveling on its behalf. My current employer's approved hotel list is pretty ritzy, much nicer places than I would stay in on leisure travel... and that's kind of the least they can do to offset the general imposition of work travel.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- p1esk 5y ago
  When I travel with my own money, I'm going to fly basic economy and stay in a Holiday Inn Express I don't know about you, but if my salary was $500k+ [1] I'd probably fly business class and stayed at the best hotels when I go on vacation. [1] https://www.levels.fyi/company/Netflix/salaries/Software-Engineer/ https://www.levels.fyi/company/Netflix/salaries/Software-Eng...
  - closeparen 5y ago
    You'd be surprised. Right off the top you're paying 45% of that in taxes, and if you're saving less than 25% you're failing the marshmallow test in a world-historically spectacular way. FIRE is very popular with this crowd and most save a lot more. You would own a home; that would cost you 10-15% at least. A Netflix engineer who is pretty bad with money but not a totally self-destructing addict might do as much as $75-100k/year in discretionary spending. That's an insane amount of money! And against that figure business-class tickets ($10k) and fine hotels ($5k/night) are accessible. But significant. You are probably traveling several times a year, and not solo. Blink and you'll piss it all away.
    - p1esk 5y ago
      I just googled a week-long vacation in Paris in the first half of June: a non-stop business class round trip from LAX is $2,100 per person, and the most expensive hotel I found in the center of Paris is $1,500/night. So for me and my partner this vacation would cost ~$5k for plane tickets + ~$11k hotel + say a grand per day on shopping and dining. The total is $23k. That would be less than one month salary after taxes. Definitely not something I'd fret over.

dusted 5y ago

I'm finding that Netflix slide incredibly toxic, I'd never want to work for Netflix after reading that, no matter how skilled I was (they wouldn't want me anyway so nobody lost anything).

adflux 5y ago
And that is totally fine and 100% the intent of that slide. You and Netflix don't match in terms of expectations. Id give kudos to netflix for being up front about it.
- ignoramous 5y ago
  I fear "We're not a family" at this point is an oft copied mantra (I recall seeing this in GitLab's S1), same as Amazon's "missionaries over mercenaries" that's now prevalent (Coinbase, the most recent example), as well.
  - blitzar 5y ago
    I fear "We're a family" at this point is an oft copied mantra Of course I am assuming those that use said mantra are refering to the touchy feely version of family and we are not going down the 'what does family mean anyway' rabbit hole, where rivalry even Fratricide and Parricide, they even have a word for killing a family member.
  - ravenstine 5y ago
    Ironically, "we're not a family" may end up being nearly identical to "we're a family". People distrust "we're a family" because it's an illusion, not because of the potential for an actual sort of "family" or friendship. But they may also come to distrust "we're not a family" once it becomes as cliche and they realize that every company they work for that makes such a claim will inevitably devolve into making the employee-employer relationship out to be more than it actually is or should be. I disbelieve most corporate values because companies are run by humans, and humans are pretty bad at self evaluation. Well, that and I've had enough experience to tell me that explicitly stated corporate values usually mean very little in practice. Only you can unveil a company's values, though that's no easy task beyond some basic red/green flags.
    - cestith 5y ago
      Some of my strongest lifetime friendships have been made in small startups where everyone treated everyone like family. I don't mean the Cleavers, either, but a real family with internal spats, sibling rivalry, and embarrassing stories brought out at parties. We broke bread together, suffered loss together, celebrated victories together, and protected ourselves collectively from outside threats. We were welcome in one another's homes. One of my coworkers (at three different firms) and I married sisters. I met my ex wife at his wedding. It was a wonderful life experience, but not something that I think can scale beyond a couple dozen people. Anyone who's telling you their 200-person company or 5,000-person company is like a family is lying to you to attempt to buy loyalty or is deluding themselves.
hutzlibu 5y ago
May I ask, what you find toxic about them? I thought them to be refreshing honest and clear (but have not yet read all slides). I mean, it is also not attractive for me, because I would not put what is good for Netflix, over what is good for me - but otherwise I do not think a professional, internal competing sports team as a goal, is necessarily toxic.
- sakarisson 5y ago
  I do agree that the honesty is refreshing. That said, I personally feel like the mentality of "We will fire you if you aren't doing an _exceptional_ job" reads as a serious red flag. The implication here is that you should expect to work overtime and prioritize your job over all else. Even then, we might still fire you. Of course I'd rather have a company being open and upfront about their unsustainable expectations, but I'd still prefer a company that values work/live balance of their employees. Would I say that Netflix's approach is toxic? Honestly, yes. But I do understand that this is just my own opinion.
  - p1esk 5y ago
    You do realize they offer top of market compensation (250k fresh grad, >500k senior SWE, etc) for what they are looking for?
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      So your argument would be, as long as the pay is right, toxic culture is allright? I mean, as long as this is a individual decision, that would be allright with me - but pay does not negate toxic. It only makes it bearable. But like stated above, I do not say that Netflix culture is toxic, as they are clear about what they expect: top performance above everything else. That this can lead to toxic situations, as we all are not only having good times - should be clear to anyone applying. But I suppose even at netflix they are aware of this and hopefully have plans to deal with temporary burn outs, other than instantly firing those underperformers.
      - 5y ago
nhoughto 5y ago
Interesting, I had the opposite reaction. Great that they are upfront and honest.
papito 5y ago
I think claiming that "we are a family" is actually the toxic one. It's incredibly dishonest to claim that. No one gets fired from a family because the family is "right-sizing".
- technion 5y ago
  Even before I had a job, reading "we are like family" in advertisements just left me thinking of "well you walk out on a family at 5pm just because the event ended then".
  - aksss 5y ago
    The ol' "Irish Goodbye". Big fan.
- petepete 5y ago
  "we're a family but if you don't do well enough gtfo"
  - nickpeterson 5y ago
    It is like a family, just more like the family from Succession…
- ido 5y ago
  I don't think that's the part OP was speaking against.
- rightbyte 5y ago
  It is a platitude, not toxic. Being a "pro sportsteam" on the other hand could be considered toxic. I know of no more cut throat legal business than sports. They are aggressivly signaling that they push KPI missers out.
  - logifail 5y ago
    Q: Is wanting to succeed considered a bad thing?
_dain_ 5y ago
It's funny how people have different reactions to it. I find it quite compelling and well thought out. "We're a pro sports team" is a much better and less toxic mindset than "we're a family".
- hef19898 5y ago
  It is definitely more honest.
afarrell 5y ago
This is a signal that they have phrased their values well. A good values statement should polarize. It should disgust people whose ability to work effectively would be poisoned by the culture that leadership strives to maintain. A recruiting process which discriminates against people who do not share their values will create a more secure sense of belonging among people who do -- even among underprivileged groups who would otherwise worry they do not really fit in.
- Wiseacre 5y ago
  Do employees from underprivileged groups stay at Netflix longer than comparable companies?
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    Who cares? Even giving credit to the point I think you're trying to make, the relevant comparison would be employees from underprivileged groups stay at Netflix as long, on average, as Netflix employees not from underprivileged groups.
    - Wiseacre 5y ago
      Is that actually the case?
      - p1esk 5y ago
        Should it be?
        fdjlasdfjl 5y ago
      - lostcolony 5y ago
        No idea! Certainly, their current DE&I reports are better than most tech companies ( https://about.netflix.com/en/news/netflix-inclusion-report-2021 https://about.netflix.com/en/news/netflix-inclusion-report-2...), but finding turnover by demographic is hard. My point isn't "these cultural values do/do not conflict with DE&I", but that you were asking the wrong question even to begin to measure that.
logifail 5y ago
> I'm finding that Netflix slide incredibly toxic I don't find anything in that deck even remotely toxic. I find it almost jaw-droppingly honest!
- arrow7000 5y ago
  Honestly and toxicity are orthogonal. They're not opposite sides of the same spectrum. Seems to me that they are both honest and toxic.
  - logifail 5y ago
    > [Honesty] and toxicity are orthogonal Q: What's our working definition for "toxicity", specifically in the workplace? I'm not sure they're nearly as orthogonal as one might think. My experiences of toxic workplaces involved a great deal of dishonest behaviour and I'm struggling to recall much if any honesty.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      If a slide deck says “management will attempt to throw you under the bus: be prepared and keep a paper trail”, that's both honest, and exhibiting dishonest toxicity. Whether you're toxic and whether you're honest about the toxicity are orthogonal.
      - 1123581321 5y ago
        What's an example relevant to the slide?
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        “Most of this slide deck is lies. A survey shows that 97% of our employees think our company culture is improving, and 86% believe that this slide deck will be true in 6 months' time.”
  - dusted 5y ago

diegoperini 5y ago

This is more up to date as stated in the slides: https://jobs.netflix.com/culture https://jobs.netflix.com/culture

sharken 5y ago
In the financial sector people over process is just not realistic, too much regulation makes sure that will never happen. Independent decision-making is also hard to do, as soon as something requires a budget, you can forget about the independent part. And maybe you can have fewer rules, but instead they will be labelled processes and generally end up having the same effect. I do agree that highly effective people should be kept, e.g. people who are not afraid to move out of their chosen comfort zone once in a while. If I should state two core values, they would be critical thinking and curiosity.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  >> people over process is just not realistic Invest in people understanding the reasons for something, and allow them to ensure it's upheld. A relevant domain-less software analogy is testing; you can mandate some level of testing, and it will be a burden, a morale killer, and constantly fail to be upheld, or you can work to ensure everyone understands the benefits of testing, create space for people to write tests and automate their execution, and then rely on culture to ensure testing happens. I've been in places that tried to mindlessly mandate corporate policies to ensure compliance; it resulted in delays and low morale, and extremely patchwork adherence (I left that place still not knowing if we were compliant or not). I've also been at a place that implemented SOX compliance; they didn't mandate anything, just "we're becoming part of a publicly traded company. Here is what the goal is. Here is some training to help understand what sorts of things we now need to be mindful of. Here is a person who you can talk to to help understand what that means for you. This is our highest priority right now". Morale stayed high, the results were good, and completion was -early-. >> as soon as something requires a budget Everything requires a budget. Headcount is a budget. The point is give people problems to solve, the relevant constraints, and let them work, rather than micromanage the solution. Maybe that's an industry failure, but don't confuse it for a unique constraint on that industry, rather than just a universal problem in that industry. >> And maybe you can have fewer rules, but instead they will be labelled processes Process exceptions exist. Rule breaking exists. And failure to break process/rules when you should have happens too. The point isn't to not have a sensible default, but to instead arm people with knowledge so that they pick the default when it makes sense to, and deviate when it makes sense to. It's the same distinction around "best practices"; they're not, they're just reasonable defaults. And by not dictating a process, you allow evolution in the de facto process the teams follow, to improve the process. I've seen companies attempt to revamp their internal processes from a top-down model: universally not pretty. I've also seen teams and departments retro and iterate, and see constant improvements.

0x445442 5y ago

What is adequate and what is the frame of reference? If adequate is average by some objective metrics and the frame of reference is Netflix itself then they would need to be terminating half their work force annually to make good. This sounds like braggadocio to me.

MisterTea 5y ago
"Completed their tasks in a timely manner when asked" sounds good enough to me.
- lupire 5y ago
  The real problem is Netflix rally refuse to hire merely competent staff for boring work? Do they really need 10,000 major innovations every year? Even pro sports teams have paid support staff working with the "players".
  - p1esk 5y ago
    The point is that even for boring work (e.g. a janitor) it’s better to hire one really good worker than two average ones.
    - phist_mcgee 5y ago
      And good luck retaining your highly paid janitor. Someone has to be the coaster in a workplace.
      - p1esk 5y ago
        Why? They are getting double the average janitor salary. Why would they want to leave?
        phist_mcgee 5y ago
        Because then you break the rule of 'everyone must be excellent'. In a room full of geniuses, do many people choose to mop the floor?

moffkalast 5y ago

If only they spent as much time expanding their catalogue as they do making slides they'd probably leave the competition in the dust.

closeparen 5y ago

I really like the culture deck, but surprisingly I find myself disagreeing most strongly with the expenses part, "travel as you would if it were your own money." When I travel with my own money, I'm going to fly basic economy and stay in a Holiday Inn Express. But I would be pretty outraged if a billion-dollar tech company wanted me to do either of those things while traveling on its behalf. My current employer's approved hotel list is pretty ritzy, much nicer places than I would stay in on leisure travel... and that's kind of the least they can do to offset the general imposition of work travel.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
p1esk 5y ago
When I travel with my own money, I'm going to fly basic economy and stay in a Holiday Inn Express I don't know about you, but if my salary was $500k+ [1] I'd probably fly business class and stayed at the best hotels when I go on vacation. [1] https://www.levels.fyi/company/Netflix/salaries/Software-Engineer/ https://www.levels.fyi/company/Netflix/salaries/Software-Eng...
- closeparen 5y ago
  You'd be surprised. Right off the top you're paying 45% of that in taxes, and if you're saving less than 25% you're failing the marshmallow test in a world-historically spectacular way. FIRE is very popular with this crowd and most save a lot more. You would own a home; that would cost you 10-15% at least. A Netflix engineer who is pretty bad with money but not a totally self-destructing addict might do as much as $75-100k/year in discretionary spending. That's an insane amount of money! And against that figure business-class tickets ($10k) and fine hotels ($5k/night) are accessible. But significant. You are probably traveling several times a year, and not solo. Blink and you'll piss it all away.
  - p1esk 5y ago
    I just googled a week-long vacation in Paris in the first half of June: a non-stop business class round trip from LAX is $2,100 per person, and the most expensive hotel I found in the center of Paris is $1,500/night. So for me and my partner this vacation would cost ~$5k for plane tickets + ~$11k hotel + say a grand per day on shopping and dining. The total is $23k. That would be less than one month salary after taxes. Definitely not something I'd fret over.