3 ms·

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'.

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.

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.