5 ms·

Actual title provides better context: > Google overhired talent to do ‘fake work’ and stop them working for rivals, claims former PayPal boss Keith Rabois The

Actual title provides better context: > Google overhired talent to do ‘fake work’ and stop them working for rivals, claims former PayPal boss Keith Rabois The submitted title makes it look like a settled fact/conclusion, but there's no evidence provided AFAICT.

wnevets 4y ago
> stop them working for rivals, I thought this well known within the industry? Isn't this the point of the university to FAANG pipeline?
- sidfthec 4y ago
  You can hire to outpace your competitors without having them do "fake work" once hired (whatever that means). It doesn't make much sense to not fully utilize people once hired.
  - wnevets 4y ago
    I'm not convinced most people at very large companies are doing "real" work most of the time anyway. Wouldn't need to do anything special at these large companies to create fake work just for these people, it would just be "regular" work.
    - sidfthec 4y ago
      I don't understand why this sentiment is so prevalent. It's like people watch Silicon Valley the TV show and think it's actually representative of big tech. I don't know anyone who does what I could consider "fake work". Unless you think anyone who doesn't measurably and immediately impact the bottom line is doing "fake work".
      - wnevets 4y ago
        > I don't understand why this sentiment is so prevalent. It's like people watch Silicon Valley the TV show and think it's actually representative of big tech. I'm not limiting this sentiment to just big tech. For example very big companies tend to have a large number of people who do a lot of talking without saying actually saying anything. I would argue being trapped in those long meetings is "fake" work. The large number of employees working from home since COVID has shown most of those long meetings didn't need to happen. Now that the four day work week is gaining momentum with no lost of productivity[1] we have even more proof of the amount of "fake" work being done. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/business/four-day-work-week-uk.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/business/four-day-work-we...
- alecbz 4y ago
  It feels like an open secret, but that's still not evidence. I was expecting something like leaked emails from execs explicitly talking about it or something. I kinda doubt Google is having anyone do actual known-useless-to-all work just so they don't work at a competitor, but I think it's probably very possible that preventing someone form working at a competitor is _part_ of the value-add Google sees in hiring someone, which means they don't need to see quite as much clear value in what they'll be working on at Google.
- izacus 4y ago
  Many outright ridiculous and false things are "known". This talk of bullshit hiring sounds more like a massive amount of copium from envious people.
- candybar 4y ago
  This is and has always been nonsense. FAANGs (and more) all compete against each other and if they do not derive significant value from these hires, it doesn't make any strategic sense to bloat your headcount just to prevent your rivals from also bloating their own headcounts. In case someone goes "but what about the startups" - it doesn't make sense for any individual large tech company to hire people just to prevent them from starting startups or being hired at startups, given that most startups don't compete with them and often help create moat for their own business, not to mention that their own hiring (as opposed to big tech hiring as a whole) has a negligible effect on the talent pool as a whole.
  - wnevets 4y ago
    > FAANGs (and more) all compete against each other That didn't stop Google and Apple on agreeing to not compete against each other on talent [1]. [1] https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jobs-settlement-20150903-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jo...
    - candybar 4y ago
      Sure but that collusion actually makes sense from their perspective and is literally the exact opposite of what's being alleged, which is that Big Tech is essentially keeping the cost of talent artificially high in order to hurt their competition.
      - wnevets 4y ago
        > Sure but that collusion actually makes sense from their perspective and is literally the exact opposite of what's being alleged But it absolutely calls in question the notion these companies wouldn't do something just because they're "competing" against each other.
        candybar 4y ago
        > But it absolutely calls in question the notion these companies wouldn't do something just because they're "competing" against each other. This doesn't make any sense and you're misunderstanding the original comment. The point is the idea that they are hurting their bottom line by overhiring, but the whole thing works out because it prevents their competition from hiring is completely nonsensical, when you're alleging that they are all doing it. If they are all hurting themselves by overhiring, they can't be deriving any benefit from keeping the talent away from your competition. Your competition is also overhiring and doesn't need the talent either. So keeping them away from your competition helps your competition at your expense.
flappyeagle 4y ago
He's speaking semi facetiously. No one making the work or doing the work thought it was "fake". It was "nice to have" work.
- __derek__ 4y ago
  Sure, Rabois will Rabois. My comment was aimed at the editorialized headline, which treats his provocative comment as fact and serves as clickbait for the article.
d23 4y ago
In my experience, companies don’t need to go out of their way to create bullshit work or keep around useless people. They’ll do that incidentally anyway.
Gigachad 4y ago
Stadia, metaverse, etc. If I did some more digging I could find mountains of fake work from these companies.

wnevets 4y ago

> stop them working for rivals, I thought this well known within the industry? Isn't this the point of the university to FAANG pipeline?

sidfthec 4y ago
You can hire to outpace your competitors without having them do "fake work" once hired (whatever that means). It doesn't make much sense to not fully utilize people once hired.
- wnevets 4y ago
  I'm not convinced most people at very large companies are doing "real" work most of the time anyway. Wouldn't need to do anything special at these large companies to create fake work just for these people, it would just be "regular" work.
  - sidfthec 4y ago
    I don't understand why this sentiment is so prevalent. It's like people watch Silicon Valley the TV show and think it's actually representative of big tech. I don't know anyone who does what I could consider "fake work". Unless you think anyone who doesn't measurably and immediately impact the bottom line is doing "fake work".
    - wnevets 4y ago
      > I don't understand why this sentiment is so prevalent. It's like people watch Silicon Valley the TV show and think it's actually representative of big tech. I'm not limiting this sentiment to just big tech. For example very big companies tend to have a large number of people who do a lot of talking without saying actually saying anything. I would argue being trapped in those long meetings is "fake" work. The large number of employees working from home since COVID has shown most of those long meetings didn't need to happen. Now that the four day work week is gaining momentum with no lost of productivity[1] we have even more proof of the amount of "fake" work being done. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/business/four-day-work-week-uk.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/business/four-day-work-we...
alecbz 4y ago
It feels like an open secret, but that's still not evidence. I was expecting something like leaked emails from execs explicitly talking about it or something. I kinda doubt Google is having anyone do actual known-useless-to-all work just so they don't work at a competitor, but I think it's probably very possible that preventing someone form working at a competitor is _part_ of the value-add Google sees in hiring someone, which means they don't need to see quite as much clear value in what they'll be working on at Google.
izacus 4y ago
Many outright ridiculous and false things are "known". This talk of bullshit hiring sounds more like a massive amount of copium from envious people.
candybar 4y ago
This is and has always been nonsense. FAANGs (and more) all compete against each other and if they do not derive significant value from these hires, it doesn't make any strategic sense to bloat your headcount just to prevent your rivals from also bloating their own headcounts. In case someone goes "but what about the startups" - it doesn't make sense for any individual large tech company to hire people just to prevent them from starting startups or being hired at startups, given that most startups don't compete with them and often help create moat for their own business, not to mention that their own hiring (as opposed to big tech hiring as a whole) has a negligible effect on the talent pool as a whole.
- wnevets 4y ago
  > FAANGs (and more) all compete against each other That didn't stop Google and Apple on agreeing to not compete against each other on talent [1]. [1] https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jobs-settlement-20150903-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jo...
  - candybar 4y ago
    Sure but that collusion actually makes sense from their perspective and is literally the exact opposite of what's being alleged, which is that Big Tech is essentially keeping the cost of talent artificially high in order to hurt their competition.
    - wnevets 4y ago
      > Sure but that collusion actually makes sense from their perspective and is literally the exact opposite of what's being alleged But it absolutely calls in question the notion these companies wouldn't do something just because they're "competing" against each other.
      - candybar 4y ago
        > But it absolutely calls in question the notion these companies wouldn't do something just because they're "competing" against each other. This doesn't make any sense and you're misunderstanding the original comment. The point is the idea that they are hurting their bottom line by overhiring, but the whole thing works out because it prevents their competition from hiring is completely nonsensical, when you're alleging that they are all doing it. If they are all hurting themselves by overhiring, they can't be deriving any benefit from keeping the talent away from your competition. Your competition is also overhiring and doesn't need the talent either. So keeping them away from your competition helps your competition at your expense.

flappyeagle 4y ago

He's speaking semi facetiously. No one making the work or doing the work thought it was "fake". It was "nice to have" work.

__derek__ 4y ago
Sure, Rabois will Rabois. My comment was aimed at the editorialized headline, which treats his provocative comment as fact and serves as clickbait for the article.

d23 4y ago

In my experience, companies don’t need to go out of their way to create bullshit work or keep around useless people. They’ll do that incidentally anyway.

Gigachad 4y ago

Stadia, metaverse, etc. If I did some more digging I could find mountains of fake work from these companies.