6 ms·

What kind of systems do you think run the oil drills/manages refineries? Or simulate potential drilling sites? You think Exxon doesn't have data-centers? Or

What kind of systems do you think run the oil drills/manages refineries? Or simulate potential drilling sites? You think Exxon doesn't have data-centers? Or that everything is still analog buttons with a digital device driver on the end like the 80s? I work for a large defense contractor, you know what I'm working on right now? I'm coding up REST services, and a couple of months ago I was helping to spin up a Kubernetes cluster. Traditional industry may not have the same scaling needs as say, Facebook or Google, but you don't have to be an Aircraft Carrier to be in the Navy.

giantg2 4y ago
None of this seems to answer the underlying question of why other companies need to compete on salary with big tech. I work for a financial company. We have tons of tech. We get paid peanuts compared to big tech.
- shiftpgdn 4y ago
  Because those people will leave and take their knowledge with them to big tech?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - giantg2 4y ago
    The positions at big tech are limited. The vast majority of engineers work for "regular" companies who can't compete with the massive profits and easy money. The risk of losing people to big tech is relatively low. We've had about 35ish% turnover during the last two years. This is multiple times higher than normal. We still managed to retain the other 65ish%. I worked on a team that had over 100% turnover during that time (half lost externally and half moved in the company). You know what, that manager didn't care. She told me they expected to burn people out in 1-2 years and weren't going to compete with companies offering 50-100% raises. So it wasn't a big deal because they expect to lose people, won't compete, and they still retain the majority of people because the availability of better places to go are pretty low.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
      > She told me they expected to burn people out in 1-2 years and weren't going to compete with companies offering 50-100% raises. I remember a manager at an SV startup we were working with, tell me, essentially, the same thing. They burned their engineers out. Many were H1Bs. Worked sick hours, In the couple of years we worked with them, they had, probably, a 75% turnover. Their managers shrugged. I would have been fired, if my team had had that kind of turnover. But I totally understand what is happening with Exxon. That kind of problem starts at the top. And there is some crazy tech, used in oil companies. My mother was a geologist, and she was using crazy tech, back in the 1950s, for prospecting.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  I guess if employees are satisfied with peanuts, great, that leaves more money for the top.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    That's not how it works. The number of high paying jobs is low compared to all the "normal" jobs out there. Keep in mind that average US dev makes about $110k. We can't all be in the top of a distribution.
- rblatz 4y ago
  Then why don’t you leave for a job that pays better in big tech?
  - giantg2 4y ago
    For the same reason most don't - lack of skill or barriers to entry like LeetCode (plus family stuff). The vast majority of devs work for "normal" companies. Hence normal companies don't need to compete with big tech. That's why HR benchmarks comp within the industry/location/etc that matches the company.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ianbutler 4y ago
  I think that a lot of people in this thread are expecting too much. Spinning up REST services and some kube clusters and maintaining them isn't why FAANG/MAANGA whatever make 300k+ a year and like 450k+ at the staff level. They make that because they're architecting and scaling services to literally something like 50% of the global population, and theoretically with deep knowledge of the distributed systems algos and gotchas needed to do so. And because of the difference in profitability of these tech cos compared to typical industries. Like if you have normal modern tech skills you shouldn't expect to make top 0.1%th percentile of the industry salaries. People with those normal skills make 50th percentile and up salaries. Which are high relative to other industries, but not top of our industry high, sorry. Your (the general your, not you in particular) labor is valuable but not that valuable :P Not to mention that the available amount of positions at these top tech companies are limited. Not everyone will get to them, because there just aren't enough. Edit: However, I'm a big believer in the idea of "You can eat what you can catch." So if you can otherwise raise your earning power to that of a FAANG Eng for doing normal work -- more power to you.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "Your (the general your, not you in particular) labor is valuable but not that valuable :P" My labor in particular is even less so.
  - foobarian 4y ago
    > Spinning up REST services and some kube clusters Furthermore: pray tell who do you think built Kubernetes and web services?
    - ianbutler 4y ago
      I'm assuming this was rhetorical, but since I imagine there are plenty of people who don't actually know: Kube is a descendant of Borg, and for those who don't know that's Google's internal container management solution. General web services are a little more muddy but most of the top frameworks and services are the conception of devs either in or formerly from FAANG/MAANG/ACRONYM whatever. Like there's still a reason having those names on your resume is used as signal in a lot of places. It doesn't always mean the dev is the best thing since sliced bread, but I get why people use it as signal.
- UIUC_06 4y ago
  Right. Take their annual report, divide the net income by the number of employees. Call that 'X'. Then do the same for some big tech companies. Call that 'Y'. The employee count is way less than for Exxon. Most likely, Y >> X. Vastly greater. So to a corporate bean counter, the "value" of an Exxon employee, X, is about what they're paying them now. Hiring one more, even a brilliant tech guy, will have a negligible effect on any numbers they care about. Especially since he'll be frustrated by the dinosaur culture and his inability to have any impact. You can say "you're wrong, what about <new energy thing>?" Well, this finance guy understands Exxon's numbers pretty well.
  - crznp 4y ago
    Amazon had a net income of $33b in 2021 with ~1600000 employees: ~$20k/employee. Exxon had $23b with 63000 employees: ~$360k/employee. I'm just using numbers from a quick search, and it won't be great because they both have a lot of subcontractors, temporary workers, etc. The point is that this metric is dominated by the most numerous workers, which probably isn't IT outside of big tech (or even in big tech). The real metric is impact that a particular hire has on the bottom line, which is hard to measure. Really, I think it is more about their separate job markets: Exxon posts positions in Dallas and pays what they have to to fill their positions, Amazon does the same in Seattle and gets a very different set of candidates.
    - UIUC_06 4y ago
      You actually did the research I suggested! I'm so thrilled. I wouldn't use Amazon since they have so many warehouse workers, unless you can restrict it to IT. I was imagining some data scientist (call her "Diane") at Exxon, getting so-so wages in Dallas, and yearning to triple her salary at Facebook. Exxon just can't do that for Diane, because they have too many middle-managers who make only 30% more than Diane does now.
  - c_o_n_v_e_x 4y ago
    This comparison is slightly flawed due to some nuances with hiring practices in O&G. At least on the downstream side of the business, Exxon runs a skeleton crew and hires A LOT of contractors and or people employed by EPCs. This is so done you can quickly and dramatically downsize when the price of oil or refined products goes the wrong way.
stocknoob 4y ago
The question is whether you are a cost center to the company. In IT when your revenue doesn’t come from software? You’re a cost center.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  Seems like any industry views its IT as a cost center by default until said otherwise, even if their revenue comes from software. There is no cure for shortsightedness.
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    IT is a cost center in every business, including software. It contributes to the ultimate profit in the same way that HR, Legal, and Finance do. Indirectly, in support of the actual revenue-generating functions.
    - ianbutler 4y ago
      Can't generate revenue without a product to sell. I'd say that's pretty direct. And before you come back and go spoken like a developer. Clearly the most successful businesses and business people in history agree with my assessment, it's why an engineers total comp is so high at actual tech companies.
      - gamblor956 4y ago
        I'm not sure what you're saying, but IT and software developers are not the same thing. IT is the support department that support what the developers do by managing the internal tools and hardware that the developers use. And if you think developer comp is high, in Hollywood the revenue-generators make more for a few hours of work than GAMMA developers will make in a year in a rising stock market. Clearly the most successful businesses and business people in history agree with my assessment Objectively false. The most successful businesses in history, adjusted for inflation, are the railroad and oil barons, followed by the Hollywood studios. And note that at least two of the GAMMA companies are now worth less than a retail chain.

giantg2 4y ago

None of this seems to answer the underlying question of why other companies need to compete on salary with big tech. I work for a financial company. We have tons of tech. We get paid peanuts compared to big tech.

shiftpgdn 4y ago
Because those people will leave and take their knowledge with them to big tech?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- giantg2 4y ago
  The positions at big tech are limited. The vast majority of engineers work for "regular" companies who can't compete with the massive profits and easy money. The risk of losing people to big tech is relatively low. We've had about 35ish% turnover during the last two years. This is multiple times higher than normal. We still managed to retain the other 65ish%. I worked on a team that had over 100% turnover during that time (half lost externally and half moved in the company). You know what, that manager didn't care. She told me they expected to burn people out in 1-2 years and weren't going to compete with companies offering 50-100% raises. So it wasn't a big deal because they expect to lose people, won't compete, and they still retain the majority of people because the availability of better places to go are pretty low.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
    > She told me they expected to burn people out in 1-2 years and weren't going to compete with companies offering 50-100% raises. I remember a manager at an SV startup we were working with, tell me, essentially, the same thing. They burned their engineers out. Many were H1Bs. Worked sick hours, In the couple of years we worked with them, they had, probably, a 75% turnover. Their managers shrugged. I would have been fired, if my team had had that kind of turnover. But I totally understand what is happening with Exxon. That kind of problem starts at the top. And there is some crazy tech, used in oil companies. My mother was a geologist, and she was using crazy tech, back in the 1950s, for prospecting.
JKCalhoun 4y ago
I guess if employees are satisfied with peanuts, great, that leaves more money for the top.
- giantg2 4y ago
  That's not how it works. The number of high paying jobs is low compared to all the "normal" jobs out there. Keep in mind that average US dev makes about $110k. We can't all be in the top of a distribution.
rblatz 4y ago
Then why don’t you leave for a job that pays better in big tech?
- giantg2 4y ago
  For the same reason most don't - lack of skill or barriers to entry like LeetCode (plus family stuff). The vast majority of devs work for "normal" companies. Hence normal companies don't need to compete with big tech. That's why HR benchmarks comp within the industry/location/etc that matches the company.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ianbutler 4y ago
I think that a lot of people in this thread are expecting too much. Spinning up REST services and some kube clusters and maintaining them isn't why FAANG/MAANGA whatever make 300k+ a year and like 450k+ at the staff level. They make that because they're architecting and scaling services to literally something like 50% of the global population, and theoretically with deep knowledge of the distributed systems algos and gotchas needed to do so. And because of the difference in profitability of these tech cos compared to typical industries. Like if you have normal modern tech skills you shouldn't expect to make top 0.1%th percentile of the industry salaries. People with those normal skills make 50th percentile and up salaries. Which are high relative to other industries, but not top of our industry high, sorry. Your (the general your, not you in particular) labor is valuable but not that valuable :P Not to mention that the available amount of positions at these top tech companies are limited. Not everyone will get to them, because there just aren't enough. Edit: However, I'm a big believer in the idea of "You can eat what you can catch." So if you can otherwise raise your earning power to that of a FAANG Eng for doing normal work -- more power to you.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "Your (the general your, not you in particular) labor is valuable but not that valuable :P" My labor in particular is even less so.
- foobarian 4y ago
  > Spinning up REST services and some kube clusters Furthermore: pray tell who do you think built Kubernetes and web services?
  - ianbutler 4y ago
    I'm assuming this was rhetorical, but since I imagine there are plenty of people who don't actually know: Kube is a descendant of Borg, and for those who don't know that's Google's internal container management solution. General web services are a little more muddy but most of the top frameworks and services are the conception of devs either in or formerly from FAANG/MAANG/ACRONYM whatever. Like there's still a reason having those names on your resume is used as signal in a lot of places. It doesn't always mean the dev is the best thing since sliced bread, but I get why people use it as signal.
UIUC_06 4y ago
Right. Take their annual report, divide the net income by the number of employees. Call that 'X'. Then do the same for some big tech companies. Call that 'Y'. The employee count is way less than for Exxon. Most likely, Y >> X. Vastly greater. So to a corporate bean counter, the "value" of an Exxon employee, X, is about what they're paying them now. Hiring one more, even a brilliant tech guy, will have a negligible effect on any numbers they care about. Especially since he'll be frustrated by the dinosaur culture and his inability to have any impact. You can say "you're wrong, what about <new energy thing>?" Well, this finance guy understands Exxon's numbers pretty well.
- crznp 4y ago
  Amazon had a net income of $33b in 2021 with ~1600000 employees: ~$20k/employee. Exxon had $23b with 63000 employees: ~$360k/employee. I'm just using numbers from a quick search, and it won't be great because they both have a lot of subcontractors, temporary workers, etc. The point is that this metric is dominated by the most numerous workers, which probably isn't IT outside of big tech (or even in big tech). The real metric is impact that a particular hire has on the bottom line, which is hard to measure. Really, I think it is more about their separate job markets: Exxon posts positions in Dallas and pays what they have to to fill their positions, Amazon does the same in Seattle and gets a very different set of candidates.
  - UIUC_06 4y ago
    You actually did the research I suggested! I'm so thrilled. I wouldn't use Amazon since they have so many warehouse workers, unless you can restrict it to IT. I was imagining some data scientist (call her "Diane") at Exxon, getting so-so wages in Dallas, and yearning to triple her salary at Facebook. Exxon just can't do that for Diane, because they have too many middle-managers who make only 30% more than Diane does now.
- c_o_n_v_e_x 4y ago
  This comparison is slightly flawed due to some nuances with hiring practices in O&G. At least on the downstream side of the business, Exxon runs a skeleton crew and hires A LOT of contractors and or people employed by EPCs. This is so done you can quickly and dramatically downsize when the price of oil or refined products goes the wrong way.

stocknoob 4y ago

The question is whether you are a cost center to the company. In IT when your revenue doesn’t come from software? You’re a cost center.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BlargMcLarg 4y ago
Seems like any industry views its IT as a cost center by default until said otherwise, even if their revenue comes from software. There is no cure for shortsightedness.
- gamblor956 4y ago
  IT is a cost center in every business, including software. It contributes to the ultimate profit in the same way that HR, Legal, and Finance do. Indirectly, in support of the actual revenue-generating functions.
  - ianbutler 4y ago
    Can't generate revenue without a product to sell. I'd say that's pretty direct. And before you come back and go spoken like a developer. Clearly the most successful businesses and business people in history agree with my assessment, it's why an engineers total comp is so high at actual tech companies.
    - gamblor956 4y ago
      I'm not sure what you're saying, but IT and software developers are not the same thing. IT is the support department that support what the developers do by managing the internal tools and hardware that the developers use. And if you think developer comp is high, in Hollywood the revenue-generators make more for a few hours of work than GAMMA developers will make in a year in a rising stock market. Clearly the most successful businesses and business people in history agree with my assessment Objectively false. The most successful businesses in history, adjusted for inflation, are the railroad and oil barons, followed by the Hollywood studios. And note that at least two of the GAMMA companies are now worth less than a retail chain.