6 ms·

Are we deluding ourselves here? Why do you think hundreds of thousands of extremely bright people work for horrific/products companies like Facebook, Palantir e

by akudha 4y ago

Are we deluding ourselves here? Why do you think hundreds of thousands of extremely bright people work for horrific/products companies like Facebook, Palantir etc? Money. Money talks and talks very loudly. Most people have a price at which they will sell out. Those who don’t, are too few to make any significant difference

threeseed 4y ago
Because despite you thinking they are horrific companies many other people don't. Billions of people love and use Meta products every day and their tech stack is one of the world's best with technical challenges almost no other company faces. Palantir also has many parts of their business that benefit society e.g. combating human trafficking etc.
- habibur 4y ago
  > Because despite you thinking they are horrific companies many other people don't. The same goes for twitter.
- instagraham 4y ago
  Also neither of those companies are necessarily known as terrible places to work. I know people who'd be miserable in most 9-5 jobs who are happy in Meta. Working at Twitter now means a daily grind means being subject to the whims of an increasingly petulant emperor who does not respect anyone's expertise. What good does it for your career if he's just going to drop the ball at a moment's notice anyway?
  - cal5k 4y ago
    If that were actually true, why do so many people love working at Tesla/SpaceX? Clearly they don't have the same view of Elon's management style as you do. The reality is that Twitter as a business (and, imho, as a product) was sorely in need of a course correction. Layoffs, if they need to be done, should be done crisply and thoroughly so that remaining employees don't feel like the other shoe is about to drop. You rip off the bandaid, it sucks, then you refocus on the work ahead.
    - akudha 4y ago
      I don't know why people work for Tesla/SpaceX. I can take a guess though - there are only a handful of companies that work in space related field and only a few companies that make electric cars. So it is somewhat understandable, if one really wants to work at these places. Twitter is different - there are other big companies that provide as much tech challenges or more (whether they are better/worse than Twitter is another question). Twitter employees have many more options (relatively speaking) than SpaceX employees
    - instagraham 4y ago
      Working at Tesla/SpaceX puts you at the cutting edge of your field. It's probably worth a few trade-offs - and I'm sure it pays a hell of a lot more. Working at Meta/Google doesn't necessarily do that. I'm almost certain most of these companies' moonshot divisions are not as well-run as many startups, nor are these companies assured success in these areas. Their main products are already at a "don't fix it if it ain't broke" stage, even though many will claim these are broken. I doubt it's exciting work. Working at Tesla or SpaceX will be like working on a moonshot that's actually taking off. I'm sure it's a thrill. But increasingly, I don't think Musk is level-headed enough to be trusted with such things. It takes time to reject nitwitted leaders, so we can't expect employees to abandon ship overnight just to prove my point.
- ptero 4y ago
  I agree that "good company" and "bad company" are a reflection of personal preferences, but the fact that FAANG comp is much higher than elsewhere tells us that the companies strongly suspect that a lower salary will not be enough to attract such a strong talent pool.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    No. The companies feel they can afford to pay top drawer wages so they do so in order to hire what they hope is among the top talent, subject to among other things the randomness of their hiring processes.
- plgonzalezrx8 4y ago
  > Because despite you thinking they are horrific companies many other people don't. Thats exactly how a lot of people will view Twitter. You might think its horrible and they are terrible for laying of people, but plenty of good engineers ready to fill those roles for the money without the need of having free snacks, free coffee, rest booths, ping pong area, LED illuminated reading rooms, etc etc etc. Twitter will be fine.
- akudha 4y ago
  lol. Suppose their salaries reduced to half of what they are making today, how many of them do you still think will continue to work at these places, for the technical challenges and whatever else they have told themselves is the real reason for them to work there in the first place? I don't doubt the technical excellence of these companies. They are technically very capable because of the talent they hire, and they are able to hire top talent because of the high salaries they pay, not because of some altruistic or egoistic reasons
Herbstluft 4y ago
> horrific companies A workplace can actively kill humans and still treat its employees very good. You are mixing very different factors together here. Prestige, to name another example, is very important to a lot of people. Having "worked at FAANG" on your resume opens many opportunities afterwards that don't have anything to do with money.
epicide 4y ago
I certainly have a price at which I will sell out, but if they aren't offering "retire decade(s) earlier than normal", it's unlikely to make a long term difference to me compared to the alternatives. Yes, a 20% bump for a few years would be nice, but paying half of my paycheck in therapy bills for a decade cancels that out and then some. Basically, if they aren't offering "f** you money", pay has a diminishing effect on my employment choices. And if they are offering that kind of money, I'm assuming that'll come with even more consequences. My resume is alright, but it's not enough for an offer of way more money without strings attached. I can't speak for everybody of course, but I think not heeding the above leads to burnout.
- kortilla 4y ago
  Therapy bills to work at Twitter? The level of entitlement is palpable.
paganel 4y ago
> extremely bright people work for horrific/products companies like Facebook, Palantir etc For what it's worth those companies have not brought any real innovation in the last 10 years, give or take, because if they had they would have been on top of the world (quite literally). Which makes me hopeful that some of the real geniuses out there (today's von Neummanns and the like) might still avoid those companies out of principle.
- js8 4y ago
  I doubt real von Neumann would avoid working for Palantir out of principle.
jasonlotito 4y ago
This is the question being discussed. > Which company is going to have an easier time hiring The one that people want to work for and don't have to "sell out" to do it. > Most people have a price at which they will sell out. Sure. Agreed. But now you've tripled your OpEx vs your competitors. And the people that sold out aren't in any way loyal, so will bounce. But if they aren't offering substantially more, the money doesn't matter. It's all basically the same anyways. And then you have to consider financials and leadership. Twitter financials got substantially worse (20x) from my understanding after Musk took over because of the debt he now has. And as far as leadership goes: he was forced to buy it. That really doesn't look good.
- kortilla 4y ago
  > The one that people want to work for and don't have to "sell out" to do it. Nope, this is wrong if the company can afford to pay more. Just look at companies like Jane Street, HRT, etc. The high comp they are willing to pay makes them harder to get into than Twitter, Meta, etc by a long shot. They have a far easier time hiring.
TheCondor 4y ago
>> Are we deluding ourselves here? Yes. Pornhub, Exxon, Smith and Wesson, all the big tobacco companies, the guys that manufacture fentanyl, infowars, they all have IT staffs. Some have extremely sophisticated IT staffs. Money talks, but there other factors. when you’re working on migrating from .net to cloud native at Exxon and you’re building some kind of new container registry or something you probably don’t spend your days pondering climate change; you get paid every two weeks, you are learning some cool stuff and you’re building some cool stuff. Most people need jobs too. A pay check and some sort of plausible rationalization is all that is needed. “Twitter is free speech” sounds pretty strong. “Twitter connected Ukrainians during that invasion” sounds strong.

by akudha 4y ago

threeseed 4y ago

Because despite you thinking they are horrific companies many other people don't. Billions of people love and use Meta products every day and their tech stack is one of the world's best with technical challenges almost no other company faces. Palantir also has many parts of their business that benefit society e.g. combating human trafficking etc.

habibur 4y ago
> Because despite you thinking they are horrific companies many other people don't. The same goes for twitter.
instagraham 4y ago
Also neither of those companies are necessarily known as terrible places to work. I know people who'd be miserable in most 9-5 jobs who are happy in Meta. Working at Twitter now means a daily grind means being subject to the whims of an increasingly petulant emperor who does not respect anyone's expertise. What good does it for your career if he's just going to drop the ball at a moment's notice anyway?
- cal5k 4y ago
  If that were actually true, why do so many people love working at Tesla/SpaceX? Clearly they don't have the same view of Elon's management style as you do. The reality is that Twitter as a business (and, imho, as a product) was sorely in need of a course correction. Layoffs, if they need to be done, should be done crisply and thoroughly so that remaining employees don't feel like the other shoe is about to drop. You rip off the bandaid, it sucks, then you refocus on the work ahead.
  - akudha 4y ago
    I don't know why people work for Tesla/SpaceX. I can take a guess though - there are only a handful of companies that work in space related field and only a few companies that make electric cars. So it is somewhat understandable, if one really wants to work at these places. Twitter is different - there are other big companies that provide as much tech challenges or more (whether they are better/worse than Twitter is another question). Twitter employees have many more options (relatively speaking) than SpaceX employees
  - instagraham 4y ago
    Working at Tesla/SpaceX puts you at the cutting edge of your field. It's probably worth a few trade-offs - and I'm sure it pays a hell of a lot more. Working at Meta/Google doesn't necessarily do that. I'm almost certain most of these companies' moonshot divisions are not as well-run as many startups, nor are these companies assured success in these areas. Their main products are already at a "don't fix it if it ain't broke" stage, even though many will claim these are broken. I doubt it's exciting work. Working at Tesla or SpaceX will be like working on a moonshot that's actually taking off. I'm sure it's a thrill. But increasingly, I don't think Musk is level-headed enough to be trusted with such things. It takes time to reject nitwitted leaders, so we can't expect employees to abandon ship overnight just to prove my point.
ptero 4y ago
I agree that "good company" and "bad company" are a reflection of personal preferences, but the fact that FAANG comp is much higher than elsewhere tells us that the companies strongly suspect that a lower salary will not be enough to attract such a strong talent pool.
- ghaff 4y ago
  No. The companies feel they can afford to pay top drawer wages so they do so in order to hire what they hope is among the top talent, subject to among other things the randomness of their hiring processes.
plgonzalezrx8 4y ago
> Because despite you thinking they are horrific companies many other people don't. Thats exactly how a lot of people will view Twitter. You might think its horrible and they are terrible for laying of people, but plenty of good engineers ready to fill those roles for the money without the need of having free snacks, free coffee, rest booths, ping pong area, LED illuminated reading rooms, etc etc etc. Twitter will be fine.
akudha 4y ago
lol. Suppose their salaries reduced to half of what they are making today, how many of them do you still think will continue to work at these places, for the technical challenges and whatever else they have told themselves is the real reason for them to work there in the first place? I don't doubt the technical excellence of these companies. They are technically very capable because of the talent they hire, and they are able to hire top talent because of the high salaries they pay, not because of some altruistic or egoistic reasons

Herbstluft 4y ago

> horrific companies A workplace can actively kill humans and still treat its employees very good. You are mixing very different factors together here. Prestige, to name another example, is very important to a lot of people. Having "worked at FAANG" on your resume opens many opportunities afterwards that don't have anything to do with money.

epicide 4y ago

I certainly have a price at which I will sell out, but if they aren't offering "retire decade(s) earlier than normal", it's unlikely to make a long term difference to me compared to the alternatives. Yes, a 20% bump for a few years would be nice, but paying half of my paycheck in therapy bills for a decade cancels that out and then some. Basically, if they aren't offering "f** you money", pay has a diminishing effect on my employment choices. And if they are offering that kind of money, I'm assuming that'll come with even more consequences. My resume is alright, but it's not enough for an offer of way more money without strings attached. I can't speak for everybody of course, but I think not heeding the above leads to burnout.

kortilla 4y ago
Therapy bills to work at Twitter? The level of entitlement is palpable.

paganel 4y ago

> extremely bright people work for horrific/products companies like Facebook, Palantir etc For what it's worth those companies have not brought any real innovation in the last 10 years, give or take, because if they had they would have been on top of the world (quite literally). Which makes me hopeful that some of the real geniuses out there (today's von Neummanns and the like) might still avoid those companies out of principle.

js8 4y ago
I doubt real von Neumann would avoid working for Palantir out of principle.

jasonlotito 4y ago

This is the question being discussed. > Which company is going to have an easier time hiring The one that people want to work for and don't have to "sell out" to do it. > Most people have a price at which they will sell out. Sure. Agreed. But now you've tripled your OpEx vs your competitors. And the people that sold out aren't in any way loyal, so will bounce. But if they aren't offering substantially more, the money doesn't matter. It's all basically the same anyways. And then you have to consider financials and leadership. Twitter financials got substantially worse (20x) from my understanding after Musk took over because of the debt he now has. And as far as leadership goes: he was forced to buy it. That really doesn't look good.

kortilla 4y ago
> The one that people want to work for and don't have to "sell out" to do it. Nope, this is wrong if the company can afford to pay more. Just look at companies like Jane Street, HRT, etc. The high comp they are willing to pay makes them harder to get into than Twitter, Meta, etc by a long shot. They have a far easier time hiring.

TheCondor 4y ago

>> Are we deluding ourselves here? Yes. Pornhub, Exxon, Smith and Wesson, all the big tobacco companies, the guys that manufacture fentanyl, infowars, they all have IT staffs. Some have extremely sophisticated IT staffs. Money talks, but there other factors. when you’re working on migrating from .net to cloud native at Exxon and you’re building some kind of new container registry or something you probably don’t spend your days pondering climate change; you get paid every two weeks, you are learning some cool stuff and you’re building some cool stuff. Most people need jobs too. A pay check and some sort of plausible rationalization is all that is needed. “Twitter is free speech” sounds pretty strong. “Twitter connected Ukrainians during that invasion” sounds strong.