3 ms·
> future employees most likely won't be pure idealists who will take a lower pay out of the satisfaction that their work helped others If you rewrite that to "
by sfink 3y ago
> future employees most likely won't be pure idealists who will take a lower pay out of the satisfaction that their work helped others
If you rewrite that to "a much smaller percentage of prospective future employees won't be pure idealists..." then I would agree. But it's about the pool being smaller, and in fact small enough that you risk not being able to find anybody, but the fact that 95% of people are not going to be adequately motivated by helping underserved people does not mean that the remaining 5% won't be.
Existence proof: I am working for substantially less salary than I could get elsewhere. I can prove it, I've been offered the higher salary at a FAANG and turned it down twice. It's financially irrational. I don't think it's wrong for people to work for directly ad-funded Big Tech. Or even for me. I'm not ecstatically happy in my current position. If I were younger I might make a different choice.
But I care enough about working for a mission-driven organization that I basically have no intention of leaving as long as the organization doesn't lose my trust about being mission driven. (There's often a gap between stated positions and reality, and I try to watch closely to monitor how big that gap is.) And I think I'm far from being the only one in this position.
I'm also aware that it's a privilege to even have the option. I grew up poor. Now I have a spouse and kids and live in an insanely high CoL area that we mostly don't get much from, but our past work was enough to make us financially comfortable. (Actually, I suspect it probably has more to do with the extremely unfair macroeconomic situation that has inflated our real estate and other investments, but whatever.) When I go to feed the worms, I won't be leaving my kids with as much financial security as I could have, but I hope to leave them with better respect for my values than I would have otherwise.
That said, "mission-driven" doesn't actually mean that much. Any mission is going to have unintended consequences, and it's pretty dispiriting what people are actually using my mission-driven labor for. There's no easy way to sort companies into "good" vs "bad". It's often not even a meaningful distinction at a whole-company level. But there are still large differences if you pay attention.
- berniedurfee 3y agoI was going to say exactly this. There are many talented engineers for whom compensation is not their primary motivation. Working on interesting problems, working in specific domains or working for a mission-based company trying to make the world a little better are all strong motivators. I suppose the overall pool of available candidates is smaller, but I don’t think the pool of candidates with strong skills is necessarily smaller. Once you find purpose in your work life, that becomes a compensation all on its own.
- DeathArrow 3y ago>I was going to say exactly this. There are many talented engineers for whom compensation is not their primary motivation. I presume those engineers and their families already solved some problems like having what to eat and having where to sleep, so they have the luxury to pursue other objectives. I also presume only a small number of engineers are in that position.
- berniedurfee 3y agoAll software engineering jobs pay far more than enough to live a comfortable life; even with a family.
- DeathArrow 3y agoOf course you are right. I didn't mean that they positioned themselves out of the market, just that it will be harder for them to find employees.