4 ms·

It's only higher than other big tech companies because they have so much difficulty hiring new grad. it's what's holding the funnel together, the moment comp dr

It's only higher than other big tech companies because they have so much difficulty hiring new grad. it's what's holding the funnel together, the moment comp drops compared to the others they will lose a ton of candidates.

htag 4y ago
Since ~2016 Meta employment has signaled to me that someone values high compensation above anything else. This view has become so popular that choosing to work at Meta indicates you are fine broadcasting this signal. There might be some exceptions for those working on Oculus, but it's not a blanket exception.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  I'm not sure that's entirely fair. Whatever you think of the company that's no denying they have interesting problems to work on, such as AI, plus ordinary big tech scaling. Plus you don't know whether a person even had other offers.
  - KyeRussell 4y ago
    Yes. That’s how signals work.
lumost 4y ago
This is the case across most Big Tech. If not for compensation, why would you choose to work in a large organization? Tech productivity peaks somewhere around 500-2k engineers in an org, by the time you hit 10-50k different groups look like different companies in terms of coordination tax.
- rvba 4y ago
  It is not so easy to get a (first) job in FAANG. They sieve out a lot of bad programmers during their recruitment process. Probably some recruiters beleive that if you managed to get to a FAANG and stay for 2-3 years, then you are competent enough for many other jobs. So in theory working there opens doors. It used to be similar in finance, where getting that internship at Mckinsey/Bain/BCG or in BIG4 (deloitte, ey, kpmg, pwc) meant something - in some countries it was like 1000 candidates per 1 place. But I feel it is much fewer nowadays.
  - lumost 4y ago
    aye - it definitely signals rigor. However it is worth questioning whether Google at 30k employees has the same signaling effect as Google at 186k employees. Either the number of highly qualified engineers has increased by 4x - or the bar has lowered over time. I'd imagine that 4 years from now having OpenAI on your resume will be a much better signal than Google, if only for the reason that there are only 400 people who can claim OpenAI as their background.
    - htag 4y ago
      > whether Google at 30k employees has the same signaling effect as Google at 186k employees This is why prestigious universities don't invest in increasing class sizes. The student demand is there. There is no lack of world class professors to hire, and larger facilities could be built. An Ivy league is capable of reaching 10x enrollment in 20 years while raising tuition and providing the same quality of education. However, within 50 years the brand will carry less prestige.
- ratorx 4y ago
  For me, it’s because I liked systems stuff at university. Scaling to and beyond the level of FAANG is pretty interesting and I’m not sure where else I would have been able to work at that level. It’s also quite nice to be able to really dive deep into a specific area, although more diversity wouldn’t have been bad (for building longer term skills) Engineer productivity mattered a lot less, because straight out of university it’s not like I knew enough to be productive from the start anyway. Compensation-wise, finance tech pays a lot better, although is most cases it is a WLB tradeoff.

htag 4y ago

Since ~2016 Meta employment has signaled to me that someone values high compensation above anything else. This view has become so popular that choosing to work at Meta indicates you are fine broadcasting this signal. There might be some exceptions for those working on Oculus, but it's not a blanket exception.

lordnacho 4y ago
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. Whatever you think of the company that's no denying they have interesting problems to work on, such as AI, plus ordinary big tech scaling. Plus you don't know whether a person even had other offers.
- KyeRussell 4y ago
  Yes. That’s how signals work.

lumost 4y ago

This is the case across most Big Tech. If not for compensation, why would you choose to work in a large organization? Tech productivity peaks somewhere around 500-2k engineers in an org, by the time you hit 10-50k different groups look like different companies in terms of coordination tax.

rvba 4y ago
It is not so easy to get a (first) job in FAANG. They sieve out a lot of bad programmers during their recruitment process. Probably some recruiters beleive that if you managed to get to a FAANG and stay for 2-3 years, then you are competent enough for many other jobs. So in theory working there opens doors. It used to be similar in finance, where getting that internship at Mckinsey/Bain/BCG or in BIG4 (deloitte, ey, kpmg, pwc) meant something - in some countries it was like 1000 candidates per 1 place. But I feel it is much fewer nowadays.
- lumost 4y ago
  aye - it definitely signals rigor. However it is worth questioning whether Google at 30k employees has the same signaling effect as Google at 186k employees. Either the number of highly qualified engineers has increased by 4x - or the bar has lowered over time. I'd imagine that 4 years from now having OpenAI on your resume will be a much better signal than Google, if only for the reason that there are only 400 people who can claim OpenAI as their background.
  - htag 4y ago
    > whether Google at 30k employees has the same signaling effect as Google at 186k employees This is why prestigious universities don't invest in increasing class sizes. The student demand is there. There is no lack of world class professors to hire, and larger facilities could be built. An Ivy league is capable of reaching 10x enrollment in 20 years while raising tuition and providing the same quality of education. However, within 50 years the brand will carry less prestige.
ratorx 4y ago
For me, it’s because I liked systems stuff at university. Scaling to and beyond the level of FAANG is pretty interesting and I’m not sure where else I would have been able to work at that level. It’s also quite nice to be able to really dive deep into a specific area, although more diversity wouldn’t have been bad (for building longer term skills) Engineer productivity mattered a lot less, because straight out of university it’s not like I knew enough to be productive from the start anyway. Compensation-wise, finance tech pays a lot better, although is most cases it is a WLB tradeoff.